Monthly Archives: September 2025
To my surprise (and delight), I have been asked to become a patron of the Humanists UK Patron: Professor Edzard Ernst. I am not someone who easily joins clubs, groups or organisations. Yet, I accepted this invitation without hesitation. This Humanists UK state about themselves this:
Think for yourself, act for everyone
At Humanists UK, we want a tolerant world where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We work to support lasting change for a better society, championing ideas for the one life we have.
We do this because we’re humanists, people who shape our own lives in the here and now, because we believe it’s the only life we get.
Our work helps people be happier and more fulfilled, and by bringing non-religious people together we help them develop their own views and an understanding of the world around them.
We’re committed to putting humanism into practice. Through our ceremonies, pastoral support, education services, and campaigning work, we advance free thinking and freedom of choice so everyone can live in a fair and equal society.
More about us
We started out in 1896, and since then we’ve always been a growing movement at the forefront of social change. Today we’re trusted by over 150,000 members and supporters and over 70 local and special interest affiliates to promote humanism.
We put humanism into practice through effective campaigning and services, supporting lasting change for happier, more fulfilling lives. Our policies are informed with the support of over 200 of the UK’s most prominent philosophers, scientists, and other thinkers and experts and we seek to advance them with the help of over 120 parliamentarians in membership of the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group. We bring like-minded people together to make change happen, and we strive to be their voice in public debate, drawing on contemporary humanist thought and the worldwide humanist tradition.
We’ve been conducting non-religious funerals, weddings, and baby-namings for over 125 years. Our highly trained celebrants are the best you’ll find anywhere, and they support individuals to create authentic, bespoke ceremonies that put people and their stories at the heart of every occasion.
We also help vulnerable people easily access like-minded and effective non-religious pastoral support that is specially tailored to work for them. Our trained and accredited non-religious pastoral support volunteers operate across hospitals, prisons, and the armed forces.
If you want to support us in our work, please do join or donate. We are dependent on charitable giving to continue our work.
Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Our Safeguarding policy can be found here.
I feel honoured and would encourage everyone to consider becoming a member of this worthy organisation.
Mehmet Oz has featured regularly on this blog, e.g.:
- Donald Trump nominated SCAM promoter, Mehmet Oz, to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
- Columbia University cut ties with Dr. Mehmet Oz … or did they?
- Quackery promoter, Dr. Mehmet Oz, is running for the U.S. Senate
- Trump, Kennedy and Oz just announced plenty of untruths about autism and its treatment
Currently, he serves in Trump’s administration as “Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services” (CMS). He also is (or was?) a “Global Advisor & Stakeholder” for the company ‘iHerb’, and was appointed to that role in 2023. The company itself is a global e-commerce platform that was founded in 1996 and has its headquarters in California. iHerb specializes in health and wellness products. iHerb’s mission is to make health and wellness products accessible to everyone. The company operates as a direct-to-consumer retailer. iHerb sells a wide variety of products, including:
- Vitamins, minerals, and supplements (VMS)
- Sports nutrition
- Beauty and personal care products
- Grocery items
- Baby and pet care products
Crucially, iHerb sells several products with leucovorin, i.e. folinic acid, the drug that, even though unproven, is now officially used for autism in the US. As far as I can see, most of the products that Oz promotes are not based on sound evidence.
Based on available information from a financial disclosure analysis, Mehmet Oz’s work as an advisor for ‘iHerb’ has earned him as much as $25 million in company stock. The disclosure, which lists asset values in ranges rather than precise figures, shows that this stock was part of his overall financial portfolio.
Several experts have raised concerns that Oz’s financial interests in various healthcare and supplement companies, including iHerb, could create a conflict of interest. As the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a position that oversees a vast budget and a significant portion of the U.S. healthcare system, his past and present ties to the industry have been highlighted as potential issues. The concern is that a government official in such a powerful position could use their influence to benefit their own financial holdings or those of companies they are affiliated with. This is especially relevant given that Medicare Advantage, a program he would oversee, allows customers to use prepaid cards to buy over-the-counter medicines and supplements—a market that companies like iHerb are in.
