An Iridologist's Definition of "Quackery"

In response to anyone in the orthodox medical profession who suggests that Iridology is “quackery”, I would have to respond that, not surprisingly, I have developed my own definition of “quackery” after some 15 or 16 years of research in Iridology:

Quackery is the prescription of an antacid for someone with an under-acid stomach, and without ordering a Heidelberg test to determine whether or not the patient even has an over-acid stomach in the first place.

Quackery is the prescription of a proton pump inhibitor for any other reason than to kill the patient. (Stomach acid is necessary for the digestion of protein, the assimilation of the B vitamins, the assimilation of minerals like calcium, magnesium, etc. etc., and the destruction of ingested pathogens such as viruses and bacteria.)

Quackery is the prescription of a bisphosphonate (for osteoporosis) and/or a calcium supplement simultaneously with an antacid. (Stomach acid is necessary for the assimilation of calcium and, possibly, the dissolving of the medication in the first place.)
The bisphosphonates have also been associated with osteo-necrosis of the jaw and with the laying down of very dense calcium on the bone (which looks very pretty on a radiograph, but which is as dense and brittle as a piece of chalk.)

Quackery is the prescription of a statin drug without the simultaneous supplementation with co-enzyme Q10; the likely consequence of which is congestive heart failure, the heart needing the greatest quantities of co-enzyme Q10. (Google cytochrome p450, statin drugs and co enzyme Q10.) And why is it that 20 out of the 24 people I have talked with who have been prescribed a statin drug have reported “muscle aches”; but that, when they report this to their doctor, it is referred to as a “rare” occurrence? And why is it that very few doctors even order liver enzyme tests for their patients on statin drugs, as is recommended by the drug manufacturers themselves?

Quackery is the prescription of HORSE hormones (for menopausal symptoms in human females) for ‘anyone’ other than HORSES (the term Premarin comes from “pregnant mare’s urine”) and synthetic sex hormones rather than bio-identical hormones for symptoms of menopause. (Horse hormones and/or synthetic hormones have been implicated in breast and/or rib/chest wall cancer.)

A menopausal human female would be much better off drinking the urine of her 13 year-old daughter.

Quackery is the prescription of blood pressure medications without doing a Heidelberg test to determine whether the patient has sufficient stomach acid to dissolve the medication in the first place.

Quackery is the long-term prescription of anti-biotics without supplementation with pro-biotics to re-colonize the colon with beneficial bacteria. [High colon toxicity is implicated in too many diseases even to be summarized here; among them being rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, chronic prostatitis (leading to prostate cancer) and breast, colon and rectal cancer.]

Quackery is the prescription of statin drugs exclusively on the basis of a cholesterol number without questioning the patient as to how often his or her bowels move; it being known among many natural health care practitioners that, all things remaining the same, cholesterol numbers are dependent upon colon motility.

Quackery is the prescription of drugs for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder without even so much as questioning how often the child’s bowels move; and, subsequently, recommending a kidney transplant for symptoms of colon toxicity.

Quackery is the failure to recommend that patients stay away from fluoride in their water and toothpaste (fluoride interfering with thyroid activity in at least 3 ways); from micro-waved foods; from any other salt than natural, sea salt; and from not only high fructose corn syrup; but, also, the unnatural sweeteners found in dilute phosphoric acid (soda pop), excesses of which may very well result in a genuine over-acid stomach.

Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

But, other than that, the United States has a truly magnificent ‘disease care system’.

Michael

Kudos to you for this very well done post.

I might also point out to you that Chiropractic Medicine was considered High Quackery for a very long time. This is a symptom of the way that Western Medicine is designed. Anything that attempts to treat the human body as an integrated machine with status indicators all over it (rather than a series of specialized independant units) is considered illegitimate until such time as it is proven catgorically valid due to tremendous success rates -- or the big corporations realize that they can make oodles of money off of it (whichever comes first).

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Kudos to you for this very well done post.

I might also point out to you that Chiropractic Medicine was considered High Quackery for a very long time.

Right.

And the American Medical Association was finally successfully prosecuted for "illegal restraint of trade" or some other legal terminology to that effect.

Rumor has it that certain alternative medicine practitioners have had similar success against the minions of Satan at the "quackwatch" website; but, of course, the lapdog, mainstream media--which, along with the FDA, is nothing more than the Sales and Marketing Department of the pharmaceutical industry--has no interest in such things.

They must headline things like Angelina Jolie being cast as Cleopatra and whether or not Netanyahu 'Prophesied' the Chilean mine disaster in a book he wrote several years ago.

Michael

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Quackery is the prescription of statin drugs exclusively on the basis of a cholesterol number without questioning the patient as to how often his or her bowels move;.

