From Abracadabra to Zombies
reader comments: iridology
23 Jan 2010
Hello Dr Carroll,
Little problem with your explanation of iridology. You cannot see “disease” in the iris; you can only see the energy level in the organ or section of the organ.
I hadn't realized that iridology is another form of energy medicine. I'll bet there are a lot of other things that I don't understand. I'm sure you'll be so kind as to clear them up for me.
The actual science of it shows if the organ is in normal, acute, sub-acute, chronic or degenerative state and/or if there are chemical contaminants, depending on the individual, this will or will not manifest itself as a “disease” or symptom.
reply: Naturally. Thanks for clearing that up.
Most of the time low energy (all but normal and acute) means that specific organ will most likely develop an “auto-immune disease” in the future, but it can take many months to many years. And high energy (acute) could be the body fighting to prevent a bigger problem, most of the time those people will experience symptoms related to that, pain and discomfort usually are present in those cases. Any iridologist who says he sees “diseases” in the iris did not pay very much attention in class, should have gone to a better school or is simply saying that to scare people into a treatment (I know of one here in Montreal who does that, pays better).
reply: Well, I'm glad we've got that straightened out. You're on a roll. Please continue.
I can tell you I’ve been studying naturopathy and iridology and my teacher is a former student of Dr. Bernard Jenson [sic] (you can find his name almost everywhere they talk about iridology).
reply: Jensen (1908-2001) was an American chiropractor who introduced iridology to the United States in the 1950s. He also practiced acupuncture, craniopathy, homeopathy, personology, and reflexology. Jensen was an equal opportunity quack.
I have put into practice what I’ve learned and EVERY diagnosis I have given to people around me that I knew and some I did not know was confirmed by their doctors.
reply: Your pedigree speaks for itself. We'll take your word for it.
What we mostly focus on is the bowels and their major effect on the body; they are actually very easy to see in the eyes and any treatment there gives instant results in some cases. I can tell you just by looking at your eyes the shape of your bowels, areas of restrictions and expansions, a prolapsus of the colon and so on.
reply: Really? That's most interesting. The bowels wouldn't be my first choice for a specialty, but hey, to each his own.
Simple mechanical example is an expanded transversal colon will put actual physical pressure on multiple organs which can cause all sorts of symptoms and “diseases”. I have freaked out a few people with that as they wondered how I could possibly see something their doctor had shown them on an x-ray, all in just a few seconds. It’s actually not that difficult when you learn how to read the iris.
reply: I understand. It doesn't sound that complicated. In fact, it sounds easy....if you're a magician, have x-ray vision, or are deluded beyond hope.
The human body has evolved over millions of years and contains billions of cells. Each of these cells are born and exist with the complete knowledge (DNA) of their environment (the body itself).
reply: I've let a few things pass without challenge, but this one I can't let go by. DNA is not a storehouse of knowledge about cellular evolution and the body it finds itself in. Furthermore, DNA can be incorrectly copied in replication of cells and it can be damaged by chemical or physical processes, which can affect the body in unhealthy ways.
The knowledge of medical science has been around and truly developed over the last 100 years (where most of the discoveries were made, not including Hippocrates and those who followed him).
Can you honestly and without a shadow of a doubt believe that men could possibly know more than the human body itself? Isn’t that a bit arrogant? I don’t mean to insult you here (even if you don’t hold back) and I believe medical science has come a long way and has developed a lot of true life-saving discoveries. But I don’t believe they are the end all or be all of what is really going on and especially of what to do to be healthy. They actually have a horrible track record.
reply: So far, you've thrown out one idea at a time, but in your last paragraph you introduce several unrelated ideas. Let's take them one at a time.
You may as well claim that a rock or a bacterium knows more than all of humanity. The body is a set of mechanisms. It has no knowledge to speak of. It responds automatically to stimuli. It has no idea what those mechanisms are and understands nothing about how they work. Medical science has accumulated a vast store of knowledge regarding how the body works. No medical scientist, however, thinks that there is nothing left to learn.
I have no idea what you mean by saying that science-based medicine is not the "end all or be all of what is really going on." Like bodies, scientists make mistakes. So, what is the grand conclusion to draw from the fact that human beings make mistakes, or that sciences sometimes err and correct their errors thanks to their methods of public and testable procedures?
