Iridology.

This is something I stumbled across and I'm not very good with posting links etc. but just wanted to put this 'out there' as it would bug me if I didn't. Basically, if you google Iridology, you'll find that the practise describes 'problems' within the body are reflected in the eyes and the eyes are a 'window' to a persons health. The way in which this *could* be relevant to MM is her 'coloboma' and where it is positioned within the iris, may reflect trauma to the area in her body around the 'reproductive' area (Iridology chart).

I'm not sure what I think of this myself but it's been bothering me for a week or so since I stumbled across it. Sorry if this is all a bit vague but its a very sensitive topic. Just wondered if this had been covered before (I searched but nothing came up) and what others' thoughts were on the subject. Do we think it's just a load of rubbish? I hope so for her sake.

Tangled Web.

My opinion:

utter tosh. 

 

Lance De Boils wrote:My opinion:

utter tosh. 

 

Fair do's LDB   

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

For anyone who's interested - I'd never heard of it myself.

Thank you NFWTD   
Still getting the hang of this!

Tangled Web wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:My opinion:

utter tosh. 

 

Fair do's LDB   

Nothing personal against you, of course.  

Lance De Boils wrote:

Tangled Web wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:My opinion:

utter tosh. 

 

Fair do's LDB   

Nothing personal against you, of course.  

Of course   

Tangled Web wrote:This is something I stumbled across and I'm not very good with posting links etc. but just wanted to put this 'out there' as it would bug me if I didn't. Basically, if you google Iridology, you'll find that the practise describes 'problems' within the body are reflected in the eyes and the eyes are a 'window' to a persons health. The way in which this *could* be relevant to MM is her 'coloboma' and where it is positioned within the iris, may reflect trauma to the area in her body around the 'reproductive' area (Iridology chart).

I'm not sure what I think of this myself but it's been bothering me for a week or so since I stumbled across it. Sorry if this is all a bit vague but its a very sensitive topic. Just wondered if this had been covered before (I searched but nothing came up) and what others' thoughts were on the subject. Do we think it's just a load of rubbish? I hope so for her sake.

Tangled Web.

Hi Tangled Web - yes it has been discussed in another thread a few months ago - can`t remember which one. Some people believe in it and, as you can see, some people don`t.

Lance De Boils wrote:My opinion:

utter tosh. 

 

Ahhh, Lance I love you but 'tosh' it ain't.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]    Go down to anatomy of the eye.

We accept the scientific principle of the glass/fiber optic cable and the many uses that its technology is put to, to see into places that our eyes would otherwise not be able to get.
Well, funnily enough this tech is developed from the 'millions times more complex' and effective human optic cable.

Every cell in the body has a connection to the nervous system.
Every nerve passes to the spinal chord.
The spinal cord passes to the brain and some 28,000 nerve endings join in a bundle which is the optic nerve.

The nerve endings, like the glass fiber cable, directly connect to the ring shape of the iris.
Coming in from the outside world, the optic nerve also feeds 'incoming' light /vision signals off to the 'interpretation' part of the brain where the signals become 'perception'.

There is a further interconnection between optic nerve when it communicates with the limbic (emotional) centre, so that for instance, a beautiful view will give a 'lovely' sensation and a frightening view will instill 'fear' and flight. The incoming visual message affects our feelings, our reactions, our subsequent behaviour.

There is then further nerve communication with the systems of the body that run our everyday functions, those we observe, like raising an arm, and those we don't think about, like producing hormones, enzymes, breathing, exchanging oxygen for carbon dioxide etc. etc. the whole complex 'living body' thing.

So, all the nerve endings in the iris are connected back to the body and the 'map' of the iris (a 3 dimensional / depth and width viewing) correlates to what is going on in the various associated/distal parts.
It is a very complex subject.
Black, brown marks will show tissue death, loss, or distress for example.
These marks are easy to see, but you can also detect 'an acid wash' for instance, where there is an impression like a water colour painting over-wash, and this will be addressing e.g. a general state rather than specific sites.

I am content to challenge your 'tosh' because I know a world-leading iridologist who amongst other places, teaches iridology at one of the UK's top universities.

