On 9/6/2003,
Ray wrote:
G'day All, on the
one day of the year when the Queen of Australia matters.
I realise that the subject of this post has probably been discussed
before, but an article in Friday's Herald Sun prompts my opening of
another one.
The argument suggested by iridologists is that the iris is connected to
every organ of the body via the nervous system. Well, given that
we have a 'Central' Nervous System, this isn't exactly news.
That the iris might be capable of reflecting the physiology of all
organs by observational data is, especially since it may appear that
the divisions of the iris into sectors relating to organ systems,
without much evidence except perhaps thousands of years of guesswork,
hit and miss diagnosis; it seems a little arbitrary to me.
Then perhaps, it may not be a nerve connection at all, but rather
physiological changes in the iris due to biochemical messages; a toxic
signal there, then a curly bit of iris here sort of thing?
Anyway, is there any scientific validation for iridology, or should it
be held in similar skeptical regard with homeopathy?
From
http://www.skepdic.com/iridol.html
With that said, it should not be assumed that the condition of the eye
is an irrelevant diagnostic tool for non-eye diseases. Ophthalmologists
and optometrists can identify non-ocular health problems by examining
the eye.
If a problem is suspected, these doctors then refer their patients to
an appropriate specialist for further examination. However, recognizing
symptoms of disease by looking in the eyes is not what iridology is
about.
In
fact, when iridologists have been tested to see if they could
distinguish healthy from sick people by looking at slides of their
eyes, they have failed. In a study published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association (1979, vol. 242, 1385-1387), three
iridologists incorrectly identified nearly all of the study slides of
the irises of 143 healthy and diseased people. "In fact, they often
read the irises of the sickest people as being healthy and vice versa.
They did not even agree with each other." Similar results involving
five Dutch iridologists were published in the British Medical Journal
(1988, vol. 297, 1578-1581)
Iridology
goes way beyond the claim that the eyes often provide signs of disease.
Iridologists maintain that each organ has a counterpart in the eye and
that you can determine the state of the organ's health by looking at a
particular section of the eye. Evidence for this belief is sorely
lacking. What is most peculiar about the iris is that, on the one hand,
each iris is absolutely unique and unchangeable, so much so that many
claim that the iris is a
better identifier of an individual than fingerprints. On the other
hand, each iris allegedly changes with each change in state of each
bodily organ.
Sue Wright
responded:
I don't know about iridologist's claims, but you just need to look at
people who have drunk, sniffed, injected or otherwise inserted
particular substances to gain some simplistic observational inkling
that what happens in the body often affects hair, nails, skin, eyes
etc. This is most probably well documented and I would assume that most
medical practitioners use eyes as a general indicator of health in some
way or other.
What I would like to know though is; is the following psychological
profile of sceptics valid (scientifically that is) :-). Being somewhat
of a sceptic myself I would like to know how such things as dreariness
and boring self
opinionatedness are measured and validated.
(taken from)
http://www.iridologyresearch.com/pages/Archives/openingscream/sceptics.htm
The psychological profile of many sceptics is understandably dreary,
they are boringly self opinionated, intellectually sterile and locked
into a medical model, as practised by Western physicians, who view
disease as a biochemical phenomenon that can be diagnosed through
technology and treated, where possible, according to scientifically
tested mechanisms.
Gary-Peter
Dalrymple commented:
Anne answered:
For a wonderful chapter on drugs and the brain (body) I suggest Susan
Greenfields -The private life of the
brain -
It would seem alcohol and sniffents are very similar in what goes on in
the brain sniffets are just more extreme the same feeling is sought in
a sense (forgive, im coming from a lay perspective and I havent
finished reading the book) but as well as the known damage from these
drugs the most damage that is being done it would seem is from the 60's
on drugs made in the lab as far as the brain goes it is alarming
but they also do much damage on the body even messing with the bodies
natural mechanism fight and flight the scary part these drugs are wide
in the community and work places but not always seen as a problem.
Ray
replied:
Anne responded:
Yes I know my message was badly snipped, I picked that up also just a
bit late, like after send :-)
Straying of topic but still relevant to the body / brain connection I
found this article to be very interesting
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=412297
"some people are so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good "
Oliver Wendell Holmes
