A Clinical Study of Hospitalized Patients
Translated from the original Spanish Manuscript
By Josep Lluis Berdonces Serra (M.D., Iridologist)
Josep Lluis Berdonces works as an M.D. in primary health care at the town of Agillana, Spain and is a member of the Spanish Association of Naturist M.D.'s and editor of the Spanish Journal Natura Medicatrix. He has been working in the field of Iridology since 1977, using it in allopathic and naturopathic medicine. He is currently starting a natural health clinic in La Mota (Girona), the first of its kind in Spain. The author is an M.D., Doctor of Medicine by the University of Madrid, and specialist in hydrology by the French University of Montpelier. He has lectured and taught courses about iridology in many cities of Spain.
Introduction
This work s the second part of study previous published in Iridology Review. (Refer to Iridology Review, Vol 2, No I) It is meant to be a follow-up work in a long term study covering different pathologies of hospitalized patients, with a goal being to find the differences in iris structure of different patients with different diseases that are diagnosed by classical methods.
In the first part, I made an iridologic examination and posterior statistic of seventeen patients interned in the Respiratory Service of the "Santa Creu i Sant Pau" hospital of Barcelona (Spain). Because of the low number of patients studied, this work had more orientation than a demonstrative conclusion, but we were able to establish the methodology, and then to correct the errors of the attempt.
In this second part, I have established 50 patients as a number sufficient for demonstrating conclusions. The final tally was 47, also interned in the "Santa Creu i Sant Pau" Hospital of Barcelona.
MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY
I will only discuss the differences with the previous work, because I have already discussed in that work the instruments and methodology used.
The iridologic signs evaluated in his work are:
Skin ring (or scurf Ring)
Cholesterol ring (or Calcium-Sodium ring)
Arcus Senilis
Anisochoria (unequal width of pupil)
Pupil deformation
Pupil decentering
Degree of pupil contraction
Solar rays (Radii solaris), specifying if it were *minor* or *major*.
Pigmented spots, specifying the color, according to the German
classification (Deck, and others): Urosein, Fucsin, Porphyrin, and
Melanin.
Discoloration
Parasympathetic tonus
Sympathetic tonus
Sympathetic - Parasympathetic balance
Neurovegetative Dystonias
We have excluded in this evaluation the sectorial iris analysis,
giving the priority to the general signs, without a topographic localization.
The only exception to this is the sign, Toxemia, because its localization is mostly in the central zone of the iris, related to the digestive system.
The reason for this exclusion is simple. I anticipated a more exhaustive work using a computer, attempting to interrelate the findings with the clinical history made by the physicians in the Hospital. These relationships are very difficult to establish without hardware support.
[In this regard, please note that the primary purpose of this work is not to determine if the iris map is true or not; but only to attempt to find out if there are any ins signs that can orientate us to specific pathologies.]
Unlike the previous work, there are some different criteria in the determination of signs that I would like to mention here:
Solar rays (radii solaris): The solar rays are radial furrows crossing the iris. I have evaluated their occurrence as in the previous work, but I've also classified them into minor type and major type. The minor solar rays begin in the pupillary rim and extend to the iris wreath (collarette). The major ones begin at the iris wreath and extend to the periphery. I have evaluated their importance on a scale of 0 to 4.
Toxic or Pigmented spots: These are the abnormal iris spots or colorations. I have also classified them in relation to their color, following the indications of Josef Deck, and other authors of the German School of Iridology. Deck teaches that the brownish and reddish spots indicate a hepato-pancreatic disease (digestive, in this work). The classifications are: Uroseine fellow, ochre), Rufine (Ochre, brownish), Fucsin (Brown-reddish), Porphyrin (Brown) and Melanin (Brown-black).
It was very difficult to differentiate among many of the different spots. In the case of doubt, I have included them in two categories. I find that it is not a bias in statistic, because Deck also indicates that any toxic spot in the iris can be interpreted as digestive, more specifically, the porphyrinic and fucsinic ones. Their evaluation was made also on a scale of 0 to 4points.