Mehmet Oz has publicly disclosed his financial interests. A financial filing shows that his investments in ‘iHerb’ represented one of his largest financial holdings. In a filing with the Office of Government Ethics, Oz has committed to divesting his equity holdings in healthcare companies, including his iHerb stock, within 90 days of confirmation. He has also pledged to resign from his advisory role with ‘iHerb’. The Office of Government Ethics has stated that based on its review, it believes Oz is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations concerning conflicts of interest. The situation remains a point of public discussion and has drawn the attention of consumer advocacy groups. For example, the group Public Citizen has asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate whether Oz’s social media posts promoting iHerb violated FTC guidelines on undisclosed endorsements, as his posts did not always clearly state his financial connection to the company.
Based on current public information, there are serious questions and concerns about whether Mehmet Oz has divested all of his interests as pledged, particularly with respect to his holdings in ‘iHerb’. The latest publicly available filings detail his assets and his intent to divest, but do not show the final completed sale. iHerb itself has publicly stated that the company is no longer affiliated with Dr. Oz and is not working with him or the administration. However, this does not independently confirm the liquidation of his personal vested stock.
A failure to timely follow the pledge can and should trigger a chain of events that leads to serious civil and criminal penalties, as well as significant political repercussions.
Consider the case of a women who is 3 months pregnant and develops a high and persistent fever (by no means a rare event). Her doctor diagnoses a strep throat and treats her with antibiotics. For lowering her temperature, he would normally have advised paracetamol (acetaminophen). After this was pronounced prohibitively dangerous, he has 3 options:
- Give no medicine for the fever.
- Give Aspirin.
- Give ibuprofen.
What are the risks involved in these three options?
1. Give no medicine for the fever
High or sustained fever, especially in the first trimester (which the patient is nearing the end of or just finished), has been associated with an increased risk of certain birth defects, including neural tube defects, heart defects, and cleft lip/palate.
2. Give Aspirin
The use of Aspirin during pregnancy, especially at higher doses (not the low dose often used for preeclampsia prevention), carries the following risks:
- Higher doses of aspirin during early pregnancy raise the risk of pregnancy loss and congenital defects.
- Higher doses of aspirin are also associated with premature closure of the ductus arteriosus (a fetal heart vessel), fetal kidney problems, and increased bleeding risk for both mother and baby.
Low-dose aspirin is considered safe but may not affect the fever.
3. Give Ibuprofen
- Some studies suggest an increased risk of miscarriage, if taken around conception or over a long period, though evidence is conflicting.
- Ibuprofen is contraindicated in the third trimester (after 28 weeks) due to the risk of fetal renal dysfunction, premature closure of the ductus arteriosus or inhibition of uterine contractions.
What are the consequences?
One can extrapolate that an adherence to a “no paracetamol” policy to treat fever in pregnancy would likely have the following effects in the US:
- Over a thousand additional severe birth defects per year that might have been prevented by safely treating a high fever, especially in the first trimester.
- Many thousands of additional cases of preterm labor/delivery caused by untreated maternal fever later in pregnancy.
- A significant increase in the use of the riskier medicines such as ibuprofen or Aspirin which are associated with fetal risks, leading to hundreds of new cases of fetal kidney and cardiac issues.
In other words, persuading pregnant women to forgo the safest, most effective fever reducer would cause thousands of severe, preventable fetal adverse outcomes per year. This would far outweigh the unproven or even disproven risk of autism from short-term, appropriate paracetamol use.
For many years, I have fought aginst the looming age of unreason in healthcare. Now it seems more and more clear to me that the age of unreason is upon us – not merely in the realm of healthcare but in all spheres of life.
- The world’s foremost conman tells the UN assembly that climate change is a con.
- As though that is not bad enough, the delegates do not even get up and leave the room in protest.
- RFKJr tells the world that paracetamol is the cause of autism, thus contradicting the best available evidence.
- As though that is not bad enough, he also announces that leucovorin is the cure, thus contradicting the best available evidence..
- In Germany, the country that only a few decades ago committed unprecedented crimes against humanity in the name of Nazi ideology, larger and larger sections again vote for Nazis.
- In the UK, Nigel Farage who nearly ruined the country wth his Brexit, is now a serious contender for the post of PM.
- A US celebrity fascist is assassinated and instantly becomes a national hero.
- A US TV-host suggests to euthanize all homeless people.
- Another one says the UN building should be bombed.
- Trump insists that Zelensky started the war with Russia.