If you stop and look at this, nature has been creating from “scratch” entire bodies; brains, neurons, hearts, kidneys, eyes, and so on (miracle of procreation). All things man cannot even come close to accomplishing unless he uses stem cells which nature has also created. In some cases medical science even says it’s “impossible” (like generating cartilage), yet nature’s been doing it since the beginning of time of man and beast. Is it really impossible or is it because medical science simply does not know how to do it so it automatically must be impossible? Arthritis is deemed as incurable according to medical science, yet we see and know of countless people who have gotten rid of their arthritis using alternative medicine (I’m one of them, 100% CURED).
reply: Why did you need "alternative" medicine or any medicine at all? I thought you were working up a hypothesis that the body is so intelligent it can even cure its own arthritis. Of course, we still want to know why such a smart thing as the body would still have things like arthritis, heart disease, cancer, etc. Being so smart and having millions of years to work out the solutions to any problems it was having, why did the body screw up in the first place and why didn't it immediately correct its screw ups?
Are you so sure medical science is ABSOLUTELY right and that alternative medicines like naturopathy and iridology which simply follow nature's path can be so wrong?
reply: I'm not sure what you mean by "absolutely" right, but if you mean infallible, then I never claim that any science is "absolutely" right. Furthermore, you're deluding yourself if you think that the way of nature is always right. It isn't, and much of science-based medicine is devoted to correcting the "errors" of nature. Think of children born with heart defects, for example. Secondly, you're deluding yourself if you think iridology is following nature's path. Nothing could be more unnatural than trying to find out if I have a bowel problem by looking into my eyes.
I’ll tell you this, in the 40 years of my life, I’ve seen medical science lose or destroy almost everyone I love and know. Their success rate is less than desirable. Today, you have more children BORN with old people’s “diseases” than ever before in history. You are losing the fight with cancer, more and more money goes into research yet more and more people get it and die from it. How can you honestly stand there and bash down naturopaths when doctors results are even worst? Even in the cases where doctors get rid of a cancer, the patient almost always has to take pills for the rest of his life and/or develops something worst than the initial cancer they had.
reply: Now we're getting to your real problem. Science-based medicine was not able to save your loved ones from whatever life or nature threw at them. Since you don't provide specific details, I'll respond to the general complaint I've heard from many advocates of so-called "alternative" therapies. I have received dozens of emails over the past 15 years from people who blame the death or maiming of a loved one on an incompetent doctor and whose response was to reject all science-based medicine. I understand their reaction. Emotionally, it makes perfect sense. But logically, their conclusion is a non sequitur. Because one doctor or hospital errs it does not follow that science-based medicine can never be trusted. Nor does it follow from the fact that a doctor or hospital erred that naturopathy or homeopathy or iridology, etc. are safe and sound.
I was not desperate when I started to look into this, but I was really tired of the runaround and lack of answers doctors gave me and finally found that science today is simply based on pharmaceutical companies (which fund most of the research today) making sure we are ALL on as many drugs as possible at the youngest age possible, like Ritalin to as many grade school children as possible and now Prozac for teenagers to simply name a few. Is this normal in your opinion? Are we REALLY so much better off? Or do we only BELIEVE we are better off?
reply: Now you have digressed from a story of personal woe to absolute rubbish. Pharmaceutical companies do not fund most scientific research. They fund much medical research and there is justification to be skeptical of publications that are funded by self-interested parties without disclosure. The real issue is not who funds the research, but disclosure. Some drug companies do fudge the research, do pay doctors to publish favorable articles about their products, and engage in many other unethical practices aimed at maximizing their profits. But the unethical practices of some pharmaceutical companies is really irrelevant to whether iridology or naturopathy is worth two scraps of excrement. Likewise, whether pharmaceuticals are being overprescribed is irrelevant to the value or truth of iridology.
Disease in our school of thought does not exist, that is not that people imagine all this or that it’s not real but that what you call “diseases” are really actions your body is taking to adapt to all the crap we feed it. The medical belief is that the body makes mistakes and degenerates into different diseases and symptoms, we believe the body makes NO mistakes, if it does something, it has damn good reasons to do so. The fact men don’t always know why it does that has lead them to where they are today. Their ignorance and misunderstanding of these “diseases” is what is making everything worst. All the body does is adapt to it’s environment. Clean the environment (the inside of the body) and feed it what it needs to be healthy and it will regenerate itself and those symptoms and “diseases” will go away. I have seen this with my own eyes numerous times.