Re Maddie's coloboma. It could represent observable difficulties, but with her parents having claimed its existence, then shown it to be mysteriously in different places, when it simply cannot move, and then stating that it doesn't really exist after all, means we were all lead on a wild goose chase.

But beware of dismissing something before you've given it a good look over.
We are very conscious of the 'elite' trying to foist a 'whitewash' on us regarding the McCs.
A bigger scandal however is the 'obliterating' of the studies, developed along with and since the evolution of mankind, because they undermine the very recent emergence of the doctor-in-the-white-coat medicine practices which monopolise today's health management.

We keep saying 'follow the money' re the McC case. Well apply the same principle here and you won't be far off course. The bigger picture is always the more interesting one.
Keep the faith, challenge everything and accept nothing 'till you've given it your once over.  

Yes, but nerves operate in only ONE direction. They are not electrical cables capable of providing "feedback".
And as a matter of information the nerves from the eye do not pass to the spinal cord, but go via the optic nerve direct to the brain.
The optic nerve being the second of the twelve.

So even if one cell of the iris is connected to some specific part of the body (which it isn't) that part of the body could not communicate with the cell in the iris.

And the whole point of putting iris scans on passports and so on is that they do not change.

PeterMac wrote:Yes, but nerves operate in only ONE direction. They are not electrical cables capable of providing "feedback".
And as a matter of information the nerves from the eye do not pass to the spinal cord, but go via the optic nerve direct to the brain.
The optic nerve being the second of the twelve.

So even if one cell of the iris is connected to some specific part of the body (which it isn't) that part of the body could not communicate with the cell in the iris.
And the whole point of putting iris scans on passports and so on is that they do not change.

Hello Peter, I said it is complex and late last night I tried to make it as simple as possible.
If you care to re-read what I wrote, I did not claim what you have assigned to me. I indicated that the cells in the 'body' are connected to the nerves, spinal nerve, brain/optic nerve/ ending up in, and as, the iris.
This direction is from the inside of the body up.

I then wrote that light coming into the eye (from the outside as it were) with its images, feeds via the optic nerve to the brain centre for interpretation. (from the outside, coming in and travelling across the brain)

I then said that the centre of 'vision interpretation' is linked to the limbic and sypathetic/para-sympathic parts of the brain, which 'inter'-communicate, and respond to input with output. (more general inter-brain communication, i.e. back and forth)

Sure, one nerve cell will fire in one direction, along its particular nerve pathway, as chemicals accumulate at one end of a cell and fire across the synapse to the closest end of the next cell in line, but you have 'afferent' and 'efferent' nerves which run 'to and from' in opposite directions, and permit the essential function of feedback (loops).
Just look at the separate nerve 'entrance and exits' in the spinal column/vertebrae to see an example of this.

I suspect that my description was not as clear as it could have been.

However, on closer inspection, if you wish to spend the time, it will show that I talked of cells in the body feeding up, through the spinal chord, into the brain, and then via the optic nerve, the thousands of fiber optic 'ends' showing as a map-able chart in the iris which has a 'direct connection' (not 'nerve transmission direction') to what fed that information to the iris.
A direct link, cells in the body to the nerve endings in the iris.

Yes, the iris tells 'long term' information, that's why airports now use it.

The information can change however, over the long-term, but not on a 'whim or daily basis'.

I remember you talking of your colleague making the remark that if you 'dump' it will show up in the iris. Yeah, it's a joke and it's funny, raises a laugh, and can lead to lots of mirth but it's as good a dismissal as 'tosh' and does not address the 'real time physical connections from body cells to iris'.

I did not refer to 'cells' in the iris. I was referring to 'nerve endings'. That's a lot different, but as it is very complicated to explain, I can see how one would be confused on a first reading only.

The point of any of this discussion is that we were drawn to the concept of 'coloboma'.
IF we had got one proper photograph of the REAL MADDIE, if she was ever present at PdL, and if it gave a full close up view of her right eye, and if she really did have a coloboma, we would be able to tell a lot of information.

But we do not have any information of an eye, belonging to an unproven girl, and we have no medical records either.

