Talk:Iridology/Archive 7

message: I am talking from my own observations and there have been researchers and health practitioners of the highest esteem and perceptiveness that have found reason to look into the eyes of their patient to find conclusive evidence.
And really there should not be any difficulty to deduct, using simple laws of evolutionary heritage, that if early in the evolutionary progression live forms have begun to gain advantages from closed feedback loops about their environment and their selves, this mechanism would still be appropriate and most likely even refined. The eye is the obvious choice for its potential to integrate photonic energy and make this information continuously available to the neuronal system. It is only a question of time till this functionality will be scientifically documented and intuitively apparent why and how 'distant' inner organs are connected and reflected in the eye. If any mainstream medical practitioners do not understand, believe in and apply iridology then this does rather mean that it still is a parascience.
If any editors here insist on speaking for most (of anything) then where are the statistics to prove that ???
Togo 03:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Functional Reasoning for Iridology

message: Comrades, the WikiRepublic is in danger! Wikipolice make their coup d'êtat! Please add your voice and come help John  here . Thank you ! - Yours, - irismeister 17:25, 2004 May 19 (UTC)
:I am sure that Irismeister is referring to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa Knott which is introduced below. -- John Gohde 06:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Emergency

message: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa Knott has been created as structured way to gather support in the Wikipedian community for action to be taken against Theresa Knott for her consistent use of aggressive editing tactics that are counter productive to the development of high quality encyclopedic articles. Now, is your chance to voice your grievances against Theresa Knott.  Please take a few minutes of your time to air your comments. Feel free to expand the list of problem areas by adding problems or grievances of your own. -- John Gohde 04:08, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comments on Theresa Knott 

message: The Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine will soon be auditing all of the major branches of alternative medicine that have been developed beyond a stub.  So, I took a quick scan through Iridology to see if our checklist of key questions obviously left something major out.  Our checklist, checked out just fine.
Overall, if I was a reader trying to get information from this article my first impression would be very favorable. There were a few problems, however.
The section on history is totally out of sequence.  I would either put it in a separate article (my preference) or move the history section to the very bottom of the article.
The only real problem areas seem to be coming from the science people who apparently do not know how to write well in plain English.  I am referring to the criticism sections and their vandalism of the introduction.  They are extremely poorly written.  Also, as expected, these science malcontents seem to be spending their entire lives trying to start edit wars by deliberately putting controversy in the introduction.  My suggestion is to put your criticisms in the criticism section of the article.  Figure out what the criticisms are and then articulate them in plain English.  A few short paragraphs should be more than enough for anybody who knows how to articulate their viewpoints. -- John Gohde 20:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preliminary review of this Iridology article 

message: Little scientific evidence exists confirming any such link between the aspect of the iris and patient's state of health.
In the court room, good lawyers would object to that type of testimony on the grounds that the witness is making a conclusion rather than testifying as to fact.  Before, such testimony could be allowed under oath the witness would first have to be first qualified an expert witness.  This is part of the rules of evidence.
So anybody who says that Little scientific evidence exists confirming any such link between the aspect of the iris and patient's state of health is not advocating that one position is better than another one; does not know what they are talking about.  And, the judge would defiantly be screaming and yelling at them. -- John Gohde 14:44, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The witness is making a conclusion rather than testifying as to fact! 

message: Behavior on this talk page has been cited in a request for arbitration concerning Irismeister. The case of  Irismeister 2 has been accepted. Please submit evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 2/Evidence if you are involved in the cited  disputes. --mav 03:10, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration 

message: Who ever decided to move the graphic image of the Eye below the infobox, which I thought TK refused to permit, failed to change the margins on the right side of the eye back to normal.  Since we cannot edit this article, I obviously cannot correct this gross error. I just thought that you might want to know. -- John Gohde 19:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't refused to permit anything of the sort. Please don't put words into my mouth. All I tried to do was to prevent the image, infobox and TOC all bashing up against one another in certain display settings. I tried to do that by moving the infobox up above the eye. You took that as an attack on the infobox, and said the info bak has to go below the intro (you didn't say why though). Sam then tried to move it down to the bottom of the page. You took that as an attack as well. I'm fine with someone moving the eye down a little. theresa knott 20:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

text: As I very clearly recall, putting the eye directly below the infoxbox was my original recommendation for all articles containing graphics.  This position of mine was very well documented in page history over on the project pages of the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine.  It was of course the version of the infobox which you originally attacked. -- John Gohde 01:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Yep, that'll be me. I put them in a div so they wouldn't clash, and proceeded to foul up the layout as you describe. Mea culpa - David Gerard 13:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic Image of the Eye 

message: Theheherresa, STOP reverting and CENSORING MEDICAL information in WIKIPEDIA. STOP with this puppettering business - it's ILLEGAL as my lawyers just proved. You are only making your case (and Rosie's own personal case) much worse. Besides, INDEFINEEEETE is a better spppellling thaaahhn yoooouyhrs :O) Any indiscriminate, unjust, rubber stamping on indefinite banning is as ILLEGAL as CENSORHSIP in WIKIPEDIA and carries full legal responsibility for complicity and cospiracy to hide truth. Watch out, baby - we're back to keep you busy :O) - irismeister 14:49, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC) And while you work hard towards my next ban keep in mind that SEVERAL trusted third parties are now WATCHING every move you do in Wiki ! We now know how to deal with your buckets and spades :O)- irismeister 14:49, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
:Irismeister you know very well that you have been banned from editing the iridology page by the AC. For that reason I will revert every edit you make. What's more you are on a personal attack parole. Calling James "rosie" and me "baby" is a personal attack. We also do not allow legal threats here. For this reason I am temp blocking you. Theresa Knott  (The torn steak) 14:56, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ILLEGAL CENSORHIP in WIKIPEDIA