reply: Now you're really talking like a flush toilet in Bill Maher's library. Cancer is the body's adaptation to what we eat? What rubbish. Do you think you can just make stuff up and claim it's true? What kind of idiot would pay attention to your assertion that you've seen this with your own eyes numerous times? All your followers, if you have any, will be deluded, raving about the toxic environment that needs to be cleansed. Detox, detox, detox. Get off your soapbox and do some real study for a change. You might begin by studying age-related diseases and how success in treating such things as heart disease (which leads to many people living longer) will lead to increases in other diseases (those that strike the elderly more frequently than the young, such as cancer). After you've taken those lessons, you might study all those cases of children born with diseases like cancer of the eye. No, it's not because momma ate too many Big Macs.
On your explanation of naturopathy’s immune system belief, a lot of naturopaths feed homeopathic medicines to their patients. In our school, we believe that is wrong because they are no better than a doctor who treats a symptom with a drug. Treating a symptom will NEVER cure the disease and you know this. So why not actually look for the cause and treat that? Cause there is more money in treating symptoms, it pays better the medical and naturopathic community. I like money too, but I really LOVE to see someone actually get cured, it’s SO MUCH more rewarding, plus thanks to modern science, the whole world is sick, I will NEVER run out of patients thanks to them.
reply: No, no, no. Don't tell me you have patients. Please say it isn't so. Do you really lie to them and tell them that medical doctors who treat diabetes, for example, are treating symptoms, not the disease? My science-based doctor must be a moron, then, because he's trying to keep me off medications by having me follow a certain kind of diet and exercise regime. According to you, he's not treating my diabetes, he's treating the symptom of elevated blood sugar. In point of fact, he's trying to help me prevent the effects of the disease, which I saw in my mother and know are not pretty. Actually, I think my doctor is much more knowledgeable than you and your quack friends who spread lies and misinformation about real medicine.
As for the people with “diseases” like MS and arthritis, the immune system does not go haywire as you say. We believe It follows the most basic law of nature, kill the weak so the strong can survive and multiply. Why are the cells weak? Cause you feed them fast food, process food, drugs, cigarette smoke, pollution, chlorine and fluoride in the water, stress and so on and so on.
reply: Of course, you have no evidence for your claims, but I'm sure that fact does not bother you or your followers. Give me the proof that autoimmune diseases are caused by fast food? CC a copy to Bill Maher.
For cancer, the cells mutate then multiply, isn’t that what medical science says? WHY do they mutate? Medical science says it’s because oxygen cannot enter the cell anymore.
reply: Is that what they taught you in naturopathy school? Medical science does not claim that cancer is due to cells mutating because oxygen can't enter the cells. Where do you come up with this stuff?
So the cell mutates to adapt to its “New” environment. So if you change the environment, why would the mutated cell not turn back to normal? It was capable of mutating once, why not twice? Just because medical science can’t do it doesn’t mean it’s not possible. Dr. Bernard Jenson [sic] has right now an 86% success rate in curing people with cancer that medical science identifies as incurable (the kind that has [sic] a few months to live according to them). The other 14% are those who don’t do what he tells them to do and/or simply accept what the doctor told them (the mind is a powerful thing).
reply: You think anyone is going to believe you or Jensen? By the way, your hero has been dead for nine years. If he believed what you do about cancer, then he had no idea what he was treating, so his idea of cure is worthless. If he did have an 86% cure rate of incurable cancer, he'd be world renowned and his heirs would have his Nobel Prize proudly displayed somewhere.
Feed those cells using fresh organic fruits and vegetables and clean pure water, fresh air, relax in the sun and those cells will become strong again, the immune system will leave them alone. This may sound crazy to you, but if you forget what you know and put all your studies aside and REALLY stop and think of the LOGIC behind this, is it so crazy?
reply: Yes, it is crazy, but so is most of what you've written here. Why stop now? I'll bet you believe that before sexual reproduction evolved, animals reproduced by fission. Also, when you relax in the sun, make sure you don't relax for too long a period or your cells might be fed something you'll regret. Haven't you heard? There's no special value to organic fruits and vegetables. That's a myth.