If a coloboma or black mark did exist, it may indicate problems underlying that mapped area. However, the coloboma cannot change position, as it did in some of the 'coloboma'd photos' and it is as I described before, no more possible for a coloboma to move than it is to have your leg move to your arm position.

In terms of the iris changing. It can and it does. As can finger prints if scarring or damage occurs.

There is much documented evidence however, of 'irises before' treatment and 'irises after' treatment.

But my job here is 'not to persuade' anyone to believe what they do not want to believe, it is solely to say, look into it if it interests you and leave it alone if it doesn't, but don't necessarily dismiss something until you've checked it out 'factually', or report it as 'untrue' when it may well actually be true.
mini rant over   
.

Professor Marvel wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]I have no idea what any of it means ! 

Just to note that the area generally represented in the 'coloboma'd' photos is right eye, ovary/testis.
When the parents changed the coloboma to just a fleck, were they still speaking of a sign in the same area.

There are some medical conditions that can be detected by signs in the eye.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This has nothing whatever to do with the practice of iridology, though, which imo is pseudoscience.

@bobbin

I have seen a photograph of Maddie without the coloboma and a fleck is visible in that place. More or less light brown /green.
So absolutely nothing like the advertised thunderbolt but just as Kate said- you could only see it if you were very close.

I'll try and find it but don't hold your breath!

Professor Marvel wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]I have no idea what any of it means ! 

Very similar to this
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I am not going to get into this pseudo-scientific debate except to observe that the cells of the iris are not chromatophores.
Unless you are a squid.

PeterMac wrote:
Very similar to this
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Don't knock it. I didn't believe in that either until I shaved all my hair off one day and there it was, large as life.

Behave Clay... I nearly scalded myself trying to put down a very hot mug of tea while reading these posts.

 

ultimaThule wrote:There is much documented evidence however, of 'irises before' treatment and 'irises after' treatment.

But my job here is 'not to persuade' anyone to believe what they do not want to believe, it is solely to say, look into it if it interests you and leave it alone if it doesn't, but don't necessarily dismiss something until you've checked it out 'factually', or report it as 'untrue' when it may well actually be true.

Given remarkable longevity of Her Maj & HRH Phil, noted adherents of alternative medicine, it's not my intention to dismiss iridology out of hand, bobbin.   

Tangled Web began this thread because something had been bothering them and it's always niggled me that Eddie (RIP) only alerted to areas behind the sofa and by the wardrobe in the McCanns' bedroom, as this would appear to indicate that any corpse was not accorded the respect of being laid out on one of the 4 beds in the apartment and gives rise to the possibility that the deceased may have died elsewhere and their body taken to 5A prior to being concealed in another place.  


As it's my belief that a study of K&G's words gives some indication of 'the truth of the lies', I'm trying to square the circle of the 'almost perfect' infant who her mother feared may grow up to be 'like her' with Kate's androgynous looks and apparent need for IVF in order to conceive.  

If I were writing a novel I might craft a plot which involved an intersex infant, or two, the possibility of risky surgery performed by a vainglorious urologist with the assistance of his anaethestist wife which tragically resulted in the perfectly formed little genitals of the infant being torn apart, and the need to conceal a clandestine operation which took place against the express advice of other medics the child's parents had consulted. 

Alternatively, I might just bash out another everyday story of a pyschopath and a narc and how, with a little help from relatives and pals, they resolved the problem of a child that was less than pleasing to them while making £millions in the process before being brought to account - I can't envisage writing any tale that doesn't have a happy ending albeit, in the interests of increased sales, it may contain an unhappy one for the victim.   

