Response to a Complaint Filed With
the Indiana Attorney General
Unfortunately, the practice of alternative, complementary, or integrative medicine in the United States is susceptible to certain 'inconveniences', if not dangers, because of the serious threat that it poses to the multi-billion dollar profits of the pharmaceutical companies and the practitioners of orthodox, Western medicine.
On the one hand, the mainstream media, the recipient of billions of dollars in advertising revenues from the pharmaceutical-medical establishment, is committed to the preservation of the status quo; and, for that reason, typically ignores, suppresses, distorts and ridicules any information and/or evidence in support of nutritional approaches to health maintenance as well as the use of alternative or complementary healing modalities.
And, on the other hand, anyone who considers their livelihood--or even, apparently, merely their medical 'beliefs'--as being threatened by the practitioners of such alternative and complementary healing modalities is encouraged by the scurrilous accusations of, for example, the "quackwatch" website to take legal action against natural health practitioners for the purpose of preserving their profits, livelihoods, and/or beliefs.
Recently, for example, a complaint was filed with the Indiana Attorney General with regards to my research, to which the following letter is a reply. (It is now more than eight months later, and I have still not received a reply from the Indiana Attorney General):
April 12, 2006
State of Indiana
Division of Consumer Protection
Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor
302 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770
Re: File No. 06-CP-53106: In the Matter of Michael Joseph Cecil 30000317
This is in response to the baseless, malicious, and possibly libelous complaint filed against me by (name of perpetrator removed), an employee of the South Bend-Fort Wayne Diocesan Education Office of the Roman Catholic Church.
I am a Certified Iridologist and Nutritional Counselor, having received my Certification from Dr. Bernard Jensen in 1997, and have been practicing Iridology and Nutritional Counseling on a part time basis for approximately the past 11 years as part of a research project whose purpose is to establish correlations between signs in the iris and medical diagnoses.
I also have a B.S. degree in psychology (Purdue University, 1971), graduated with a 4.0 average from an Associate of Science Degree program in Respiratory Therapy (Vincennes University, 1985), and passed the Registry exam as a Respiratory Therapist in 1986. But I have not worked in the field of respiratory therapy since 1998. In addition, I was recently employed for 3 ½ years as a Long Term Care Ombudsman—an advocate for the elderly in nursing homes and assisted living facilities—in Elkhart and Kosciusko Counties.
A few days prior to my meeting with (perpetrator), I received a letter from Holy Cross Catholic elementary school in South Bend, where I graduated in 1963, requesting monetary donations as well as donations ‘in kind’ to improve the educational opportunities of the students at Holy Cross. I then contacted the principal of Holy Cross with the request that I be allowed to give a slide presentation to a meeting of the Parent-Teacher Association of Holy Cross in order to explain some of the research I had done in Iridology; in particular, research demonstrating that dietary changes can sometimes be of significant benefit in addressing some of the symptoms of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. My motivation in contacting the principal of Holy Cross was that, by providing this service to students diagnosed with ADHD, I could help the students, at a school where I had graduated, by providing parents with information which might be helpful in reducing at least some of the symptoms of ADHD which can be traced to either the ingestion of excito-toxins, overall body toxicity, and/or specific nutritional deficiencies.
As a contribution to the educational opportunities of the students at Holy Cross, I also explained that I would be willing to do, for free, quick iris screenings (This is possible only with blue irises. Parents of children with brown eyes would have to pay for the film and developing if they wanted even a preliminary assessment. See below.) in order to determine whether they had any of the three iris signs that preliminary research indicates may be associated with this particular medical diagnosis.
I was then given the telephone number of the Diocesan (South Bend-Fort Wayne) Education Office in Mishawaka, Indiana and was told that any decision on whether this would be permitted would have to be made at the diocesan level. This was the reason that I arrived “unannounced” at the Diocesan Education Office and requested that I be given the opportunity to give a slide presentation of my research to (perpetrator’s) supervisor, who, as I understand it, is a priest, but was not then available. (I have no direct knowledge as to whether (perpetrator’s) supervisor was ever informed of my “unannounced” visit; but I have serious doubts in this regard.)
I made no further attempts to contact the Diocesan Education Office; and, several days later, I received a telephone call from, as I now understand it, (perpetrator) (she did not identify herself by name, as I recall), who stated that, for a variety of fairly opaque reasons, I would not be allowed to screen the students at any of the Catholic schools in the diocese. Nor would I be allowed to give a presentation of my research to her supervisor. Nor would I be allowed to give presentations of my research to any of the Parent-Teacher Associations of the Catholic elementary schools in the diocese.