EVALUATION SCALE
In the majority of data, the evaluation scale was 0-4, but in two patients we have noted 5 due to the fact that the sign was exceptional, and was a fundamental part of the iridologic analysis in the case.
These were as follows:
One patient with extreme mydriasis, noted as 5, that also reflected in the sign, "pupil contraction = -5; "parasympathetic tonus = -5"; and "neurovegetative balance = -5". These signs are evaluated mainly by the degree of pupil contraction.
Second patient with a very big porphyrinic spot, noted 5, that was also reflected in the signs "toxinic spots =5" and porphyrinic spots =5".
PHOTOGRAPHY
I have constructed a portable camera of iris photography (in the previous study it was not portable). The fact that the camera was portable gave me the opportunity of taking the photos of all the patients, including the bed patients. The result, however, was a higher percentage of blurred photos than in the previous work. Apart from that, results were satisfactory.
The camera system was made of:
Canon AV-1 box camera
Non automatic extension bellows
Inversion ring
F 50 mm. and 1 : 1.8 Canon lenses
Auto-Macro Canon ring
Double shooting wire
DLA 30 Manual Flash (Metz)
I always used the same film (AGFACHROME 100 ASA/21 DIN), with the only exception of 1 film FUJICHROME. All the photos were slides due to their better quality in color and clarity.
One time the film was incorrectly exposed and the slides were somewhat dark. In these slides I have evaluated all the iris signs that were possible. This darkening of the slides doesn't affect the results due to the fact that it can lead to false negatives, but never to false positives. This is especially true for the signs: Toxemia, Skin ring, Solar rays and Toxinic spots.
All the slides were made with the approval of the patients, with full disclosure as to findings. The clinical data was copied from the clinical histories of the patients taken by the hospital physicians.
The number of patients each time was 15 or fewer, and so I returned until 47 patients were studied. The statistical evaluations were made separately for each set of trials.
STATISTICS AND IRIDOLOGIC ANALYSIS
The iris analysis was made without either previous knowledge of the pathology of the patient, or any exploratory findings. It was known that each was a digestive patient, but not what type of disease was Present. For this reason it can be classified a "simple blind" study. Each pair of slides was observed an average of 40 minutes, looking for general and sectorial iris signs. Only the general signs were used for this study.
I attempted to use the same evaluation criteria as in the previous study, only widening the criteria for the signs explained before.
Accordingly I made the four statistical tables corresponding to the four subgroups and finally a general table with the mean of the four groups.
RESULTS
In Table 1 you can see the general data of this study. The general arithmetic mean gives us information about the importance of the sign in the goup. The significant differences of each sign will be commented on later, giving the comparison among the four different sub-groups. With the Local Mean I want to expose the degree of presentation of the iris sign in the irises who were positive to that sign. It is the local arithmetic mean for "positives" (arithmetic general mean x (1/Incidence)). In signs that are rare in presentation I've given standards for evaluating the relevance of the iris sign.
Table I: Iridographic analysis of 47 patients hospitalized for digestive diseases. Classified among certain iris signs, and exposing the general arithmetic mean and the local arithmetic mean for each sign. The two later columns gives us information about the capability of detecting iris signs.