My last example of all this is which proves a portion of what I am saying is commercial like pepto bismol and zantac 75 [sic]. “Don’t stop eating the BAD FOODS, instead take this and continue to stuff yourself!!!”. Perfect example of the body COMPLAINING of what one feeds it, yet we are conditioned and trained to IGNORE it and give it something to shut it up like those above products or any of the many pain killers on the market today. Also the commercials “Ask your doctor if blablabla is right for you, possible side affects [sic] include (a hell of a list).....” Now they target the “Consumer” directly to get more sales.
reply: Your point being? Naturopathy will repair the cardiac sphincter at the top of the stomach without surgery?
I will leave you with that and I hope you read this with an open mind. If you want to contact me about this (chances are you won’t) feel free to do so, I am not looking for a fight, I love to talk or write about things like that with intelligent and educated people, it makes for very interesting discussions.
reply: I hate to say it, Patrick, but I think you've wasted quite a few of your forty years if you believe half of the fairy tales, lies, and myths you put forth above as knowledge. You might attract my attention in the future if iridologists and naturopaths become first responders to natural disasters like the recent one in Haiti.
Patrick kindly replied with information on how to cure diabetes. Let's just say the cure involves raw food, dozens of testimonials (including a few words from Tony Robbins and Woody Harrelson), a DVD with personal success stories, no scientific studies, and about $80. Patrick's seen the DVD and knows this is the real deal, even though an MD is running the raw-food scam. (Diet is not a scam; that the diet must be limited to raw food is.)
Patrick didn't ask whether I had Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes and says I'm mistaken if I believe diabetes "is for life." For the record, I believe blood sugar can be controlled by diet and exercise for Type 2 diabetes in many patients. There is plenty of empirical evidence to support that claim. I believe that an improper diet, obesity, and lack of exercise can lead to elevated blood sugar levels and that, yes, this "is for life." (I'll bet even the raw food MD doesn't believe you can go off his diet after 30 days and eat whatever you want thereafter with no concern for your weight or physical condition.) Patrick added:
I HAD high blood pressure, I do not anymore, I HAD arthritis for the past 10 years, it’s all gone now, I have a friend who was diagnosed with MS, today the doctors say they must have misdiagnosed her because there is no trace of MS anymore. Another woman I know got rid of a cancer with no modern medical intervention. I do not take a single pill and I am cured. The people I mentioned don’t take any pills either and they are cured. You still have diabetes, but I guess we are wrong and you and your doctor are right.
For the record, I don't take any pills or insulin injections for diabetes. I don't mind exercising, but I'm not much for diets, so I realize that there is a good chance that some day I may have to take medication to control my blood sugar levels.
Patrick knows he's right because he's seen it with his own eyes:
I treat my kids with these methods and I can tell you that at the age of 4 placebos mean nothing to them. I drop fevers dramatically on my kids, the rare times they are sick, in a matter of minutes without the use of a single drug nor a cold bath. My son got rid of a bad flu in 48 hours this winter. The worst symptoms were gone in less than 30 minutes; the rest of the 48 hours was a mild fever. I never gave him any drug of any king. I got the flu myself and got rid of it in 12 hours, again with no drugs. Last Christmas I had a U.T.I. [urinary tract infection] which I got rid of in 2 days without any antibiotic.
We'll have to take Patrick's word for it. It's true that placebos mean nothing to children, nor does the power of suggestion, but they react to both like little adults. Try giving them a kiss to make it better or telling them that you're going to take the pain away from them and give it to the neighbor's dog. Anyway, Patrick sounds like a fantastic healer, but I think I'll stick with science-based medicine until something better comes along, something backed up by more than personal experience and testimonials.
4 Dec 2009
R.T., I just bumped into your site. You've done a great job on many issues that deserve scrutiny. I respect what you're doing, but in some cases, you throw the baby out with the bath water. Truth is what most of us seek. To do that, we must expose the obvious abuse, quackery, and poor science, but we must also acknowledge any validity, and note any aspects that are simply unknown.
I am right-brained, logical, see-it-to-believe-it (degreed electrical engineer) kind of guy. My specific comment is on iridology. The correlation between iris markings and systems and organs is obvious when you actually do case studies.
I am a certified iridologist (through NIRA- in Seattle). I first learned about it in a college seminar in 1974, and have used iridology as tool in my health coaching practice since 1990. I use it as one would use a thermometer or a stethoscope. It shows health, toxicity, injury, and healing indications. You can't diagnose disease or confirm anything. It simply offers another interesting data point as you search for a root cause to a health problem. Anyone who uses it for anything else, or as confirmation, is simply abusing the practice.