Inasmuch as the research I am doing is typically ignored, distorted, or ridiculed in the mainstream media—nor, to my knowledge, is anyone else involved in such important research; I, at that point, considered her to be seriously interfering with my attempts to bring my research to the attention of those who are most in need of hearing about it and being given the opportunity to ask me questions. (In addition, I have had numerous conversations with Dr. Bernard Vodnoy, a retired Optometrist in South Bend, who, several years ago, determined that at least some instances of what are referred to as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder could be traced to vision/perceptual problems which create neurological stress; but he has also had some difficulty in getting the educational system to consider this research.)
In response to the statements made in the complaint by (perpetrator), some of which were expropriated from the “quackwatch” website of Stephen Barrett, M.D.:
I) “… ‘Iridology’ is an alternative therapy...
False. Iridology is not a therapy but a physiological assessment tool which is incapable of producing a medical diagnosis, but must be used in conjunction with other tests ordered by a doctor (see below). (But what I find so difficult to believe is that someone with, purportedly, a Masters Degree in Nursing, would be unable to differentiate between an assessment tool and a therapy.)
… that has no scientific basis.”
This statement would be contradicted by, among others:
1) A client I saw in (date removed) who had not seen a doctor in some 20 years because he ‘did not like doctors’. I observed a ‘degenerative’ sign in the abdominal area of his left iris beneath the area corresponding to the heart, and strongly recommended that he see a doctor and get a physical. Initially, he balked at my suggestion, but I impressed upon him that this was not a trivial matter.
The day after his physical, he was admitted to the hospital for surgery on an abdominal aortic aneurysm, which is asymptomatic and typically diagnosed only after death. (By the way, the physician and the surgeon both collected a fee that they otherwise would not have collected from this client unless he had seen me. My charge for this Iridology assessment was $35, and included recommending dietary sources of vitamins and minerals which were costing this client something in the area of $100/month.)
2) A client I saw in (date removed) to whom I gave a free Iridology screening. I observed a ‘degenerative’ sign in each iris in the area corresponding to the prostate. I strongly recommended that, although he had no symptoms of a prostate problem, he should see his doctor and be tested for any possible prostate problems. The doctor ordered a urinalysis, which was determined to be normal; but then ‘milked’ the client’s prostate, resulting in a ‘slide with numerous pus cells’ and a diagnosis of chronic prostatitis; which may very well be an asymptomatic precursor (this is one element of my research) of prostate cancer. (As to whether this doctor believes in the scientific validity of Iridology, it was on the basis of this assessment that I was invited to give a slide presentation of my Iridology research to the residency programs at Memorial Hospital and St. Joseph Medical Center in South Bend in 1996.)
3) A client who I saw in (date removed)—if, that is, she were still alive to confirm my statements. (Surely, however, her family members and close friends would be able to verify what I am saying.) She had been diagnosed with ‘breast cancer’ by her doctor and had asked me to take pictures of her iris, make nutritional suggestions and refer her to any ‘natural health practitioners’ who might be able to help her. I explained to her that the picture I had taken of her right iris demonstrated that she had a ‘chronic to degenerative’ lesion in her right rib and chest wall area but not in her breast area; whereupon she explained that she had been complaining to her doctor for more than a year and a half about a pain in her right lower rib area, but had been told by her doctor that there was ‘nothing there’: there were no broken bones, there was no muscle strain or blunt force injury. Thus, the doctor concluded that nothing was wrong. It was only after one and a half years of constant complaining of the pain that the doctor finally ordered an MRI, after which it was ‘miraculously’ concluded that his patient had ‘breast cancer’. The client expired a few months after I had taken her pictures.
Pictures of the iris signs for an abdominal aortic aneurysm, chronic prostatitis and, (probably), rib and chest wall cancer, as well as other conditions, can be found on my web site at:
II) “His stated reason is to search for children with ADHD.”
False. My first reason was to determine whether children who had been diagnosed as having ADHD had one of the three signs I have associated with this medical diagnosis; and, secondly, I wanted to determine how many children had the ‘sub-acute inflammation’ sign for an under-acid stomach.
III) “‘Iridology’ is supposed to ‘diagnose imbalances’…
It was stated above that Iridology is a ‘therapy’; now Iridology is referred to as, instead, ‘diagnostic’. Both statements are false.
