The majority of
medical doctors reject all the claims of all branches of iridology and label them as
pseudoscience or even
quackery.
[3] Iridologists are rarely physicians. Iridology is only studied at private institutions, and it is not taught at medical schools.
Critics, including most practitioners of mainstream medicine, dismiss iridology as published studies have indicated a lack of success for its claims.
Clinical data does not support any correlation between illness in the body and coinciding observable changes in the iris. In controlled experiments,
[4] practitioners of iridology have performed statistically no better than chance in determining the presence of a disease or condition solely through observation of the iris.
It has been pointed out that the premise of iridology is at odds with the notion that the iris does not undergo changes in an individual’s life. Iris texture is a
phenotypical feature which develops during
gestation and remains unchanged after birth. There is no evidence for changes in the iris pattern other than variations in pigmentation in the first year of life, eventual
freckles and variations caused by
glaucoma treatment. This stability of iris structures is at the foundation of
iris recognition for identification purposes
[5][6].