Sign General local Incidence %
*Pupillary Sign Arith. Mean Analyzed
Mean 0 to 4 Mean %
0 to 4
Age 58.26 - - -
Density 2.47 2.47 100 97.87
Toxmia 2.71 2.76 97.83 97.87
Nervous rings 1.88 2.01 93.48 97.87
Skin ring 1.05 1.48 70.45 93.61
Sodium ring 0.70 1.94 36.17 100
Anisochoria* 0.625 1.48 42.04 93.61
Deformation 1.30 2.09 62.19 87.23
Decentering* 0.58 1.56 37.21 91.48
Contraction* -0.01 -0.02 43.62 100
Solar Rays 0.625 1.38 45 85.10
-minor 0.45 1.74 25.81 65.95
-major 0.48 1.66 29.03 65.95
Lymphatic Rosary 0.43 1.40 30 95.74
Toxinic Spots 1.87 2.59 72.09 91.48
-Porphyrin 1.42 3.00 47.43 82.97
-Urosein 0.16 2.00 8.10 78.72
-Rufin 0.38 2.3 16.22 78.72
-Fucsin 0.16 2.00 8.10 78.72
-Melanin 0.33 1.47 22.97 78.72
Total non-
porphrinic spots 0.91 1.97 46.05 80.25
Discolorations 1.57 2.23 70.27 78.72
Parasympathetic
Tonus* 0.08 0.15 54.65 91.48
Sympathetic -0.19 -0.27 67.44 91.48
Neurovegetative
Balance -0.35 -0.5 69.04 89.36
Neurovegetative
Dystonia 0.39 1.21 31.82 93.61
The incidence informs us of the percentage of *positive* patients to that sign. There are several incidences that are not specifically true, as, for example in the sign Density, because all the irises had a density and never had 0 points, which represents an ideal that is not seen in clinical practice.
The Analyzed Percentage gives us the data on what percentage of patients could be analyzed in that sign, due essential to a technical deficiency in the photography (bad illumination or focusing...etc). It doesn't inform us about the fact that in certain cases only a part of the iris could be analyzed because of closing of eyelids, projection of eyebrows, and other problems. In many cases there's a difference in the illumination of the different zones in the iris, generally due to an excessive lateral lighting that projects shadows in the other side of the iris. The excess of lighting is in certain cases positive for determining the importance of the Scurf ring (cutaneous ring). The presence of somewhat "obscure" in the iris gives us more false negatives but never false positives, because you always miss the observation of certain signs.
In Table II we compare the Means of Table I with a classification for the four subgroups of observations. The signs in parenthesis or brackets ( ) tell us about the number of patients of each group. The group 2 had serious problems with the focusing and lighting of the photographs. For this reason, one can observe that the range of observations of the signs was lesser than in the three other subgroups, especially in the signs of pigmentation, as well as others not easy to see without adequate lighting and subject illumination. This leads us to higher degree of false negatives and not false positives, as can be with the three other subgroups.
Table II: Data classified in four subgroups of observations, and general mean. The number of patients for each group is seen in brackets ( ).
Sign General Subgroup No. (patients)
*pupillary 1 2 3 4
signs (47) (11) (14) (12)
Age 58.26 52.1 61.15 62 57.36
Density 2.47 2.45 2.46 2.65 2.58
Toxmia 2.71 2.73 2.66 2.75 2.91
Nervous rings 1.88 1.80 2.21 1.55 1.83
Skin ring 1.05 0.95 1.16 1.05 1.16
Sodium
(Cholestrol ring) 0.70 0.68 0.75 0.5 0.75
Arcus senilis 0.94 0.77 0.95 0.69 1.37
Anisochoria* 0.625 0.40 0.625 0.75 0.71
Deformation 1.30 1.33 1.05 1.25 1.54
Decentering* 0.58 0.31 0.91 0.5 0.5
Contraction* -0.01 0.09 -0.57 0.15 0.42
Solar Rays
(Radial Furrows) 0.625 1.50 0.55 0.4 0.9
-minor 0.45 1.125 0.22 0 0.5
-major 0.48 1.14 0.33 0.22 0.33
Lymphatic Rosary 0.43 0.70 0.27 0.25 0.54
Toxinic Spots 1.87 2.68 1.2 2.3 1.33
-Porphyrin 1.42 2.00 0.55 1.2 0.77
-Non-porphrinic spots 0.91 1.12 0.66 1.4 1.27
Discolorations 1.57 1.00 3.00 1.6 1.27
Parasympathetic
Tonus** 0.08 -0.05 -0.2 0.7 -0.08
Sympathetic Tonus -0.19 -0.45 0.04 -0.15 0.25
Neurovegetative
Balance** -0.35 -0.4 -0.15 -0.5 0.33
Neurovegetative
Dystonia 0.39 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.42
** Normally=0, Abnormalities + and - 2
We can conclude in the observation of Table II that there was an acceptable uniformity in the evaluation of the four different subgroups, in exception of No. 2 as I had commented before. Several iris signs had more uniformity than others. The uniformity in the four subgroups gives us proof of a good evaluation sign in Iridology. The four subgroups are not equal in pathology. In the first one there were more young people due to a different seasonal pathology. We all know these seasonal signs in ulcus duodenalis in springtime. We cannot forget that between group I and group 4 there was a time difference of 5 months.