Statins aren't prescribed exclusively on the basis of total cholesterol, rather on a quantitative assesment of the total lipid profile.

it being known among many natural health care practitioners that, all things remaining the same, cholesterol numbers are dependent upon colon motility

All things don't remain the same. Blood lipids are predominately dependent on dietary influences.

I like the post, and you have some good points. But what does this have to do with Iridology?

Oh, and you can add to your list....Quackery is prescribing statins to women.

Oh, by the way...

Quackery is also prescribing a statin drug at the same time as an osteoporosis drug.

Statins diminish cholesterol.

Cholesterol is the fundamental building block for Vitamin D.

Decreases of Vitamin D alone result in osteoporosis.

In other words, you can take as many osteoporosis drugs as you want; but, if you don't have any Vitamin D in your system because of decreases in both cholesterol and/or sunlight--or, if you cannot assimilate calcium because you are on a prescription antacid (especially a proton pump inhibitor)--the osteoporosis drug will be completely useless.

People in nursing homes typically get very little sunlight; thus, they get very little opportunity to manufacture Vitamin D with the little cholesterol they do have.

Studies have shown significant deficiencies of Vitamin D among nursing home residents.

Perhaps as a consequence of the drugs they are taking.

Hip fractures are a major pre-cursor/indicator of mortality in nursing home residents.

Michael

reply to post by Michael Cecil

In response to anyone in the orthodox medical profession who suggests that Iridology is “quackery”, I would have to respond that, not surprisingly, I have developed my own definition of “quackery” after some 15 or 16 years of research in Iridology:

What is your definition of quackery? You have provided numerous examples but not distilled a definition from them. Would the definition of quackery be based on whether or not the treatments work? Or is there some other implied standard?

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
All things don't remain the same.

Of course not.

All I am saying is that someone who has a bowel movement once every three days will, all other things remaining the same, have a higher cholesterol level than someone whose bowels move three times each day, which is optimum.

Blood lipids are predominately dependent on dietary influences.

True. But this slightly confuses the issue. Cholesterol levels, as I recall, are about 75% due to production in the liver, and only about 25% due to dietary influences; which is why merely diet does not help; but there must be some attempt to DESTROY the liver's ability to manufacture cholesterol, which is the mechanism of action of the statin drugs and the reason why liver enzyme levels are recommended in the first place.

In any case, I have fundamental doubts about the entire cholesterol hypothesis; and tend to look more at the homocysteine level (indicating the destruction of protein) and/or the C-reactive protein level, which is a much more non-specific indicator of general inflammation.

I like the post, and you have some good points. But what does this have to do with Iridology?

Iridology has provided graphic confirmation of much of what I have been talking about...

For those who say that it is "quackery".

Oh, and you can add to your list....Quackery is prescribing statins to women.

Bingo.

I once encountered a young woman of about 24 whose doctor wanted to put her on a statin drug.

He convinced her to be depressed that she could not take a statin because she was wanting to start a family.

And they call this medicine, believe it or not.

Michael

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

In response to anyone in the orthodox medical profession who suggests that Iridology is “quackery”, I would have to respond that, not surprisingly, I have developed my own definition of “quackery” after some 15 or 16 years of research in Iridology:

What is your definition of quackery?

Who cares?

It is operationally defined.

You have provided numerous examples but not distilled a definition from them. Would the definition of quackery be based on whether or not the treatments work? Or is there some other implied standard?

Of course.

The implied standard for the definition of "quackery" by the orthodox medical system is anything which does not bring billions of dollars in profits to the pharmaceutical industry.

In any case, "antacids" do not "work" because there was not too much stomach acid in the first place

The people already have too little acid in their stomach in most instances. Decreasing that stomach acid even further does not resolve the problem at all but merely further encourages the growth of helicobacter pylori, resulting in a vicious feed-back loop; whereupon the patients begin "circling the drain" with the prescription of more and more drugs.

Michael

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Actually, statins lower LDL concentrations in the blood. Cholesterol remains pretty constant. If a cell needs cholesterol for Vitamin D synthesis, it'll simply manufacture it's own.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil


Studies have shown significant deficiencies of Vitamin D among nursing home residents.

Ask yourself, how many nursing home patients receive direct exposure from the mid-day sun?

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
True. But this slightly confuses the issue. Cholesterol levels, as I recall, are about 75% due to production in the liver, and only about 25% due to dietary influences; which is why merely diet does not help; but there must be some attempt to DESTROY the liver's ability to manufacture cholesterol, which is the mechanism of action of the statin drugs and the reason why liver enzyme levels are recommended in the first place.

Almost every cell in the body is able to produce cholesterol as needed. Statins inhibit HMG-CoA reductase, an enzyme responsible for the production of cholesterol within those cells. The inhibitory effects of statins force the cells to retrieve cholesterol from LDL in the blood, effectively lowering LDL concentrations and, some times, total cholesterol.

