as anyone experience on Equine Iridology?

BazzaEXTREME said:
As a vet I cannot sanction such heathen treatments, however I can give you my non-pro' analysis: I know naff all about Iridology, however I'm fully aware other alternatives work - for example you can learn a great deal from the smell, colour and taste of your horse's urine.
Click to expand...

He gets everywhere that Bazza, he knows the answers to everything:rolleyes:
 
Yes I had an iridology report done for my young horse. It's not a treatment - it's a report.

It was very accurate - it even accurately described the horse's temperament - a worrier thinker, which is exactly as he is. It reported a gut imbalance and asked if he had been on meds recently - he had just finished a 4 week course of GastroGard for ulcers. It also showed a pelvic misalignment both sides and also an injury to the upper right hand hind.
The iridologist could not tell me if the injury was causing any current problems. The left hand shoulder also showed as a problem area.

I showed the report to my vet. This was before my horse was referred to AHT and Sue Dysons lamenesss clinic at Newmarket. Interestingly he was diagnosed with chronic Sacro illiac dysfunction (right hand side)which also affected the diagonal and left shoulder. It took Sue Dyson a week to get him to show lame enough for her nerve blocks etc. The iridology report was extremely accurate. I naturally (if you have met Sue) did not show the report to Sue :D The report cost me under £30 - Sue's clinic £1,400.00 :)

I should add this was a new horse with no injury history - he had passed a 5 stage vetting too and then got very aggressive. He never looked really lame, just a bit stiff and was always bar once ok ridden. It was for the aggression that I went down the pain/problem route.
 
Last edited:
I've been to a fascinating lecture by Catherine Edwards - whilst I haven't used her services myself, a couple of my friends have and have found her report to be very acccurate.
 
BazzaEXTREME said:
Nothing can be proven, only disproven.
Click to expand...

Disproven to be "not-hogwash" then ;)

If I can provide statistically significant evidence that iridology is not a valid diagnostic tool, then I think we are justified, in the modern vernacular, to say "it is proven not to work". If you wish to argue over semantics then we must talk not of proven and disproven - as only a mathematician can truly provide "proof" - but of statistically significant evidence. I will try and repeat my earlier post in a more semantically correct manner.

There is statistically significant evidence that iridology is not a useful diagnostic aid in many conditions. Its use in every condition has not been studied, however, the implausability of its mechanisms, the lack of scientific foundation to any of its principles and the evidence available for those conditions for which it has been studied, mean that in all likelihood we are justified in making an assertion that it is ineffective as a diagnostic tool.
 
YasandCrystal: Would you be willing to post a scan of the report (with any identifying parts blocked out if necessary)?
 
100% bull.......A fool and their money is easily parted.

The Bottom Line QUACK QUACK QUACK

Iridology makes no anatomic or physiologic sense. It is not merely worthless. Incorrect diagnoses can unnecessarily frighten people, cause them to waste money seeking medical care for nonexistent conditions, or steer them away from necessary medical care when a real problem is overlooked.

Some multilevel distributors are using iridology as a basis for recommending dietary supplements and/or herbs. Anyone who does this and is not a licensed health professional would be guilty of practicing medicine without a license, which is a violation of the law.
 
Last edited:
alsiola said:
YasandCrystal: Would you be willing to post a scan of the report (with any identifying parts blocked out if necessary)?
Click to expand...

I would if the critique were a little more balanced and I thought sharing it would serve a good purpose, but since so many think it's codswallop - let them continue. My report will prove nothing to anyone else afterall will it? The significance of my report was a) that the iridologist saw and knew nothing more than some detailed photos of the horse's eyes and his name and b) the timing in that no referral or diagnosis has been made about the horse at the time the report was done. You only have my word on that.

I frankly couldn't give a flying monkey what anyone else thinks - the iridology report gave me the answers about my horse. It effectively stopped my horse being pts. Whether anyone on this forum believes or not is really of no concern to me. I am not trying to convert anyone - each to their own and I would never discount or poo poo something I had never tried myself, but of course many will. I also use a holistic vet and some of her methods are dismissed as 'impossible' by other conventional vets - the results she gets speak for themselves though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top