Talk:Iridology/Archive 4

message: http://www.cnri.edu/Clinical_Studies/Iridological_Clinical_Studies.htm
Quote:
::::In the past 10 years of lurking around health related UseNet Newsgroups, I occasionally see posts about three particular Medline abstracts debunking Iridology.  To discard Iridology as a contributing science on the basis of only a few questionable clinical trials is ridiculous!
:::::Why are these medline-JAMA clinical studies flawed? Mainly because they used incorrect methods of iris photography. They had only took General Photos of the eyes. The eyeball is round in shape just like the earth, not flat as some societies had thought some time ago.. If the eyeball was flat, perhaps their clinical studies could have been more successful?
:::::Read on and decide for yourself...
End quote. there also is a beatiful photo, too hot and large there, but quite interesting and useful in eliminating amateurish critics of iridology: http://www.cnri.edu/New_Images_Manual/clinical/deck1.jpg Hope this helps... - irismeister 19:31, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
----
Irismeister, you are associated with the pro-iridology Web site you continue to list, unless you would like to admit to Wikipedia that you have been lying for several days now about your name being Dr. Daniel Jipa.  Suggesting that the web site is balanced is simply ludicrous -- it is obviously aimed at promoting ideology. Jwrosenzweig 20:29, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Interesting Rebuttal Unearthed. It becomes ''really'' interesting... 

message: Therefore I expect substantial reasoning and no more hate and police-state  policies as an answer. Someone please start using
*good humor, 
*even intelligence (not CIA-branded and trademark you seem to enjoy to the point of indulging in iris scans - but genuine, brand-new, creative, individually correct smart use of the gray stuff we are all endowed with under our respective quote-nutcases-unquote) if possible, and 
*in any event loads  of rare earth over  the tomahawk :-)
Thank you all in advance, and bye for now. I go get myself a beer, love you all and please take care, work hard overnight, take chances, be very brave, :-)irismeister 22:52, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
I agree with you that there is a lot of censorship disguised as reasonable "protection," irismeister. Burying hatchets sometimes takes second place to sharpening the hatchets. - Plautus satire 23:05, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bottomline 