It is evident that a child called Madeleine McCann has been announced by her parents as having been abducted from the holiday apartment 5A Ocean Club, PdL, at 10 p.m. 3rd May 2007.
Film footage has been provided to the public to imply that Madeleine went on holiday with her family and it is claimed also by the parents that she did not return.
That much we are probably obliged to accept.
After that, we have seen nothing but obfuscation from ALL that were closely involved (parents / Tapas 7), relatives of Madeleine, and political involvement from the highest level which lead to a LEADING investigator being displaced.
A great deal of comment and information has been publicised by the McCanns (Kate and Gerry), their entourage and their spokesperson Clarence Mitchell.
The parents claim to have left the child unguarded but go to all lengths to state that the fate of their firstborn child is not their fault nor their responsibility.
This firstborn child was, according to the McCanns, born by IVF.
They then subsequently claim to have had twins, a boy and a girl, via the same implantation method of IVF.
Generally, because of the efforts involved and because of the risk of a failure to successfully ‘implant’ to fruition, more than one embryo is implanted at one time.
If the norm had been followed, it would imply that Madeleine would have had another embryo implanted along with herself.
Where, if this were the case, would this ‘supposed other’ embryo be ?
Medical reference papers discuss that one of the rare occurrences of IVF implantation is that two separately implanted embryos can merge, the subsequent combination of DNA(s) then demonstrating an irregular pattern with the appearance of confusion in identification.
Although it might be rare for a ‘fused /double embryo’ to complete to fruition, one does not know how many times, with IVF treatment, a fusion may have occurred but not remained viable to full term and delivery.
If any unforeseen combining of embryos were to involve that of both a male and a female child, then there would be some gender conflict.
How this would manifest itself could be in many forms, some of which have been noted in the medical literature as ‘chimera’ or ‘hermaphrodite’.
Several observers have questioned whether such a case could have involved Madeleine.
Given the level of deception, obfuscation, and the subsequent ‘offensive dismissal’ of Madeleine’s life and her right to justice, since the ordinary lines of inquiry have attained no satisfactory explanation, the investigators are forced to continue to delve deeply into any and every possible ‘explanation’ for her demise or disappearance, whichever the case may be, to find a satisfactory explanation.
PdL was awash with medical personnel in April/May 2007. Gerry McCann claimed in an expletive on the airport bus that he was not in PdL for a holiday.
He also claims that his firstborn child was almost perfect, implying not completely perfect.
Meanwhile, the mother claims her imagination of the child’s PERFECT GENITALS as being torn apart. (page 129 of her book, ‘madeleine’.)
Both parents claim that a Paedophile ring had taken Madeleine.
Some have questioned why would the parents think thus, what value would a little girl like Madeleine possibly be to paedophiles, to merit ‘stealing her away’.
Photos have been produced by the parents, for the public, which have been questioned as either having been manipulated to give a specific effect, (the coloboma) or which are suspected of manipulation to imply that Madeleine was present in a place where she may not have been and /or at a time when she may not have been.
With no other explanation for the unacceptable ‘disappearance’ of a young human life, that might fall within the bounds of ‘normal’ occurrence, the investigation is duty bound to keep delving into every possible eventuality to try to find the explanation for how, why, when, where or even, if, Madeleine did disappear.
Unhappily, particular sniffer dogs (called in by the British police) and whose record for accuracy has never failed, were used in the search for Madeleine and they signalled on many occasions to the presence of blood and cadavour odour.
For this reason, many fear the worst and that Madeleine must be in need of the ‘justice’ that will permit her to rest in dignity and peace.
Honourable are those who seek this justice, those who do not, should question their honour.

The chimerism is fascinating, I found it almost literally unbelievable when I read about it.

Speaking hypothetically, imagine a body did turn up early in the event. Small girl, matching in all respects the missing child except in respect to DNA. Imagine what impact that would have on the burgeoning genetic ID industry (we were in full-on national ID card territory at the time) not to mention the criminal justice system worldwide.

Better to sweep the whole thing under the carpet?

Could chimerism explain the 'mixed' DNA in the blood found by Keela?

suep wrote:Could chimerism explain the 'mixed' DNA in the blood found by Keela?

To my limited understanding, it could explain just about anything.

Or maybe a lot could be explained if they had been taking part in mixed DNA IVF experimentation, such as:-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There are also other techniques which use mixed DNA, I won't list them all here. 

IF the tapas 9 had all been involved in some way this could this explain a lot about the 'pact' and why they all had children of the same age that looked remarkably like each other.

This would also explain why Madelaine's body could not be found, and possibly the threat to national security. 

Seems like science fiction but these techniques are now close to being passed by parliament and introduced clinically within two years.  There must have been some human experiementation and trials to get thus far with it?


I am not anti-ivf by the way wouldn't have my daughter without it!