Cholesterol isn't the problem, however. HDL, LDL and VLDL are the important biomarkers and they are directly influenced by dietary choices. Carbohydrates (especially fructose) spike VLDL (triglycerides), which is a precursor to Pattern B LDL...(very atherogenic). It's now becoming pretty evident that Total choesterol and LDL cholesterol isn't really as important as LDL particle size, VLDL and inflammation (just so happens that statins have an anti-inflammatory effect).

Iridology has provided graphic confirmation of much of what I have been talking about...

By that you mean changes in the Iris?

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

By that you mean changes in the Iris?

The only change I have ever been able to see in an iris is the resolution and then the re-aquisition of an under-acid stomach ring.

Client had been drinking coffee but not taking any antacids.

Recommended cessation of coffee drinking and the under-acid stomach ring almost completely resolved over the space of a few months.

Client, a friend, requested that I look in the irises again several months later.

I had to report that the under-acid stomach ring had returned, just like it was the first time I looked at it.

Client reported a resumption of coffee drinking.

One client reported to me that he had a very, very dark brown iris as a result of dietary factors. Told me that the current color of his iris was several shades lighter as a result of the consumption of truly prodigious amounts of carrot juice for the past several months--to the point that his skin had turned orange. Bought carrots in 50 lb. bags and juiced more than once a day. But this is not something that I directly observed myself.

Most of my clients were seen over a period of just a few years; to my understanding, not a long enough period of time to demonstrate changes.

Except for one client whose iris pictures had been taken in 1979; and I took them in 2006, as I recall.

Client, a woman, had the classic sign for breast cancer in the right iris--an area of toxicity going from the ascending colon and just touching the circle on the iris chart representing the breast. I reported that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer in her right breast but that it had not invaded the breast tissue to any great extent. She reported that that was the problem: it was too close to the chest wall to be detected on the mammogram.

Picture of the same iris taken in 1979 showed a much shorter, lighter, and more shallow lesion in the same iris.

At the slide presentation I gave to the residents at Memorial Hospital in South Bend in June, 1976, I rapidly changed slides from the slide taken in 1979 to the slide I had taken just a few months before; clearly demonstrating the change of the lesion and how the lesion in 1979 had become worse, resulting in a diagnosis of breast cancer some 27 years later.

Could anything have been done to prevent this kind of deterioration?

I am not absolutely certain.

Michael

reply to post by Michael Cecil


I hope you're truely getting the results you're posting. And I genuinely believe you're doing this because you want to help people. I wanna believe you, but anecdotes just don't cut it. Anything reproducable? Peer-reviewed?

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by Michael Cecil

I hope you're truely getting the results you're posting.

I consider that equivalent to an accusation I am lying.

Bye-bye for you.

Michael

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Except for one client whose iris pictures had been taken in 1979; and I took them in 2006, as I recall.

(Correction: I took color slides of her irises in early 1996, rather than 2006.)

Picture of the same iris taken in 1979 showed a much shorter, lighter, and more shallow lesion in the same iris.

At the slide presentation I gave to the residents at Memorial Hospital in South Bend in June, 1976,

(Oops. This was supposed to be June or July, 1996 .)

I rapidly changed slides from the slide taken in 1979 to the slide I had taken just a few months before; clearly demonstrating the change of the lesion and how the lesion in 1979 had become worse, resulting in a diagnosis of breast cancer some 27

(Oops. 17 years later rather than 27.)

I gave a second presentation to the residents of Memorial Hospital in mid-2005, as I recall.

Dr. Thomas Sutula was the director of the residency program

Michael

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Don't be so damn sensitive. I don't think you're lying until you become so defensive. If you want people to take Iridology seriously, you're going to have to provide evidence that's NOT anecdotal.

There's a reason why anecdotes aren't accepted in medical literature. And it's not because everyone lies. It's because of bias, confounding data and, most importantly, because science relies on reproduction.

I completely agree, for far too long have we bought into 'medications'. the majority hinder us instead of helping us.
The majority of old time healing methods have been cut out, such as aromatherapy and herbal remedies. These are going to need to make a comback soon concindering the majority of our health methods are infact killing us.
Glad to hear of this thread OP. glad to hear someones switched on

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

Don't be so damn sensitive. I don't think you're lying until you become so defensive. If you want people to take Iridology seriously, you're going to have to provide evidence that's NOT anecdotal.

There's a reason why anecdotes aren't accepted in medical literature. And it's not because everyone lies. It's because of bias, confounding data and, most importantly, because science relies on reproduction.

Cecil,
Devolution has a point, biases and confounding data are everywhere and careful steps to eliminate them are taken into account in medical studies. Using anecdotes to validate or presume any type of relationship between risk and disease without critical evaluation can lead to very bad medicine.