message: I propose that the following sections in the iridology entry be condensed or abbreviated and pointers added to criticism or "fringe iridology" theories. Clearly these criticisms are not in line with mainstream iridology and are better-suited for entries that are for tearing down iridology, not illustrating it.
"Criticism
Mainstream medicine is dismissive of iridology largely because published studies have indicated a lack of success for some of the iridological claims: 
In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (1979, vol. 242 (13): 1385-1389), three well qualified iridologists incorrectly identified kidney disease in photographs of irides and often disagreed with each other. The study was conducted by researchers at the University of California. They used an iridologist's camera to take photographs of 48 patients with moderate or severe kidney desease and a control group of 95 people who did not have kidney disease. The iridologists fared no better in their ability to predict kidney disease than if they has simply tossed a coin. They did not agree with one another, and had no better luck in predicting the severe disease as opposed to the moderate. The researchers concluded "iridology was neither selective nor specific, and the likelihood of correct detection was statistically no better than chance". Iridologists defended themselves by stating that they needed live examinations and that their approach was valid for predictions of health, not of disease tags once the disease was developed and even complicated. 
Another study criticizing an alleged inappropriate search for gall bladder disease in the patient's iris was published in the British Medical Journal (1988, vol. 297 (6663): 1578-1581). Paul Knipschild MD, of the University of Limburg in Maastricht, selected 39 patients who were due to have their gall bladder removed to following day, because of suspected gallstones. He also selected a group of people who did not have diseased gall bladders to act as a control. A group of 5 iridologists examined a series of slides of both groups irises. The iridologists were not able to identify correctly which patients has gall bladder problems and which had healthy gall bladders. For example one of iridologists diagnosed 49% of the patients with gall stones as having them and 51% as not having them. He diagnosed 51% of the control group as having gall bladder problems and 49% as not. Dr Knipschild concluded "this study showed that iridology is not a useful diagnostic tool ". Iridologists defended themselves with the same considerations as above, but also attacked the methodology of the study and rejected it in at least three published articles. 
A 1985 review by L. Berggren in Acta Ophthalmologica (63(1):1-8) concluded "Good care of patients is inconsistent with deceptive methods, and iridology should be regarded as a medical fraud." However, L. Berggren added no new independent data and only made a statement of his informed opinion based on reviews of prior studies. 
In 1999 in the UK the The Academy of Medical Sciences said of iridology, and some other alternative medical practises: "these are valueless diagnostic techniques that are potentially dangerous if applied to patients who require proven diagnostic techniques." However, the UK is among the few countries where iridologists are both accepted and endorsed as certified health practitioners, who pledge not to use their knowledge in an exclusive way, but to rely on the clinical context. Moreover, no diagnostic technique outside the golden standard has an absolutely proven value but only a measurable false positive rate, false negative rate and oeverall accuracy ratios. 
The advice given by iridologists is both specific and non-specific. Specific advice is centered on the weakness as found and could be integrated into targeted prevention strategies. For instance any screening method in populations always identifies a number of people in apparent full health who nevertheless show some hidden predisposition, diathesis or other specific disease-prone conditions. This is more than genetic screening inasmuch genes show potential while epigenetic studies, including iridologic, show actual problems once genes got the chance to express their code into actual living structures or physiological states. The non-specific advice, although good, is the same as that given by conventional doctors. 
Mainstream Medical Examination of the Eye
Although mainstream medicine considers iridology as quackery, there are many times when a conventional doctor will examine the eyes of a patient. The most obvious example would be diseases of the eye. Medical doctors performing iris examinations in order to determine eye problems, may use biomicroscopes and gonioscopes. Examination of eyes is a mandatory part of any clinical examination, attempting to answer clinical questions raised by jaundice, excess cholesterol, general neurologic conditions and more specific syndromes, including Foster-Kennedy, Claude-Bernard-Horner, Adie's etc."
I also do not have any idea why this item about "mainstream medical examination of the eye". Should this not be in another entry where it is more appropriate? In the iridology entry, it has no place, as it adds no information to the explanation and illustration of iridology. If it's not about iridology, it shouldn't be here. Just because this section mentions "iridology as quackery" does not mean the following statements apply to iridology. In fact they clearly do not apply to iridology. Why is this here?? - Plautus satire 16:58, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Propsed Fixes for Iridology Entry

message: Yo, Iris...! Take a chill pill -- or at least have someone massage the reflex zone corresponding to your tongue and fingertips! :-)
What's up with all this ranting? --Uncle Ed 16:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pointless ranting

message: It's probably a good idea to mention studies which compare iridologists' diagnoses of conditions like kidney stones, to the diagnoses of traditional (?) M.D.-type doctors. I would not go so far as to say the iridologists were "wrong" but rather that they "disagreed" with the diagnoses. Unless, of course, the iridologists actually conceded that they were in error.
Surely our readers can make up their own minds, in the face of such evidence. --Uncle Ed 17:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Predictive value of iridology