- The Indian AYUSH ministry promotes homeopathy as a treatment for COVID and other serious diseases.
- RFKJr believes that vaccinations do more harm than good and elevates this notion to a political movement.
These are just a few specific examples form an almost endless pool of options. They serve to support the more general arguments suggesting that the age of unreason is indeed upon us. These are based on a long list of inter-related phenomena (in no particular order):
- Proliferation of deliberate misinformation.
- Disregard for verifiable evidence by political figures and many others.
- Prioritization of strongly held personal feelings or emotions above reasoned deliberation or dispassionate analysis.
- Widespread distrust towards established institutions and experts.
- Rejection of consensus knowledge.
- Failure to equip citizens with the necessary skills to evaluate sources and discern bias.
- Headline-driven nature of modern communication.
- Immediate emotional reaction over in-depth and considered analysis.
- Widespread acceptance of irrational conspiracy theories.
- Public embrace of anti-intellectual attitudes.
- Proliferation of bullshit.
So, is the age of unreason upon us?
Please decide for yourself.
Chiropractors and homeopaths are trusted sources of health information for many Canadians, including around vaccination. However, within Ontario, Canada, the College of Chiropractors of Ontario and the College of Homeopaths of Ontario regulations state that vaccines are not within their scope of practice and providers should not express views, treat, or advise patients with respect to vaccination.
The aims of the present study were to:
- (1) describe the attitudes and beliefs regarding vaccination held among participating chiropractors and homeopaths;
- (2) identify the sources of information about vaccination they trust and use to guide their personal vaccination decisions;
- (3) describe how they navigate patient requests for guidance on vaccine decision-making within the current regulatory landscape.
Semi-structured interviews (N = 16) were conducted between February 2020-March 2021 and explored participants’ opinions on vaccination, sources of information they trust and recommend to their patients, and how they navigate vaccine conversations with patients.
Providers’ personal beliefs regarding vaccination were described as reinforced by social and professional networks, through their personal experiences, and in consultation with clients. Various strategies were used to support patients while abiding by regulations (e.g. referring patients to providers for whom vaccination is within their scope of practice); however, other strategies described (e.g., stating personal beliefs) could be interpreted as a breach of regulation.
The authors conclused that this research reinforces existing literature suggesting that patients using chiropractors and homeopaths have questions about vaccination and are looking for trusted information. Public health services should consider engaging with chiropractors and homeopaths to facilitate communication between patients and immunization providers.
I ask myself whether any reliable evidence can come out of an interview study of 16 practitioners conducted almost 5 years ago. In the discussion section, the authors state this:
Various strategies were used by chiropractors and homeopaths to support patients while abiding by their professional scope of practice guidelines, limiting their capacity to provide recommendations for vaccination. Despite incidences of breaches in regulation, there may be opportunities for these providers to play a role in vaccine promotion. Many chiropractors and homeopaths report an interest from their clients for information about vaccination to guide their decision-making. Regulatory frameworks might be revised to permit them to refer to resources promoting vaccine uptake (i.e., NACI, government websites, etc.). There will no doubt remain challenges to such pathways, as hurdles remain related to persistent distrust in public health interventions and vaccination, and providers who continue to breach regulation. However, it is possible that in partnering with chiropractors and homeopaths, and though beyond our data, perhaps other CAM providers, public health providers might grow trust in their patients as a means for vaccine promotion.
I would have thought that the main issue regarding informing patients about vaccination – or any other health-relaated matter – is reliability: the public needs information based on sound evidence. We know from many studies that homeopaths and chiropractors often do believe in lots of things other than or contrary to evidence. Therefore, I feel that partnering with chiropractors and homeopaths would require first of all that these practitioners alter their stance on evidence. As both chiropractors and homeopaths work in anti-science professions and environments, this seems to be an insurmountable task. The last thing we need is a bunch of charlatans increasing the already huge amount of misinformation consumers are exposed to currently.
Recently, he has been in the news mainly because of his statements on COVID-19 vaccines:
- Malhotra was a prominent speaker at the Reform UK party conference in September 2025. During his main-stage speech, he made headlines by claiming that the COVID-19 vaccine was a “significant factor” in the cancer of members of the royal family.
