"Bob Officer" -*-*.@.*-*- wrote in message ...
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:04:43 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:
"Bob Officer" -*-*.@.*-*- wrote in message ...
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:28:00 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:
"Bob Officer" [email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:22:14 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:
According to a book that I have called The Science and Practice of Iridology
by Bernard Jensen, where he consistently talks about
iris changes caused by both disease and healing.
So who do we believe, Bernard Jensen or Joshua David Mather Sr.?
http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...nfessions.html
I can't recall ever seeing this confession before.
Who was/is Joshua David Mather Snr?
Do check your short term memory , Carole. you replied to a post
yesterday or so which you referred to Mather.
But I mean who is he and what does he do other than debunk iridology?
He was a certified iridologist that blew the whistle on the whole
scam.
You see Mather standardized a photographic system for use with
iridology.
That's what he tells us. However, how do we know he is telling
the truth?
1) It is a well known fact as the temperature of the lights change
the very subtle changes in the color of reflected light changes. That
is why photographers use battery powered lights and calibrated light
sources. and they control the colors of the reflectors they use to
bounce the light.
I understand that, and an iridologist will have a good light source or a flash on the camera.
1a. The angle a person is viewing the iris is not standardized and
not one bit of the literature mentions the need to any sort of
standardization or need for it, ignoring this little fact. Much of
what about iridology is written is more about the need to search for
differences. (Remember those fallacies? do you recalled which one
this is?)
The iridologist searches for irregularities. Some are genetic and some are acquired.
The first thing an iridologist looks for is the density of the iris.
http://www.nurturahealth.com.au/inde...ting-iridology - see down the page diagram showing 5 different degrees of
density.
Good density is where the fibres are close together and evenly spaced, poor density shows the fibres clumped with open spaces.
People with good density have good constitutions and can handle a lot more than people with poor density.
2. His claim is supported other studies and data dealing with
photography of the eye and iris. Just because those studies are not
in the field of medicine or iridology doesn't invalidate that
information. That data is free to be examined, tested or retested.
3.Have you read about iris scanners. They just wouldn't work if the
theory of iridology was true. Can you imaging a person having a cold
and the Iris Scanner failing to work?
There's a lot of things I don't know about iris scanners eg, if an iris photo is good for life or if the images need to be updated
from time to time.
The iris does change as people age for example, and clear eyes can become cloudy and discolored.
Once he started recording the iris using a standardized system, and
continued to use the same standardized system every time. Same
colored ceilings and walls, same "temperature of light", same angles
of incidence for the lights same camera angles, the differences he
had been charting all disappeared.
Mather "discover" what has been known for a while. The structure of
the Iris remains unchanged over a lifetime.
According to iridology if the right healing measures are used, the
iris responds with healing signs.
But using a standardize system, there are no changes and no response.
This falsifies the principle of iridology, no matter how you try to
rationalize it away.
But is this true?
I don't know that it is and would want to hear more opinions because Mather may or may not be a real person, he could be a
disinformation agent for the purpose of discrediting iridology as an alternative remedy --and we know there has been enough of that
going on over the years.
We don't know who Mather really was other than what he tells us, and
you mean "I" Carole. It is good you are being skeptical. why don't
you use the skepticism in the 1st place? Could it be because it fit
inside your belief system and personal bias?
You are the one with the personal bias bob.
The reason I am skeptical in this instance is because there are many disinformation agents who would sell their souls for a couple
of bucks and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.
we don't know that he was a competent naturapath except that he
tells us.
He was certified by the same bodies that certify most naturalpaths.
And what is our opinion of most naturapaths?
Some are good and some aren't.
I have met some who don't seem to be any good, who don't seem to understand the underlying issues and how to fix it.
Cue Carole's cluelessness about eye structure and other anatomy.
I'm not just going to fall in line with you over this Mather
confession.
I don't know that its true and it could just be another bit of
crap written by some pharmaceutical dupe to discredit alternative
medicine --its such a nice touch that he is a christian. Who
wouldn't trust the words of somebody who loved the lord?
and Carole begins her defense of her preconceived notions, but only
makes herself "shown to be an idiot" again.
Well I'm not going to fall in line with your preconceived notions just because you want me to.
The reasons that Mather might not have gotten results with iridology is because he didn't know how to initiate a healing crisis.
Bernard Jensen talks about fasting as being the fastest way to initiate a healing crisis - which may or may not be the best way for
everybody. Its not for everybody.
What can be said is the iris does change over a person's lifetime.
No, Carole it doesn't. there is zero evidence that it changes at all.
Yeah right bob, like there is zero evidence for homeopathy ...heard it all before and its totally uninformed and ignorant.
It can become darker, lighter, develop acid overlays, shows the
This isn't the iris, Carole. I suggest you get a good book on eye
anatomy.
I know what an iris is bob, but doesn't sound like you do. The iris is the coloured bit, the pupil is the little black dot in the
middle, and the white part of the eye is the schlera as in schleradology.
distended intestinal area. However, what is in dispute is whether
the iris fibres change or show healing signs in the right
conditions.
empty and claims not supported by evidence... It is called empty had
waving, Carole.
Do I have to point out again, that your allopathic evidence isn't all its cracked up to be with 90% of scientific studies being
flawed in some way.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-science/8269/
Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
"Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors-to a
striking extent-still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging
his peers by exposing their bad science."
Frankly, I have no actual firsthand experience to
say one way or another if the fibres change other than what I've read
by iridologists. More research required.
And now the waffle dance...
Better than the dance of the ignoramus.
Good luck, start with getting a good text book on the anatomy of the
eye.
I'll start where I start bob, and it won't be where you tell me to and the point is bob, that the information available in this
world is so stuffed and wrong in just about every avenue of enquiry, that a person really needs to go back to scratch rather than
listen to "experts" and "reliable sources".
--
Carole
www.conspiracee.com
"The unaware are unaware that they are unaware." Merril M.E. Jenkins Sr