When used correctly, iridology can be very useful. For example: A client with chronic kidney pain showed what looked like a third kidney. She walked out of my office, laughing in disbelief. A year later, the client called to let me know that she was now feeling great- after a third kidney was surgically removed.
reply: I have no way of knowing what sign in the eye made you think of three kidneys. Apparently, however, some people have more than two kidneys, but that in itself won't necessarily cause kidney problems.
One of the easiest things to see is toxicity. I have photos of my own eyes showing the shift in iris color from light murky-brownish (1980 photo) to bluish-hazel (1993 photo) after a 10 year change in my diet from typical American junk-food, to a whole/fresh/natural diet.
reply: One of the biggest bogus issues made about health is that "toxicity" is the cause of illness. I've written two articles about this nonsense. One is on detoxification treatments and the other is on Rashid Buttar, an osteopath who thinks every disease is caused by toxicity. The pigment in the eyes are due to cells known as melanocytes. The more melanin, the darker the color. Your eye color is genetically determined. There is no scientific evidence that eating any type of diet will permanently change one's eye color.
One former iridologist has written about his discovery that what he thought were changes in eye color were actually changes in the angle of the light to the eye, changes in battery strength of the penlight, or changes in room lighting:
I soon found that structure "changes" could be created on the video record by changing the angle of the light to the eye. Areas that I thought were dark would suddenly show healing lines when the position of the light changed. Thick white lines would change to thin gray lines when the light moved. More than once during this period an eminent iridologist would call me to his office and show me a change he had recorded in patient's iris minutes after doing a spinal adjustment. After closely examining his recordings, it became obvious to me that his light position and the angle of the camera to the eye had varied from time to time causing the appearance of a change in the iris.
Not only did the light placement affect the appearance of structures; the slow draining of the batteries in the penlight changed the appearance of the eye color. If the iris was recorded using two-week-old batteries it would have a slightly yellow tint. If the iris was recorded with newly opened batteries, the iris colors would almost be washed out. The lighting in the room also had an effect on the recorded color due to the contrast the camera measured. The variables were so great that I began to entirely distrust any changes that I found in the iris while using the camera.
[The iridologist then got a new, improved camera.]
When I experimented with changes in angles, I found that the angle of light going into the eye, and the level of lighting in the room, had an effect on pupil size. Pupil size had a direct link to fiber size, and fiber size seemed, in some cases, to be related to colors that appeared in the iris. This was more obvious in someone who had more than one color present in his or her iris. I, for example, have brown, green, yellow, and blue appearing in my iris. In different degrees of lighting my eyes have a different appearance. It is for this reason that different people have told me that my eyes are entirely brown, green, or blue.
What you observed in your eyes probably had nothing to do with toxicity or diet.
In my final exam for certification, we observed photos of 50 eyes- of people with documented, known medical histories and/or conditions. We also examined photos of our own eyes. We had 3 minutes to tell the "basic health story" and obvious signs of each iris. The correlation between known health conditions and iris signs had to be at least 90% accurate. R.T., if you observed the incredible correlation, iris after iris, you too would be convinced that the practice of iridology is not quackery. What's quackery is the way the some people abuse it. Unfortunately, many "alternative health practitioners" pick up a book on iridology, memorize the map, and call themselves "iridologists." They are usually the abusers, as they haven't been trained in the proper use and limitations of the practice.
Keep up the good work! There's a lot of questionable stuff out there.
Regards, Jonathan Mankin
reply: I'll let former iridologist Joshua David Mather have the last word: "Based on the fact that iridology does not reflect true anatomy, physiology, or histology of the iris, and based on the fact that iris colors are not determined by nerve input, it became ludicrous for me to believe that iris color is any indication of health in remote organs."
28 Mar 2004
The first statement in your 'definition' of Iridology is categorically false and a misrepresentation of what Iridologists say about the science of Iridology.
Iridology is NEVER used to "diagnose disease", any more than a thermometer is capable of "diagnosis".
NO Iridologist who has any knowledge of what Iridology is would make such an assertion.
reply: Iridologists may not diagnose specific diseases or disorders, but they look at the iris for indications of healthy or unhealthy organs. Most people I know would consider it a diagnosis if told: "It looks like there's something wrong with your kidneys." This may not be technically correct, but I don't think it is worth quibbling about.