message: Irismeister, I would like to discuss a project I have in mind. If you are available for discussion of a potential future project to improve the quality of wikipedia, we can discuss it here or in big bang or both, as it involves the quality of those two entries specifically.
I have noted a few distinct differences in the tone and quality of information in each of these two entries that are not consistent with one another. I have addressed some of these issues on both pages as to the neutral point of view ideal and how far each of those pages is from that ideal. I think we can demonstrate quite clearly by comparing these two pages that there are distinct sets of standards applied to entries based on the relative noise level from the opposition. The more noisy the opposition to an entry is, the more is suffers from loss of neutral point of view from all sides (not both but all sides). I think this can be corrected in at least the case of these two pages.
In the case of big bang there is very little noise from the opposition. Scientists who falsify big bang don't beat their chests to get on the Discovery channel. Scientists who falsify big bang don't rely on the modulation of their signal, merely on the fidelity of their signal. To a scientist it is more important to be accurate than loud. To a lay audience it is more important to be loud than to be accurate. And when a lay audience is judging a shouting match between a scientist and a layman, they are always going to say "majority rules". Consensus rule on codes of conduct is one thing, but to be useful as a resource, an encyclopedia needs to above all be ACCURATE. It doesn't have to have big bold letters, but those letters must be the right letters in the right orders. You can't just let a million monkeys bang away without consequence on their keyboards and call it an encyclopedia. If wikipedia is going to be a forum for a million monkeys and not a forum for accurate information, it should be characterized as a "million monkeys forum," not a reference work. - Plautus satire 22:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You address me in your statements above, theresa knott. Does your stance on this issue suggest that a better place would have been my talk page? If you do not wish me to talk to Irismeister in public because of some ongoing feud you are engaged in with him, I'm afraid I can not help you. Less communication can not be good for solving problems. While I understand your desire to keep others from scrutinizing what is going on with the Iridology web page, I feel it is very important to bring scrutiny, to this page and to the big bang page. I feel that more scrutiny can only improve either or both of these two entries. Further, I feel that my proposed solution to fix these two specific pages (big bang and iridology) is appropriate for comment either here or on the big bang talk page. If you would like this discussion mirrored on the big bang talk page I would be happy to try and copy all of it to that page, but I feel mirrors of the same discussion would not be an effective use of wikipedia. Thank you for your comments, which I am sure you thought would help (you). - Plautus satire 14:17, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I do not intend to change any policy or convention. What I propose is a volunteer initiative to help improve the neutrality specifically the two pages I specifically mentioned. If this grows beyond myself and these two pages I am only tangentally responsible. Thank you once again for your patience and thoughtful attention on this issue. - Plautus satire 17:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: OK I thought you were proposing a plan for everyone. theresa knott 17:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration Outreach

message: I would like to point out that if this project succeeds it will be win-win, nobody is going to lose and everybody will benefit from two entries cleaned up and consistent, at least with respect to neutral point of view. Perhaps we can expand this concept to enable a metacleaning for medium-wide consistency. Maybe some sort of "buddy check" system for pages, paired by their complete and utter lack of relation to one another. - Plautus satire 22:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You address me in your statements above, theresa knott. Does your stance on this issue suggest that a better place would have been my talk page? If you do not wish me to talk to Irismeister in public because of some ongoing feud you are engaged in with him, I'm afraid I can not help you. Less communication can not be good for solving problems. While I understand your desire to keep others from scrutinizing what is going on with the Iridology web page, I feel it is very important to bring scrutiny, to this page and to the big bang page. I feel that more scrutiny can only improve either or both of these two entries. Further, I feel that my proposed solution to fix these two specific pages (big bang and iridology) is appropriate for comment either here or on the big bang talk page. If you would like this discussion mirrored on the big bang talk page I would be happy to try and copy all of it to that page, but I feel mirrors of the same discussion would not be an effective use of wikipedia. Thank you for your comments, which I am sure you thought would help (you). - Plautus satire 14:17, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I do not intend to change any policy or convention. What I propose is a volunteer initiative to help improve the neutrality specifically the two pages I specifically mentioned. If this grows beyond myself and these two pages I am only tangentally responsible. Thank you once again for your patience and thoughtful attention on this issue. - Plautus satire 17:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: OK I thought you were proposing a plan for everyone. theresa knott 17:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "buddy check" system utilizing unrelated page pairs

message: Please be aware who you are dealing with: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire
Curps 17:39, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Ed. :) - Plautus satire 19:31, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Extraneous Link to Requests for Comment on Plautus Satire

message: They only wait for the irismeister's impending ban, it appears... :O) - irismeister 17:38, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
----
I removed 
"Prof Dr Mircea Olteanu, Drs Dan Waniek, MD, Dan Jipa, MD, Ştefan Stangaciu, MD, and the Computer Vision Research Group aka the the Braşov School of iris image analysis and iridial studies worked over 20 years in the mountain region of Transylvania (Central Romania), to develop a specific form of therapy named trans-iridial light therapy (TILT). The method is too discrete, delicate and recent to enjoy wide popularity, critics said. Proponents of this experimental, peer-reviewed and scientific therapy, specifically maintain that their method qualifies iridology as a self-contained, stand alone medical system, one of the few, and possibly the unique part of alternative medicine which is also endorsed by ophthalmologists and conventional medicine at large."
Because 
*irismeister is Dr Dan Jipa  and so this looks like vanity to me.
* Also it's " (too) recent to enjoy wide popularity" and so shouldn't be included on those grounds, 
*and it says "also endorsed by ophthalmologists and conventional medicine at large" which is blatently untrue. theresa knott 08:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page and frozen iridology page 