- Malhotra was appointed as Chief Medical Adviser to the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) campaign group. This group was co-founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is the current US Health Secretary.
- Following his statements at the Reform UK conference, the General Medical Council (GMC) confirmed that it is examining his comments to determine if they warrant action.
- This is not the first time Malhotra has been reported to the GMC over his views on COVID-19 vaccines. A previous complaint was made in 2022 and 2023, and in 2024, the GMC acknowledged it had made an “error” in not investigating the matter sooner, stating it would reconsider its review.
- Malhotra is a regular guest on various media outlets and podcasts, often those with a right-leaning or anti-establishment audience, to promote his views on the COVID-19 vaccine. This includes interviews with UK newspapers like The Telegraph, where he claimed the vaccine had “done more harm than good.”
I am seriously puzzled by Malhotra: what turns an evidently decent cardiologist into a raving anti-vaxxer? When looking him up on ‘X’, I found his comment from October 2022:
It thus seems that, when Malhotra was mourning his father’s death, he made a vow. He believes that his father’s death was a result of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and publicly stated that his father, who had a history of heart disease, suffered a sudden cardiac arrest 6 months after receiving his second dose of the vaccine.
Before that sad event, Malhotra had been an advocate of vaccinations. But now he argued that the mRNA vaccines carry a significant risk of cardiovascular harm and that the risks outweigh the benefits for many people, especially younger individuals. He thus has repeatedly called for a global pause on the use of mRNA vaccines.
Yet, the overwhelming evidence shows that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, and that the benefits far outweigh the risks. True, a very small number of cases of myocarditis have been linked to the mRNA vaccines, but this condition is usually mild and much more common and severe with COVID-19 infections of unvaccinated people.
Consequently, Malhortra’s views have been described as dangerous misinformation by many experts. A junior doctor has even launched a legal challenge against the UK General Medical Council for its refusal to investigate Malhotra’s misinformation.
Altogether this is a sad story, I find. A young man you really should know better gets blinded by a very powerful and painful anecdote. This experience and his seemingly insatiable need to be in the limelight accelerate his descent into unreason and destroy his initially promising career. As a result, the health of millions is endangered. Tragic!
The use of homeopathy in agriculture is called ‘agrohomeopathy‘. Apparently, it is popular! Advocates believe that they can treat or prevent diseases of plants by applying homeopathic preparations. When I last looked, there was no sound evidence to support this notion, of course. Recently, a new study of agrohomeopathy was published – will it change my view?
Look for yourself, here is its abstract:
The organic cultivation of chives is on the rise due to the demand from health-conscious and sustainability-minded consumers. However, anthracnose, caused by fungi, has been harming the productivity and quality of the plants, with no registered fungicide options. Organic alternatives such as neem oil and sulfocalcic broth are insufficient. Homeopathy, permitted in organic farming, is a promising approach to strengthen plants against diseases and detoxification. This study, conducted in Rio Branco-Acre, at the Seridó ecological site, from December 2022 to March 2023, in covered beds fertilized with 15 t ha-1 of organic compost on a dry basis, involved the application of dynamizations of Carbo Vegetabilis at different concentrations (CH6, CH12, CH18, CH24, and CH30). It did not show a significant impact on productivity or anthracnose control. Leaf losses were high, reaching 65.3%, due to local conditions favorable to Colletotrichum. Anthracnose, challenging due to the lack of specific control methods, may not be adequately addressed by homeopathy in all situations, especially in unfavorable locations. In summary, the study highlights the need to explore disease management strategies specific to the organic cultivation environment. Despite inconclusive results with homeopathic Carbo Vegetabilis, ongoing research can improve the application of homeopathy and other techniques to promote sustainable organic chive production.
Don’t we just love the way enthusiasts of homeopathy call even a squarely negative study “inconclusive”. In turn, they tend to call any fatally flawed trial with a hint of a positive effect solid proof for the effectiveness of homeopathy. Few things reveal more clearly, I feel, how deluded they truly are.
Needless to mention that, both from a scientific point of view as well as from a proper understanding of Hahnemann’s homeopathy, agrohomeopathy is a nonsensical and ridiculous impossibility.
As predicted in my post yesterday, Donald Trump, Mehmet Oz and Robert F Kennedy Jr made an announcement on Monday at the White House, advising pregnant women to avoid taking paracetamol and claiming that it heightens the risk of autism. As pointed out in yesterday’s post, this assertion is not based on reliable evidence.