message: For the recent addition about rigorous tests - it's presumptious nonsense! Visit some decent NEW information provider and update this text from its current misery towards the general direction of less red shift in the background Internet noise! - irismeister 15:25, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC) Sixth grade nonsense, user hostile "encyclopedia", wanted disinformation, on purpose iris-research-bashing. With such standards I no longer recommend the English Wikipedia, the most user hostile and weird of them all. Even the Aromanian Wikipedia is more informative, far more friendly and still commendable. - Good luck with your disinformation and "scientific" tests, great experts and specialists and SHAME on you ! - irismeister 15:25, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
: With such standards I no longer recommend the English Wikipedia - ah, that explains the vast decline in page views! - DavidWBrooks 23:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: WHAT's NEW ''BESIDES'' CENSORSHIP AS USUAL :O)

message: This stuff needs to go on the talk page:
The definition you give for iridology is far from accurate.  I should first explain the 2 different methods of iridology.  The American model is based on the fact that only medical doctors can make a diagnose, this for iridologists in America meant changing its main principles resulting in bastardisation and inaccuracy.  The other model stems from Europe and is totally different from the American model.
In most of Europe people are free to learn and practice iridology unlike in the USA where people do not have the same freedom, which is strange for a country that is forever saying it is the land of the free. In Europe iridologists do use iridology to name specific diseases.
The terms referred to “overactive” and “inflammation” is inaccurate and misleading and is the foundations of American iridology. Such terminology is shallow, misleading and non professional. You are also wrong in stating that the iris changes, it does not. 
In the 1980s I conducted my own research into the iris changing. What occurs is a photograph taken of an iris in sunlight appears different to the same iris taken in a darkened room. Pupil dilation or constriction changes the patterns of the iris. It took me a couple of hours to prove this, which begs the question why hasn’t one American iridologist with half a brain found the same.
You also state “Other features that iridologists look for are contraction rings and Klumpenzellen, which are said to indicate various other health conditions, as interpreted in context.” This is again American bull shit. Who ever wrote this should resign.
Iridologists in Europe view the iris before taking a medical history, or any information that can be seen to be passing the same information back to the patient who has already stated a medical problem. You also state “A visit to an iridologist can have a placebo effect.” Such a statement cements your ignorance of iridology.
Scientific research into iridology
Oh dear, if the same criteria was given to all medical research as in Simon et al.4, 1979 the second biggest killer of people being doctors in America, would create a national panic. Diagnosis from a photograph is not possible.
The Paul Knipschild trail was flawed; Knipschild could not find any iridologist to take part in his plan. So he got 5 doctor cronies to work from an iridology book, which just happen to be the American model of iridology.  Anyone for heart surgery, I have a excellent book to work from.
You presented no research that is available from Spain, Russia, or Korea which shows very good results for iridologists. 
 If you can’t be honest then don’t write it.'''
James Colton (UK)
Hi James. I agree the article needs a lot of work. But this is a wiki. Feel free to improve the article yourself! Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 13:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from the article

message: Is this a real word? The only appropriate word that I can think of is "catarrhal", but that doesn't seem to fit the context. Given that the author misspelt "inflamatory", [sic] I am inclined to believe that "catharral" is a mistake. Axl 20:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it's a non english way of spelling catarrhal. It gets quite a few google hits. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 22:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I'm not convinced. The majority of Google hits seem to be misspellings of catarrhal. Given that the author uses the word to refer to 'healing', I wonder if he actually means cathartic? Where's an iridologist when you need one? ;-) Axl 12:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Catharral"? 

message: I have just conducted my own search for medical articles referring to iridology. I concur with the description given in Scientific research. The author has given an accurate representation of the relevant literature, reported in a non-biased way. Axl 13:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific research 

message: The first paragraph of the second paragraph states: "Iridologists do not claim to be able to diagnose specific diseases, but to highlight those systems and organs in the body that are healthy and those which are, for example, 'overactive' or 'inflamed.'"  Is "overactive" and "inflamed" the same as "unhealthy?  Does "highlight" mean "diagnose"?  The author(s) of this particular statement are careful to state that iridologists do not diagnose specific disease (which would be illegal - i.e. practicing medicine without a license), but there is no doubt that iridologists implicitly claim to diagnose disease in general.  In fact, one of the Pro-Iridology links at the bottom of the article states, "Iridology is used as more of a diagnostic tool than a treatment.""http://altmed.creighton.edu/Iridology/  A google search for "iridology" and "diagnostic tool" will turn up similar results from other Pro-Iridology sites.  I suggest changing this statement to "Iridologists cannot legally claim to diagnose specific disease..." or change "highlight" to "diagnose".   --AED 15:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Iridologists do not claim to be able to diagnose specific diseases..."