message: Since  old habits die hard , and some editors came back here after two months with a revenge, a word of clarification is necessary: The editor quoted above vandalizes this page. She did the same in the past, repeteadly. In matters of medical knowledge, she simply does not know what she writes about. For instance:
*01. she keeps refering to "irismeister" - while there are a few dozen irismeisters. This is a quality earned in peer review, by passing an exam, not only a nickname (mine.) If I am known in Wiki with this "irismeister" title, I am not to be confused with anybody else who earned this title. It's like signing "Dr", or "endocrinologist". While I took the time to explain this to the above editor on several occasions, it seems that the above editor is simply beyond understanding;
*02. she further deludes herself into deleting whatever her denial of reality makes her feel is related to "irismeister". There is no such thing as "irismeister's own research group". She got it all wrong. She only speaks about facts from another time -twenty years ago- and another place -behind the iron curtain- in her rage against anything "irismeister". Hate and anger obscures her judgement. When she has no rational arguments, instead of going through a reality check, admitting to herself the need to cool down, she keeps denying facts. Her next step is to insult, libel, diabolize, ban, arbitrate and delete - a pattern she repeats for five months now. She has in fact admitted her tort and her libel, writing for the record that  my simple presence around makes her lose control . She wrote: 
"I will refrain from speaking to him in the future, because I can't control my anger when he is around."  And yet, the very moment the page is unprotected (after two months) she jumps on the occasion and...
*03. she continues the pattern of harassment by systematically editing "out" all my contributions. This was explained in detail here; 
*04. she maintains a haughty, thought police officer attitude, confusing adminship and competence;
*05. she reduces the quality of information of Wikipedia well below the limit of average Google-cached pages. Perhaps she thinks that all competences are "born" equal, by some annointment coming along with the Wiki adminship. She could not tell the difference between writing from twentysomething years bleeding-edge research experience and cut-and-paste "judgement". She confuses NPOV editing with POV hunting and POV deletion.
In conclusion, iridology page protection seems now mandatory. 
----
Sincerely, irismeister 22:41, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)
:In my opinion, Theresa has demonstrated a fairly intelligent awareness of medicine and medical practice.  Her references to "irismeister" are because you chose that name as your username.  If it really is a general noun in your opinion (on a level with "doctor") then I believe you should not have chosen it, and if you wish to fight confusion, perhaps you should change your username.  It is a trivial matter to accomplish.  Theresa, in most editor's opinions here (including my own), is not a hateful and angry person in general.  Few, if any, of us would characterize her edits here as "vandalism".  She explains her edits with remarkable clarity, and generally makes wise choices here, in my opinion.  She is by no means alone in being frustrated by some of your actions and comments here, and so I think pointing out her frustration does not serve to disqualify her from conduct on this page.  If we are to drive off every editor with whom you have personal conflicts, we will lose a number of good editors.  I have not seen that Theresa edits out all of your contributions -- I think it should be noted that the passage she removed initially was removed by a different editor after you reverted.  Perhaps community consensus supports Theresa's edits?  Theresa is considered competent by many here, and, in the opinion of many, does an excellent job defending NPOV.  The arbitration committee appears to be on the verge of banning you from this article for an "indefinite period".  Perhaps this should indicate to you that this community agrees with Theresa's assessment that you have been generally (though not universally) adding bias to this article when you edit it.  I hope you will take time to consider what the implications of that community agreement are for you. Jwrosenzweig 22:56, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: REQUEST FOR PAGE PROTECTION

message: OK the arbitration committee has ruled the Irismeister is barred from editting iridology indefinately. I am therefore going to remove the protection so that we can get down to fixing it. To irismeister -you comments above - When I was doing my assignment for the iris-ward site there were twelve irismeisters worldwide, and dozens more to come. So if you think you are wise, why could you not predict your future editing and sysoping careers when I will end my assignment and other irismeisters will take the vitae lampada ?.   lead me to suspect that you intend to pretend to be somebody else in order to get round the AC ruling. Please don't try this. You will fool no one. I will revert and ban any sockpuppet accounts you create. theresa knott 05:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Irismeister is banned from editting this page