I understand that you have a passion for this type of practice, but if iridology was as diagnostically accurate as you have portrayed it I would think that it would be much more widely accepted and practiced. It may be a valid medical art, but its hard to accept as legit practice without peer-reviews, control studies, etc.

reply to post by Michael Cecil


I would still like to read the links you mentioned on another thread regarding iridology. I have read that some medical conditions can cause changes to the irises (although I can't remember what) but I haven't found anything compelling that would convince me that certain areas of the iris correspond to other areas in the body. That is what makes me believe it is quackery. I can see what you are going for with your quackery examples, but they are more like poor choices by the individual practitioners.

A good practitioner should use as much information as possible to them to determine the best course of treatment for each individual patient. Unfortunately time constraints, patient expectations, lawsuit fears, and (yes) ignorance lend themselves to practitioners making poor choices in treatment but the basis of which is evidence-based medicine.

I feel like you are also probably oversimplifying things. You comment on bisphosphonates, statins, PPIs, etc almost as if they are treated in isolation of one another. Practicing medicine is managing risks and dealing with individuals. I can estimate that out of seeing 25 patients a day, 5-6 days a week, for the past 4 years that probably 50 of them in total were successful in lifestyle modification to treat their variety of problems. That being the background into the average American mindset of their healthcare, my average patient is more accurately a man or woman in their 40s-50s that currently or used to smoke (and likely has COPD), with stage 1 hypertension, mixed dyslipidemia, and is either overweight or obese with recurrent or chronic low back pain who is overworked and also deals with chronic fatigue and/or depression as a result. If they are one of my hispanic patients then they are much more likely to be diabetic, as well. Managing that patient's overall health risks, let alone the risks vs benefits of their treatment, is much more difficult compared to the 60 year old woman with GERD and osteoporosis.

Also just a quick comment on your points:
1. Do you have documented examples of people with under acid stomachs being prescribed antacids? Since a good history and physical leads to the diagnosis of GERD, dyspepsia, gastritis almost all the time, an antacid makes sense. I can elaborate if you rebut this.
2. PPIs do have purpose other than to kill. They manage a patient's pain and quality of life when lesser treatments and lifestyle modification fail. Is the increased risk of esophageal cancer and stricture and aspiration pneumonia not important. I personally know 3 people with Barrett's esophagus not counting my patients. Should I tell them not to take a PPI?
3. Bisphosphonates with PPIs.... not supposed to do it but it is done. 70 year old woman who smokes with a t-score of -3.5 and severe GERD. She won't stop smoking and is at increased risk of hip and vertebral fracture, aspiration pneumonia and death from the complications thereof. Most practitioners would appropriately monitor her central DEXAs as well as metabolic panels and continue lifestyle mod reinforcement among other things. We tend to not throw pills at people and forget about them but I am sure you can find examples of that (individual vs fundamental quackery, as you see).
4. That's is odd about the statin and CoQ10 as we were taught to use both in school and almost every cardiologist and internal medicine practitioner I have met does that. It must be a regional thing but I give you the credit in that it is not recommended in guidelines made by the ACC or AHA.
5. There are several studies that have been done as of late that show the safety of estrogen replacement and more concise recommendations for it's use, however, try and find a provider that uses it. It is very rarely used from what I have seen and I have never prescribed it. Also my supervising physician uses bio-identical hormones exclusively.
6. From the sounds of it, you would test every single patient of yours for adequate stomach acid. That isn't practical in real life. You would prescribe the most appropriate anti-hypertensive for the patient and monitor it's effects. If you get 20-40 point drop systolic, then it is working, it isn't a placebo effect (plus most medical studies use placebo to compare the effectiveness of their medicine, or go head to head with other drugs). If you don't, you alter the dose or medicine.
7. Antibiotics are SO OVERUSED... I won't even get into that. Most practitioners do educate the patient on the use of probiotic yogurt, acidophilus, and other widely available otc and rx types.
8. There are guidines that have been made by and used by the ACC, AHA, AAFP, and others that are based on a huge number of trials that dictate the use of statins in mixed dysplipidemia and co-morbid and genetic factors are used in that algorithm. I don know of some doctors that prescribe based on number alone but that is not the standard.
9. ADHD I won't comment on that other than I believe it is over-diagnosed and too heavily treated. There are standard recommendations though regarding the monitoring of those under treatment and the discontinuation of treatment is generally done as soon as possible.
10. There were a lot of comments in the last paragraph and I am too tired to comment on them.

reply to post by DrChuck


I agree 100% with both you and DevolutionEvolvd.
The difference is evidence-based medicine using the scientific method and peer-reviewed journals vs anecdotal, subjective evidence.