Concerning "confirmation bias", how would you respond--what conclusions would you draw-- to the following things I have observed? (Be HONEST.):
1) A dark red-brown coloration--usually indicative of inorganic iron--is observed in the appendix area. Patient says she is taking prenatal vitamins with iron and states that she had been in the ER two weeks previously with a severe abdominal pain and assumed that it was an appendicitis.
reply: Was it appendicitis? Anyway, yes, collecting anecdotes is what I would call a method of confirmation bias.
2) Sharp degenerative lesion observed in the prostate area on both irises. Patient goes to the doctor and is diagnosed with chronic prostatis, which is asymptomatic.
3) Degenerative lesion is observed in the undefined area just below where the heart is located on the chart. Patient goes to the doctor and is diagnosed with an abdominal aortic aneurysm and is scheduled for surgery. Patient states after surgery that he has not felt better in 20 years.
4) Degenerative sign is observed in the diaphragm/upper abdomen area. Patient gets a chest X-ray that demonstrates loops of bowel in the lung fields and is diagnosed with a diaphragmatic hernia.
5) Deep degenerative sign is observed in the area of the hip joint. Patient has one leg shorter than the other and has not been wearing the lifts in his shoes for several months.
6) Chronic sign is observed in the peritoneum/abdominal wall. Two weeks later patient suffers inguinal hernia on the same side while shoveling snow.
7) Hyper-acid stomach ring observed. Patient drinks 2-3 quarts of Pepsi Cola each day.
reply: That's a lot of Pepsi. Did the patient mention this before or after your diagnosis? Was there a noticeable protrusion about the patient's midriff?
8) Dark and degenerative lesion observed in chest wall. Patient complains of severe pain over a period of a couple of years. Dr. says that there is nothing there but bones and muscles; can ONLY be a muscle strain. Rib X-rays are negative; all mammograms are negative. Patient FINALLY diagnosed with cancer of chest wall with MRI or PET scan. Patient comes to see Iridologist.
Patient DIES because of doctor's incompetence...
reply: We'll take your word for it.
And because there are people like you who LIE about the usefulness of Iridology as an ASSESSMENT technique rather than a "diagnostic" technique.
You ought to be ASHAMED of yourself
Retired Iridologist bankrupted by the lies of the media about the science of Iridology
reply: Really? Because I use 'diagnose' instead of 'assess' in describing your craft, patients are dying? I must have no conscience because I feel no shame at such an indiscretion.
Sorry you went bankrupt. Maybe you should move to Canada. Iridology is thriving there, despite liars like me and others in the media.
I wrote to "Retired Iridologist" and asked him if he wanted his name removed from his posted comments. Here is his reply:
OF COURSE I want my name removed.
My guess is that my statements will be 'creatively edited' to make me sound like some kind of a nutcase.
I can tell from the website that your goal is to criticize as much as possible, not taking any real time to investigate something before damning it to hell.
You don't appreciate how desperate people are for information about how they can prevent disease rather than merely wait until the damage is done, and then to go to the doctor whose only answer is poisonous drugs or surgery.
My experience with people like you is that you have NO conscience, just like everyone else in the media.
People are DYING because of the kinds of lies propagated by your web site--a condemnation of Iridology is what was chosen by "Science Magazine" to be specifically singled out for condemnation. This is disgusting, when "therapeutic touch" would be a MUCH more appropriate candidate for such treatment.
You appear to have swallowed unquestioningly the propaganda of the American Medical Association and the American Pharmaceutical Association and their associated economic interests.
I know for a FACT that I have helped people toward health with what I have been able to see in their irises; and that the woman with cancer of the chest wall could have benefited if I had seen her two years earlier than I did. As it was, she died maybe 4 months after the dx of cancer. Of course, the doctor LIED and said it was breast cancer; but my attempt to pursue this by contacting the local prosecutor for criminal negligence failed because of the view of Iridology presented in a local newspaper condemning it as nonsense after doing NO real investigation into the matter.
My belief, however, is that 'what goes around comes around'.
Maybe you have a condition that could be assessed by an Iridologist to be diagnosed by your doctor.
But, thanks to the LIES you tell, the only people remaining in the profession are half-wit New Age whackos that have NO appreciation for its scientific value and will not have ANY idea what they are looking at.
It's called Gresham's Law.
Eventually all research Iridologists will be bankrupted and driven from the profession because they are NEVER given the opportunity to present their case in the media.
Don't write to me again.