Talk:Iridology

message: Two-three years ago I had stone in my  right kidney. Five years before stone started making a lot of trouble I pass by iridologist. He stop me and told me that I have problem with kidney. I didn't pay attention at that time.
So I took medications from urologist to help this stone move out. It did bother me, and bother me again and again for at list 3 month or longer. Thanks on heavy pain killer it was manageble and I was able to work. If stone would not pass it should be procedure to be done. At this piont I went on seminar for aromatherapy and Rain Drop technique. The part of it was little bit of Reflexology. My partner discovered moderate pain on right foot in spot corresponding to kidney and stimulated. 
Three days later stone pass away. Doctor said later than this size stones-4mm do not pass without prosedure.
What was it, just coincidence?
06.10.06 LaCrosse ogkmv@comcast.net—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LaCrosse (talk • contribs)  17:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Or, maybe, no. That's why you have scientific medicine, not anecdotal - to sort out such stuff. - DavidWBrooks 18:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iridology 

message: The following quote doesn't make much sense to me; 
"one group tried to explain the observed patterns of iris transparency that distribute light into the ora serrata (the edge of the optic retina) by postulating a functio ocularis systemica (systemic eye function). Based on this hypothesis, the researchers developed an experimental trans-iridal light therapy method" - From the end of "History"
Or rather I don't think it adds alot. The only reason I can see that this would have been put in is as an example of  a study of non-visual functions of the eye. The point being made is that such studies are rarely funded, whilst this point is relevant the study cited doesn't seem to be to the practice of iridology as it is used as a diagnostic tool. It either needs some context or to be removed.
Possibly useful link at http://www.iriscamera.com/main/spazio.htm sorry i don't have the time to wade through the whole lot but that iris tissue originates not from the mesoderm but the neuroectodermic layer seems interesting as well.
nigell k (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Waniek Study

message: The word Alternative is very ambiguous, "alternative" to what ?
A traditional medical practitioner would consider modern medicine to be an "alternative", and vise versa.
The term Traditional medicine is a much better fit, with the alternative being Modern medicine or Scientific medicine.
Laughton.andrew (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternative to "evidence-based"? — BillC  talk 23:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here the system is clearly described by practitioners as "alternative". Basically, alternative medicine covers everything that is not medicine-medicine. Traditional medicine is generally reserved for folk medical systems whose origins are lost to antiquity. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative or Traditional 

message: The term "Pseudo Science" is not very neutral.
A better description is needed.
If this is based on one small unconfirmed study, that also happens to be disputed, is this science ?
Laughton.andrew (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo Science 

message: Medicine is related to Iridology? I don't think that anybody within the medical profession, be it Allopathic or Osteopathic Medicine would agree with this. Iridology is quackery and a pseudoscience. Presenting it as an "alternative medicine" may mislead, it should be clearly listed as being unproven.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.55.200 (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iridology Related Field? 

message: Regarding the total deletion of revision 505173903 by Laughton.andrew (talk) not iridology and not MEDRS) by user Yobol
Could you please explain your logic behind this complete deletion ?
Also please explain the AUA "MEDRS".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laughton.andrew (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the use of jargon. WP:MEDRS describes sources that meets our criteria for reliable sourcing for medical claims, which the sources you provided do not appear to meet. In addition, the sources you describe appear to be describing retinal scanners, which look at parts of the eyes other than the iris which is what iridology looks at, and therefore appears off topic to this article. Yobol (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ocular scanner vs Iris scanner 

message: In what were the previous edits in violation of NPOV? There is no evidence that iridologists can use charts to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy organs. There is no evidence that areas of the eye correspond to certain areas of the body. Thus it should be stated that these are the iridologists' beliefs; not facts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.43.72 (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have a valid point here. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted Edits

message: Do we have a reliable source, not connected with iridology that claims that it is an "alternative medicine" practice?  It is not listed by NCCAM, nor the Wikipedia article on Alternative Medicine, nor the NEI.  Granted the bar is pretty low to get on the AM list, but I don't think iridology gets there.Desoto10 (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clearly alt med; practiced by some naturopaths.  Ample number of sources call it alt med, such as here. Yobol (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative medicine?

message: I've asked for a reference to the stability of iris patterns. I've reverted the references given by Tpbsk "Chellappaedited" & "Pankantiedited" as they do not address this - they just refer to Daugmann. His beliefs can be summarised as "reading health through iridology is bunkum and therefore any suggestion that an iris can change is bunkum" (e.g. P117 in Biometrics). Daugmann is promoting his own proprietary iris recognition technology business which relies on a stable iris, but I have yet to see any respectable proof of stability published. In fact, the sources given do in fact suggest that the iris can change soon after birth and under one specific circumstance. I'd like to see some concrete proof of his assertion. Ephebi (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 27 of the Chellapa reference and page 116 of the Pankanti reference both talk about the stability of the iris in context of iridology. The exceptions listed by Pankanti (occurring right after birth) and, per the source, a medically unverified assertion about a possible drug effect, would not seem relevant to iridology as iridology would not be useful in newborns. As our article does not cite "Daugmann", your beef with them is of no relevance here. Yobol (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  they are derivative sources of Daugmann and fail :WP:RSMED for this article. He is a mathematician and his paper (on mathematical iris recognition) is being interpreted as medical evidence through your use of the C & P references. This use fails WP standards on several counts, as its a single study, non-impartial, and is WP:Original research by synthesis. As such my question still stands - have there been any studies into the stability of an iris over a lifetime? The first reference cited below (scienceblog) notes that there are changes in deep layers of the eye, so its not like this concern can be dismissed offhand. To avoid an edit war please leave the cn request on the page until proper sources are found.  Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a source published in PLOSONE. That the iris does not change significantly (in the context of iridology) seems uncontroversial in the medical literature, so I'm not sure what the real beef is. Yobol (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Stability of iris patterns

message: Any chance of getting a reference for this statement at the end of the first paragraph in the "History" section?
"At the First International Iridological Congress, Ignaz von Peczely's nephew, August von Peczely, dismissed this myth as apocryphal, and maintained that such claims were irreproducible."
Also, can we clarify the claim (assuming there is a reference somewhere)?  What is an "irreproducible" claim?  That particular claim about the bird with the broken leg has been reproduced many, many times. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for a reference 

message: According to , it is the home of all sorts of quackery promoting books. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Health Publications, Inc.