Specifically, like a trio of charlatans, they misled the public by claiming that the use of paracetamol during pregnancy is linked to autism and that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would be advising doctors to minimize its use. Also as predicted, they promoted leucovorin as an autism treatment, a claim equally not supported by reliable evidence. Finally, Trump repeated long-debunked claims that ingredients in vaccines or timing shots close together could contribute to rising rates of autism in the U.S., without providing any medical evidence.
Several medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Pediatrics, swiftly condemned these statements as “irresponsible” and not backed by sound scientific evidence. They emphasized that a causal link between paracetamol and autism has not been established. New York University bioethicist Art Caplan said it was “the saddest display of a lack of evidence, rumors, recycling old myths, lousy advice, outright lies, and dangerous advice I have ever witnessed by anyone in authority.” Health regulators in other countries, such as the UK and Australia, also reiterated their guidance that paracetamol is safe for use during pregnancy. The overwhelming consensus among the global scientific community is that paracetamol remains the safest pain relief option for pregnant women when used as directed. Untreated pain and fever during pregnancy can pose more significant risks to both the mother and the unborn baby.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is of course well-known for making millions by promoting every form of quackery on the planet, discussed the decision to have government health programs like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) cover the cost of leucovorin, i.e. folinic acid, for the treatment of autism. He stated that this move would ensure access to the drug for millions of children and that he expected private insurance companies to follow suit. Yet, the use of leucovorin for autism is considered highly controversial, as pointed out in yesterday’s post. It is not widely accepted by the scientific community and, if effective at all, can work only for a small sub-set of autistic patients. Even for them, it is not a cure and would only be helpful for certain symptoms.
So, why mislead the public in this way?
One reason could be that the company, “iHerb” for which Mehmet Oz is “Global Advisor & Stakeholder”, sells no less than 4 supplements with a version of leucovorin. The announcement from the White House and the administration’s push for the drug therefore raise serious questions and concerns about conflicts of interest and corruption.
Trump said it more than once, for instance here, that on Monday [today] he will announce the true cause of autism: “I think we found an answer to autism. How about that? Autism. Tomorrow, we’re going to be talking in the Oval Office and the White House about autism, how it happens, so we won’t let it happen anymore. And how to get at least somewhat better when you have it so that parents can help their child, their beautiful child,” Trump said. Elsewhere he and his minons claimed that it will be based on the most comprehensive analysis ever conducted. It was also hinted that the cause will NOT be a vaccine!
So what will it be?
There have been multiple reports that Trump will claim that paracetamol taken during pregnancy causes autism.
And it gets better: it is being speculated that they also have identified a cure: leucovorin! This drug is essentiall folinic acid; Medline lists over 20 papers suggesting it might be helpful for children with autism. For example, one RCT showed that the change in CARS score was higher in the folinic acid group (3.6 ± 0.8) compared to the placebo group (2.4 ± 0.7, p < 0.001). The theory behind using leucovorin for autism is that some individuals with the condition have a metabolic abnormality called cerebral folate deficiency. In these cases, the brain has low levels of folate (a crucial nutrient for brain development) despite normal folate levels in the rest of the body. This can be caused by the immune system producing antibodies that block the transport of folate into the brain. Leucovorin, a form of folate, can bypass this blockage and help restore folate levels in the brain. However, the claim that leucovorin cures autism is unfounded. There merely is promising, albeit limited, evidence to suggest that it may be an effective treatment for specific symptoms in a subgroup of individuals with autism who have an underlying folate metabolism abnormality.
The paracetamol claim aligns with a recent review by Mount Sinai and Harvard researchers that suggested a possible link between prenatal acetaminophen use and an increased risk of autism and ADHD. Its authors found an increased risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes following prenatal APAP exposure. Further studies are urgently needed with; precise indication of use and exposure assessment of use both in utero and in early life. Given the current findings, pregnant women should be cautioned against indiscriminate use of APAP. These results have substantial public health implications. Officials might therefore plan to advise pregnant women to avoid using the drug in pregnancy.