Table III gives us the comparison of the signs with other work with respiratory patients also interned in the same hospital (BERDONCES, JL: An Iridologic Study of Hospitalized Respiratory Patients. Iridology, Review, Vol 2 No. 1,). There is a moderate difference in the age of patients. Respiratory patients are older, and this gives us the greater incidence of certain signs.
Table III: Comparison of data of digestive and respiratory patients from a previous work
Sign Digestive Respiratory Difference
Patients Patients
Age 58.26 64.3 -6.04
Density 2.47 2.55 -0.08
Toxemia 2.71 2.00 0.71
Nervous Rings 1.88 1.58 0.30
Skin Rings 1.05 1.74 0.69
Sodium Ring 0.70 1.68 -0.98
Arcus Senilis 0.94 1.55 -0.61
Solar rays 0.625 0.96 -0.33
Lympahtic Rosary 0.43 0.8(approx.) -0.37
Toxinic spots 1.87 1.32 0.55
Discolorations 1.57 1.05 0.52
Deformation* 1.30 1.00 .30
Decentering 0.58 0.3 0.28
Parasympathetic tonus 0.08 0.39 -0.31
Sympathetic tonus -0.19 0.35 -0.54
COMMENTARIES ON THE RESULTS
Density : I can subjective consider that the observed mean of Density is superior in normal people, but we haven't a control group. I think it would be very important to consider the gravity of the pathology of the patients. The General and Local Means for digestive and respiratory patients are somewhat uniform. These signs indicated to us the constitutional strength of the iris.. and of the body.
Toxemia : We can consider a significant difference in the mean of digestive and respiratory patients. We find (2.71) to digestive and (2.00) in respiratory patients. The four subgroups of digestive patients are uniform in its local Means. In the Natural system of healing, the toxemia indicates the degree of intoxication of the body, the accumulation of something wrong, that must be expelled out of the body. In Iridology we can observe the sign Toxemia as a central hyperpigmenration of the irises, giving them a dirty color.
Authors In Iridology say this indicates the problem of a burdening in several metabolic systems, especially of the digestive one, and that this leads to blood overload of catabolic waste of digestive origin. The central localization corresponds with the classical topography of the iris, locating the digstive system inside the Iris wreath. We all know that the liver diseases are, in most cases, creating a severe intoxication of catabolic substances in the body, a general toxemia. The liver incompetence, and in general, of all the digestive system, creates a default in nutrient assimilation. This produces higher concentration of byproducts of metabolism that are not toxic, but troublesome. I think that this is correct explanation of the toxemia in Iridology and its diagnostic direction.
Nerve Rings : There is a slightly higher General Mean for digestive patients (1.88) in relation to respiratory ones (1.58). The Local Means for the four subgroups were uniform. We cannot consider it a significant difference.
Scurf rim or skin ring : We find an important difference between digestive (1.05) and respiratory (1.74) groups. Many Iridologists interpret this sign as an insufficiency in the skin function, correlating it to organs similar in function, like kidneys (excretory function) and lung (CO2 excretion). In my daily practice, I have observed a more obvious Scurf ring in patients affected by allergic or lung diseases. The local Mean of the four subgroups was uniform, and I considered it as normal.
Sodium ring or Cholesterol ring: The highest difference between respiratory and digestive is found in this sign (0.70 for digestive and 1.68 for respiratory). Higher for the respiratory patients.
Arcus Senilis : Also an inportant difference, like the previous sign, but higher for digestive patients. We must consider that the age group was slightly higher for digestive patients. This sign usually develops with age.
Lymphatic Rosary: Very little significant difference showing here. In fact it was rather impossible to evaluate many of these patients because of the lighting situation.