Not only did I not make this statement; it is also a statement with which I do not agree. Nor are many of the other ludicrous and/or scurrilous statements made on the “quackwatch” website in any way an accurate description or reflection of, specifically, the research that I am doing correlating iris signs with medical diagnoses. In fact, one of the purposes of my research is to eliminate such unscientific terminology from the practice of Iridology.
…of many diseases, but he has singled out ADHD.”
False. I have not singled out ADHD. What I have ‘singled out’ in my research is the ‘sub-acute inflammation’ sign for an under-acid stomach, which is one of the signs I have seen associated with ADHD; but is also of particular relevance with regards to the elderly in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. My research also indicates that this iris sign is associated with ulcers (in graphic confirmation of the Nobel Prize for Physiology awarded in 2005 for research demonstrating that ulcers are caused not by over-acidity but by helicobacter pylori, which grows in an under-acid stomach), idiopathic hypertension, Type II diabetes, and Vitamin B12 deficiency dementia.
IV) “He then told me that if he found any children with a specific iris sign (sic) he would then refer them to Dr. Smith.”
False. What I said was that any parents of children with ADHD who were interested in nutritional or alternative therapies and trying to get their children off of drugs I would refer to Dr. Smith. That is, some parents may very well be satisfied with the orthodox, pharmaceutical approach to ADHD. My concern is with regards to those parents who are, on the contrary, seeking alternative approaches but have no idea on how to get such information or such care for their children.
V) “The cost is in the ‘therapy’.”
False. My goal is to get this research, at no cost, into the hands of those who most need it in an effort to help these children as well as their parents. On my website I have my own research as well as links to other research—orthodox as well as alternative therapies—since ADHD is a multi-factorial condition, only one element of which is nutrition. (If (perpetrator) had spent just a few minutes examining the information on my website, maybe she would have understood this; but probably not.)
VI) “The other problem…is the issue of parental consent. He says it is not needed.”
This is a bald-faced lie. What was being discussed was the issue of the privacy of medical information. What I said was that I would not have to know the names of any of the children who I screened. For those parents who had agreed to have me look at their children’s irises, with or without a diagnosis of ADHD, the principal could then inform the parents; who I could meet with and explain my research.
VII) “The next issue is that if the parent comes to the school wanting services for their “ADHD” child…”
The implication of the quotation marks around ADHD is that I am attempting to perform a medical diagnosis on the basis of signs in the iris; which, I suspect, is the ‘basis’ of (perpetrator’s ) witless and ridiculous complaint. This is a bald-faced lie inasmuch as it is, categorically, not scientifically possible to make any medical diagnosis on the basis of the iris. Rather, I am attempting to determine the iris signs of children typically diagnosed with ADHD. (See below.)
In any case, this is not my problem, nor the school’s problem. Parents are ultimately responsible for the treatment decisions they make in regards to their children, which is why they need as much information as they can get; that is, not only information provided to them by the pharmaceutical companies through the tightly-controlled mainstream media.
VIII) “On March 8, 2006 I called Mr. Cecil to let him know that we would not be having him come to the schools. He became angry sounding.”
This is another bald-faced lie. On the contrary, I quickly acknowledged that, for the opaque reasons she had stated, it might not be possible for me to screen the elementary students of the Catholic schools. After all, the focus of my efforts was on bringing my research to the attention of the parents, who could then make individual decisions on whether I could look at their children’s irises. It was only after she stated that I would not be allowed even to give slide presentations of my research to any of the Parent-Teacher Associations in the diocese that I became annoyed. It was only after I realized that (perpetrator) views herself—apparently because of her purported ‘educational background’—as being more or less responsible for, in a word, ‘protecting’ these parents from even being informed of my research that I became angry and hung up the phone.
IX) “I told him that I had a Masters Degree in Nursing. He then told me that he had never known a Masters degree person so stupid.”
I gleefully admit that this statement is true (Even a stopped clock is right twice each day). How (perpetrator) ever managed to get a Master’s Degree in Nursing (apparently, she does not know the difference between ‘therapy’ and ‘diagnosis’, for example), or anything having to do with any medical profession, is far beyond my poor powers of cognition.
If you read carefully the information on my website, you should be able to understand that (perpetrator) appears not to have understood even so much as one of the things that I attempted to explain to her.