Yet, there is contradicting evidence too: a large sibling study from Drexel University and Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet published in April 2024, for example, found no evidence to support a causal link between the drug’s use during pregnancy and an increased risk of autism. And just days ago, Japanese and US authors concluded that although PS-matched analyses indicated small increases in risk, sensitivity analyses suggested that unmeasured confounding, misclassification and other biases may partially explain these associations.
So, whatever Trump’s big announcement will claim, it might neither be conclusive nor new nor innovative. But it will certainly be a big show trying to highlight the achievements of his administration.
I for one advise caution: the claim that paracetamol causes autism is not supported by a scientific consensus. While some studies have shown an association, others, including large-scale and more reliable sibling studies, have cast doubt on a direct causal link, suggesting that other underlying factors may be at play. I might remind Trump, RFKJr and his team of pseudoscientists of two things:
CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION
and
REAL SCIENCE RELIES ON RIGOROUS RESEARCH AND NOT ON POLITICAL THEATRE
Iridology is an assessment technique that involves examining the iris allegedly to identify potential pathological disorders. Despite being practised for centuries, the effectiveness of iris diagnosis as a diagnostic tool remains doubtful, primarily due to limited empirical evidence supporting its claims. Thus, there is a need for scientific studies to test the efficacy of iridology assessment.
This study aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of iridology assessment in detecting abnormalities in the female reproductive system.
This cross-sectional observational study included 100 female participants. All participants underwent an iris examination, a clinical assessment, and ultrasonography. The results from these investigations were compared, and sensitivity and specificity rates were calculated using standard formulas.
The study found that iridology assessment demonstrated a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 56% in detecting abnormalities within the female reproductive system.
The authors concluded that their findings suggest that iridology assessment may serve as a potentially useful complementary tool for detecting abnormalities in the female reproductive system. However, further research is essential to confirm the effectiveness of this method and to explore its potential benefits and limitations in gynecological diagnosis. Continued scientific investigation is crucial to establish the role of iridology assessment in enhancing gynecological healthcare.
The authors of this study published in “Advances in Integrative Medicine” list the following affiliations:
- Department of Naturopathy, Government Yoga and Naturopathy Medical College, The Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India
- Department of Research, Government Yoga and Naturopathy Medical College, The Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India
- Department of Yoga, Government Yoga and Naturopathy Medical College, The Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India
- Department of Women and Child Care, National Institute of Naturopathy, Pune, Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India, India
I fear that this does not inspire me with confidence. But let’s have a look at the actual study.
The first thing that strikes me is the fact that there are many dozens of abnormalities in the female reproductive system. It seems oddly unscientific that the Indian researchers did not bother to define one single disorder. This gets even weirder when we realize that many of the abnormalities in the female reproductive system are easily recognisable or guessable without any diagnostic procedure upon first encountering the patient.
What I am trying to explain: the iridologists probably used all sorts of clues to guess which group each patient belonged to. In any case, the study is so poorly conceived and described that we really cannot be sure what happened.
But why am I so critical? Perhaps iridology is a useful diagnostic tool after all?
I find this possibility highly unlikely, and here is why:
Iridology was invented by a Hungarian homeopath in the late 19th century who thought to observe changes in the iris of an owl during the recovery of the animal after it had broken a leg. Iridologists believe that the iris is a ‘mirror of our body’. Any relevant abnormality on the right half of the body will reveal itself on the right iris and problems on the left side will show up on the left iris. They assume that the iris is linked via multiple nerve connections to all organs and believe that any bodily malfunction will thus be represented as abnormalities of pigmentation on the iris. These assumptions are not in keeping with basic anatomy or physiology and thus lack plausibility.
Iridologists have produced detailed maps of the iris where each iris is divided in 60 sectors (much like the face of a clock) and each segment is related to an inner organ or bodily function (for instance, heart diseases are thus seen in the left iris somewhere between two and three o’clock). Iridologists either study the iris in situ or they produce high-quality colour photographs of both irides for detailed inspection. Several studies have tested the validity of iridology. My systematic review of these data concluded that “the validity of iridology as a diagnostic tool is not supported by scientific evaluations. Patients and therapists should be discouraged from using this method.”
A final thought: if iridology were a valid diagnostic tool, this would be a scientific sensation, and the study proving it would get published in journals like SCIENCE or NATURE and not in s 3rd class SCAM journal.
I REST MY CASE.
