Iridology : LUSENET : Iris Analysis : One Thread

Has the Iridology Crackpots won the day?

-- James Colton (, October 26, 2002


No. And this claim does not make sense:

---begin quote---
Has the evidence arrived that proves the iris does not change YES! YES! YES!


The introduction of iris recognition for identification purposes has brought several aspects of the iris to light. Mainly the fact that the iris does not change. The error rate is about 1 in 131,000... irises. If the iris was in a constant state of change this error rate would be much higher. Is there something wrong with the bizarre claims of many Iridologists. Yes!
---end quote---

Newsflash: *everything changes*
At issue is how much change; I think it is common knowledge that pigment deposit in the iris increases with age, just as it increases in the skin with age. There are plenty of examples of iris color changes over the 1 or 2 decades-- see for example:

Textural changes in the iris, however, have not been documented except in the case of localized iris tissue dystrophy such as Progressive Iris Atrophy (PIA) or Fuch's Heterochromic Iridocyclitis (FHI).

The larger point that the iris is to be considered a means of identifying inherited (or structural) qualities (as opposed to transient, possibly resolved, conditions) remains valid in any case.

-- Jon Miles (, October 26, 2002.

Absolutely! I completely agree with the need for a consensus in this field that the iris is a constitutive indicator, and does not normally change in appearance in any visible way except over years or decades (and in those cases, the only change is an increase in accumulated pigment granules) at the anterior border layer of the iris.

This view is held by most people in the field (as I see it), but there remains a lingering set of people who have been through teaching material which includes inaccuracies and incorrectness (such as "healing lines will start to form in the space of the lacunae as your health builds up" or "color spots signify drug deposits"). Particularly troublesome is the misrepresentation of the iris as a "health readout" or as an indicator that changes in response to both decreases and increases in health, like an instrument panel. People whose ulterior motivation is to sell herbal remedies to the client are known to use an overly simplistic (or even baseless) assessment and identification of specific disorders requiring a specific remedy. This was addressed in the lead article of the Fall 2002 IIPA newsletter "Insights" by Dr. Ellen Tart-Jensen (, where she wrote "Iridology can tell where the genetic deficiencies lie." and quotes Dr. Jensen in v.2:

  1. Iridology does not diagnose disease
  2. Irdology does not identify specific pathology in the body
  3. Iridology does not confirm the presence of viruses, parasites, germ life, yeast, or bacterial invasions in the body
So he got this right, but he also adopted viewpoints from certain German Iridologists:
  1. Color spots as toxic settlements
    and where did these ideas come from:
  2. Circumferential contraction furrows as signifying a stressful disposition
  3. When in health-building mode, new fibers can form to help fill in the lacunae.

    The last belief mentioned has been employed by people merchandising herbal products and other services (masquerading as "practitioners"), by falsely claiming to see signs of improvement as a way of appearing to validate the methodology and the treatment. (supporting the continuation of the prescribed regimen, i.e. the monthly shopping list).

    From my iris imaging work, I find that the iris accumulates color throughout life (differences are often visible at decade intervals), but reductions in pigment are very uncommon. As for any change in the iris texture over a person's life, it's imaginary, or at least, not visible. I have never seen any evidence of fibers changing in size, relative positon, or density (i.e. changes in iris texture over a person's life are not detectable).

    -- Jon Miles (, October 27, 2002.

    My problem is not with pigmentation or diseases that affect the iris. It is the misguided statements some Iridologists make with regard changes to the iris in and out of illness.

    This has to stop if Iridology is to gain any kind of credibility. Why should the work of Peczey, Deck, Angerer and others be defiled by those who either donít understand what they are doing or those who are simply cashing in of a popular diagnosis.

    Serious Iridologists need to stand up and be counted, and not go along with crackpot ideas because they donít have the backbone to do so.

    Iridology is a brilliant diagnostic tool; for godís sake letís keep it that way. James Colton

    -- James Colton (, October 27, 2002.

    Moderation questions? read the FAQ