Also, it may be of some interest to you that Dr. Thomas Sutula, Director of the residency program at Memorial Hospital in South Bend—who, I would suspect, has ‘some’ experience in the medical field beyond that of a nurse with a Masters Degree—has a somewhat different view of the scientific validity of Iridology than does (perpetrator). [As explained above, I was given the opportunity to give a slide presentation of my research to the residents at Memorial Hospital in South Bend in 1996 (maybe (perpetrator) would have known this had she merely gone to the trouble of talking to Janice Smith, M.D., who was present at another of my presentations at Memorial Hospital less than two years ago) after I had assessed a ‘degenerative’ lesion in the prostate area—the picture can be found on my website —of one of Dr. Sutula’s patients, which he subsequently diagnosed as an asymptomatic chronic prostatitis.]
The scientific validity of Iridology aside for the moment, what is most upsetting about this complaint is not merely the baseless accusations and obvious malice of (perpetrator); but that she is also, wittingly or unwittingly, contributing to the problem of ADHD by preventing the parents of this diocese from making their own decisions with regards to my research. Also, apparently under the rubric of “allow no good deed to go unpunished”—as well as in a vicious contradiction of the Teaching found in the Gospels—she appears to be attempting to ‘criminalize’ not only my research, but my sincere efforts to improve the quality of life of families of children with ADHD in the South Bend-Fort Wayne diocese.
Furthermore, in the context of what two so-called “iridologists” are doing in the South Bend-Mishawaka area, I must question whether the Attorney General’s office should even so much as waste its time pursuing such a spurious and ridiculous complaint as filed against me by (perpetrator). For example, a woman recently informed me that she had gone to another local “iridologist” who looked at her iris and told her she had a “third degree heart block”—a medical diagnosis which requires, first, an EKG; and, secondly, a cardiologist; while I was also recently informed by a young black man, whose irises were so dark that, at a distance of 5 feet, his pupils could not be differentiated from his irises, that he had received an ‘iris reading’ from another local “iridologist” who, however, did not use a camera. (But, to my experience, very dark brown irises can be effectively assessed only by successive over-exposures using a 35 mm camera; or by taking pictures of the iris with a digital camera with the software capability of ‘over-exposing’ those images on a computer.) Thus, one of these so-called “iridologists” is clearly practicing medicine without a license; while the other is merely lying, but, thus, ruining the credibility of the science of Iridology. But, instead, (perpetrator) chooses to file a complaint with the Indiana Attorney General against someone who is painstakingly doing research attempting both to establish the scientific validity of Iridology and to help children with ADHD in the Catholic school system in the South Bend-Fort Wayne diocese. Just incredible!!
In a further attempt, then, to be given the opportunity to give slide presentations of my Iridology research to the Parent-Teacher Associations of the Catholic elementary schools in the South Bend-Fort Wayne diocese, a copy of this letter will also be sent to Bishop John M. D’Arcy in Fort Wayne, and a copy of this letter (with the name of the perpetrator of this complaint removed) will also be posted on my web site.
And, finally, an inescapable implication of the research which was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology in 2005 is that the vast majority of those in the United States who are currently taking over-the-counter and/or prescription antacids (a market which has been variously estimated at between 5 and 6 billion dollars per year) may very well be taking drugs which, rather than improving their over-all health, are resulting, instead, in a sharp deterioration in their health (and resulting in, for example, nursing home admissions); requiring the prescription of additional and expensive drugs (for such conditions as osteoporosis, hypertension and/or Type II diabetes) in a desperate but futile attempt to compensate for their inability to assimilate, respectively, calcium, magnesium and chromium because of the neutralization of, or their lack of stomach acid. And, because my research indicates that whether these people have an over-acid or an under-acid stomach can be assessed on the basis of corresponding signs in their iris, this would appear to raise the quite serious question as to whether the failure or determined refusal of nursing homes and assisted living facilities to assess their residents on the basis of signs in their iris (to determine the specific medical appropriateness of prescriptions for such expensive antacids such as proton pump inhibitors, and for such expensive osteoporosis drugs as the bisphosphonates, for example) constitutes, by default, Medicare and/or Medicaid fraud of truly massive proportions; which, I suggest, should be a matter of some importance to you—especially in the context of both a Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, whose cost has sky-rocketed from a ‘mere’ $359 billion to more than $700 billion, and the severe strains which are also currently being placed on the state Medicaid plans of most of the states in this country.
For additional information on the scientific basis of Iridology (and how Iridology screenings may very well be used to achieve significant reductions in drug costs to both the Medicare and the Medicaid health insurance programs), I suggest that, in addition to the information on my website, you also read:
The Science and Practice of Iridology, Volume 1, Bernard Jensen. D.C.,N.D. and
Iridology—the Science and Practice in the Healing Arts, Volume II, Bernard Jensen, D.C., N.D.
Certified Iridologist and Nutritional Counselor