Editing Iridology (section)

==Scientific research into iridology ==
Well-controlled scientific evaluation of iridology has shown negative results, with all rigorous [[double blind]] trials failing to find any statistical significance to its claims.

In 2015, the [[Department of Health (Australia)|Australian Government's Department of Health]] published the results of a review of alternative therapies that sought to determine if any were suitable for being covered by [[health insurance]]. Iridology was one of 17 therapies evaluated for which no clear evidence of effectiveness was found.<ref name=aus17>{{cite web |url=http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/0E9129B3574FCA53CA257BF0001ACD11/$File/Natural%20Therapies%20Overview%20Report%20Final%20with%20copyright%2011%20March.pdf |publisher=Australian Government &ndash; Department of Health |author=Baggoley C |title=Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Natural Therapies for Private Health Insurance |year=2015 |access-date=12 December 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160626024750/http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/0E9129B3574FCA53CA257BF0001ACD11/$File/Natural%20Therapies%20Overview%20Report%20Final%20with%20copyright%2011%20March.pdf |archive-date=26 June 2016}}
*{{lay source |template=cite web |author=Gavura, S. |date=19 November 2015 |title=Australian review finds no benefit to 17 natural therapies |url=https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/australian-review-finds-no-benefit-to-17-natural-therapies |website=Science-Based Medicine}}</ref>

A German study from 1957, which took more than 4,000 iris photographs of more than 1,000 people, concluded that iridology was useless as a diagnostic tool.<ref name="kibler">{{cite book|author1=Kibler, Max |author2=Sterzing, Ludwig |title=Wert und Unwert der Irisdiagnose|location=Stuttgart, Germany|publisher=Hippocrates|date=1957|oclc=14682831 }}</ref>

In 1979, Bernard Jensen, a leading American iridologist, and two other iridology proponents failed to establish the basis of their practice when they examined photographs of the eyes of 143 patients in an attempt to determine which ones had kidney impairments. Of the patients, 48 had been diagnosed with kidney disease, and the rest had normal kidney function. Based on their analysis of the patients' irises, the three iridologists could not detect which patients had kidney disease and which did not. One iridologist, for example, decided that 88% of the normal patients had kidney disease, while another judged through his iris analysis that 74% of patients who needed artificial kidney treatment were normal.<ref name="simona" />

Another study was published in the ''[[British Medical Journal]]'' which selected 39 patients who were due to have their gall bladder removed the following day, because of suspected gallstones. The study also selected a group of people who did not have diseased gallbladders to act as a control. A group of five iridologists examined a series of slides of both groups' irises. The iridologists could not correctly identify which patients had gallbladder problems and which had healthy gallbladders. For example, one of the iridologists diagnosed 49% of the patients with gallstones as having them and 51% as not having them. The author concluded: "this study showed that iridology is not a useful diagnostic aid."<ref name="Knipschild">{{cite journal |doi=10.1136/bmj.297.6663.1578 |title=Looking for gall bladder disease in the patient's iris |year=1988 |last1=Knipschild |first1=P. |journal=BMJ |volume=297 |issue=6663 |pages=1578–81 |pmid=3147081 |pmc=1835305}}</ref>

[[Edzard Ernst]] raised the question in 2000:<ref name="Ernst" /><blockquote>Does iridology work? ... This search strategy resulted in 77 publications on the subject of iridology. ... All of the uncontrolled studies and several of the unmasked experiments suggested that iridology was a valid diagnostic tool.  The discussion that follows refers to the 4 controlled, masked evaluations of the diagnostic validity of iridology. ... In conclusion, few controlled studies with masked evaluation of diagnostic validity have been published. None have found any benefit from iridology.</blockquote>A 2005 study tested the usefulness of iridology in diagnosing common forms of cancer. An experienced iridology practitioner examined the eyes of 110 total subjects, of which 68 people had proven cancers of the breast, ovary, uterus, prostate, or colorectum, and 42 for whom there was no medical evidence of cancer. The practitioner, who was unaware of their gender or medical details, was asked to suggest a diagnosis for each person, and their results were then compared with each subject's known medical diagnosis. The study conclusion was that "Iridology was of no value in diagnosing the cancers investigated in this study."<ref>{{Cite journal|author=Münstedt K|title=Can iridology detect susceptibility to cancer? A prospective case-controlled study|journal=Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine |volume=11|issue=3|pages=515–519|date=2005|doi=10.1089/acm.2005.11.515|pmid=15992238|display-authors=etal}}</ref>