Solar Rays (Radii solarii) : We haven't found any significant differences. The local Means for the four subgroups was not uniform. Low ranges in the punctuation.
Pigmented spots : Marked difference between these groups with the digestive group at (1.87) and the respiratory group at (1.32). There seem to have been a higher incidence of porphyrin spots as compared to all the others. Since we don't have enough data as far as the incidence of these spots in normal cases, we really can't come to any new conclusions. It is generally agreed by the majority of Iridologists that there is significance to these. The observation of these particular spots, however, is an area of debate with various interpretations and calls for more research on this sign in particular.
Discoloration: Here we have a higher incidence in digestive patients (1.57) as compared to respiratory patients (1.05). This sign usually denotes areas of loss of tissues in relation to certain somatotrophic areas of the iris. We have not evaluated this sectorial significance in this work and the local Means were dispersed.
Pupil deformation : No significant differences; uniformity in the different subgroups.
Pupil decentering : Same as before, little significant difference.
Parasympathetic tonus : We consider this sign as usually normal, in the proximity of balance (0). The Local Means were uniform, with the exception of subgroup 3.
Sympathetic tonus : Slightly higher difference; a marked hypotonus for digestive patients, and moderate hypertonus for respiratory ones. We consider this range in the normal.
Neurovegetative balance : Represents the combination of the two previous signs. Certain diseases can develop with a severe vagotony, and perhaps it can be observed in the iris.
Vegetative dystonia : Low range differences, near normal.
Pupil contraction : Normal ranges; we have not observed a general tendency towards myosis or mydriasis In one liver patent, as I explained before, I found an extreme midriasis (periportal fibrosis with macro-nodular evolution, age = 29 years).
Anisocoria : Normal ranges.
CONCLUSIONS
The results are in accord with the hypothesis of the earlier work, and support the classical findings in Iridology. The comparatively significant signs for digestive patients are the ones that are related to pigmentation (toxemia, toxinic spots and discoloration), in spite of the supposed higher degree of false negatives that we could have for these signs, due to the darkening of slides or iris areas.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Berdonces, JL: An Iridological study of hospitalized respiratory patients. Iridology Review, Vol.2, No.1, 4-7. Santa Fe, NM, USA Summer 1988.
Bourdiol R. Traite d'Irido-Diagnostic. Ed. Maisonneuve. Paris, France. 1975
Deck J. Grundlagen der Irisdiagnostik. (Differentiation of Iris Signs) Selbstverlag Josef Deck. Ettlington F.R. Germany.
Fragnay P.: Vous ne puvez plus ignorer l'Iridologie Ed camugli. Lyon France, 1979.
Guidoni J.: Que es la Iridologia Renovada? Natura Medicatrix, 1, - Barcelona Spain. Invierno 1983
Hall D.: Iridology Nelson Books, Melbourne Australia 1981
Haskell-Kritzer J: Iridiagnosis textbook. Kritzer Educational Foundation. Los Angeles. USA. 1948
Jaroszyc G.: Augendiagnostik. Medizin Verlag, E. Jaroszyc. Solms/lahn, F.R. Germany 1978.
Jensen B.: The Science and Practice of Iridology. Escondido, CA. USA.
Jhoudret, JC.: traite d'iridologie Medicale Pratique. Ed. Naturazur. Vence, France.
Piesse.: El papel del diagnostico por el iris en las terapias alternatives y su posible uso en Medicina general. Natura Medicatrix, No 12, Primavera 1986. Barcelona, Spain.
Rubin, M.: Manual Pratique d'Irisscopie. Maisonneuve ed. Paris, France. 1982
Schimmel, HW: Konstitution und Disposition aus Iris und Sklera. Pascoe Pharm Prap. Giessen, West Germany. Dec. 1984
Struck, H; Flink, E: Manual Practico de Iridodiagnostico. El Ateneo. Buenos Aires, Argentina. 1948
Velchover E: Sinotomas iridograficos del efecto depurativo de la dietoterapia de limpieza. Natura Medicatrix, No 6 Verano 1984. Barcelona, Spain.
postamble();
