A Hypocrites View on Not Using Quarantine

[drstardust]

The fact that people who practice medicated quarantine do not keep their display tanks for several decades may indeed be due to the reasons @Paul B suspects. However, this is heavily biased by the fact that very few people have the circumstances or desire to keep a single tank for that long in general. That is a lot of time for a lot of things to change in someone's life that take priority over a tank. People lose interest in the hobby; people want a different type of tank so they upgrade/downgrade; people get married/divorced, and get rid of their tank; people have kids, which takes away from time to take care of their tank properly; people move and don't want to move the tank with them....the list goes on, I'm sure. However, no doubt that parasites causing tank wipeouts are responsible for a lot of people leaving the hobby, too.

 

[Paul Sands]

I think you are purposely distorting what I have said at this point. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand. Exposing fish to a pathogen will boost it's adaptive resistance to that parasite. The more pathogens the fish is immune to, the better it's overall health will be and the less likely it is to succumb to a pathogen. This makes the fish more healthy and not less healthy.

We are now in the alternate universe where fish that have ich, velvet, and flukes are “healthier” than fish that are actually healthy.

 

[Brew12]

We are now in the alternate universe where fish that have ich, velvet, and flukes are “healthier” than fish that are actually healthy.

Find me a study where it shows that fish who are immune to ich, velvet and flukes are not healthier than those without them. Just one and I'll consider it good. I've shown you several where it shows fish with adaptive immunities are more likely to survive exposure than those without.

The alternate universe is thinking fish without adaptive immunities are healthier than those with them. And, the only way those fish get the those adaptive is through exposure.

 

[WVNed]

We are now in the alternate universe where fish that have ich, velvet, and flukes are “healthier” than fish that are actually healthy.

I cant help but feel fish that can live in a normal environment and deal with the health challenges of it are better than ones that require a special environment to survive.

But that is just me.

 

[Paul Sands]

I cant help but feel fish that can live in a normal environment and deal with the health challenges of it are better than ones that require a special environment to survive.

But that is just me.

By “normal environment” you mean a small glass box in a house and infected with millions of parasites that would normally be spread across a vast ocean?

 

[Brew12]

By “normal environment” you mean a small glass box in a house and infected with millions of parasites that would normally be spread across a vast ocean?

I don't know why you feel a small glass box must be either completely overrun or have zero. The entire point of this article is to figure out a way to keep parasite numbers low enough to maintain healthy fish yet still keep their immunity. A fish can be very healthy and still have a few parasites on it.

 

[rkpetersen]

As for how it started? My guess is one store gave it a try and felt like it helped reduce mortality rates and it spread. I can't imagine any scientific support to such a bad practice.

Well it is certainly no different for humans. Low-dose antibiotics are used in much of our food, and they are prescribed like candy for any infectious illness no matter how trivial or untreatable with antibiotics.

If you stop the copper – let it go some time before introduction. During that time – do WC with help of water from your DT every second to third day – small in the beginning. If you get any indication of disease – you can treat in your QT

The first part is SOP, but the second part is - interesting. I may actually do that.
There is no disease in my DTs, that I'm aware of, but exposing the new fish to that water before transfer and letting them adjust to it may be an excellent idea.

The alternate universe is thinking fish without adaptive immunities are healthier than those with them. And, the only way those fish get the those adaptive is through exposure.

I am no expert on piscine immunity. I would imagine that it is less advanced than mammalian immunity.
But in humans, there can be considerable cross reactivity of both humoral (antibodies) and cellular (T cells, macrophages) immunity.
So partial immunity to other previously unencountered pathogens can occur.
The classic example being how the first vaccine made from the relatively benign virus cowpox conferred amazing immunity to the deadly virus smallpox.
Also, healthy humans generally have ample levels of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, and B cells capable of rapid production of all antibody classes.

So I agree with you, those fish that survive exposure are likely healthier overall. "That which does not kill me, makes me stronger."
Problem is, some will die from that exposure. Perhaps many.
Some people are good at acquiring the survivors who have already passed the gamut.


Also, there's no reason to believe that just gorgonians capture bacteria and protozoans from the water column.
Many stony corals produce exuberant mucus which is excellent as both defensive and feeding mechanisms.

 

[Paul Sands]

Find me a study where it shows that fish who are immune to ich, velvet and flukes are not healthier than those without them. Just one and I'll consider it good. I've shown you several where it shows fish with adaptive immunities are more likely to survive exposure than those without.

Find me a study that shows that people that don’t have 300 deer ticks attached to them are healthier than the ones that do. No one has done such a study because it’s obvious that people without parasites sucking their bodily fluids out are healthier than people that do. Similarly, there isn’t a study on fish with flukes because no one actually thinks that a fish that has flukes is healthier than a fish that doesn’t have that parasite.

 

[Paul Sands]

I don't know why you feel a small glass box must be either completely overrun or have zero. The entire point of this article is to figure out a way to keep parasite numbers low enough to maintain healthy fish yet still keep their immunity. A fish can be very healthy and still have a few parasites on it.

I don’t know why you think it’s easier to manage a disease instead of just avoiding it in the first place.

When you were younger, did you look for someone with herpes on their lips so that you could kiss them and be “healthier”? You realize that is an insane argument, right? Why is it different with fish?

 

[Brew12]

Find me a study that shows that people that don’t have 300 deer ticks attached to them are healthier than the ones that do. No one has done such a study because it’s obvious that people without parasites sucking their bodily fluids out are healthier than people that do. Similarly, there isn’t a study on fish with flukes because no one actually thinks that a fish that has flukes is healthier than a fish that doesn’t have that parasite.

Unless people build up a resistance to deer ticks that prevents them from feeding more than a fraction of what they are capable of without harming the person, it isn't a fair comparison.
What you are trying to do is say a boy in a bubble with very limited immune response is healthier than a normal boy playing in the dirt because the boy in the bubble isn't exposed to pathogens. It just isn't true.
I haven't seen anyone say the damaging parasitic worms should be left on a fish that their immune system can't handle. That would be a fair comparison to a person with deer ticks.

 

[bluprntguy]

I think you are purposely distorting what I have said at this point. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand. Exposing fish to a pathogen will boost it's adaptive resistance to that parasite. The more pathogens the fish is immune to, the better it's overall health will be and the less likely it is to succumb to a pathogen. This makes the fish more healthy and not less healthy.

I'm actually not trying to distort what you are saying. I'm actually just quoting what you typed. I'm not the only one on this thread confused by your posts if that's not what you meant.

The only thing a fish gains from exposure to ich is a slight resistance to ich. It's entirely possible (some people would say easy) to avoid infecting a reef tank with ich. If a fish is never going to be exposed to ich, it doesn't need that immunity and it gains nothing by having it.

My mom had the smallpox vaccine because smallpox was a thing back then. I didn't get the vaccine because smallpox was eradicated from the US when I was born. Am I less healthy than my mom because I don't have the vaccination for a disease I will never come in contact with? Should I have gotten a smallpox vaccine that I didn't need in order to be "healthier"?

From your statement, the fish that isn't exposed to ich is somehow less healthy because every pathogen a fish is exposed to increases the overall health of the fish. From my perspective, my fish are never going to be exposed to ich and they would be less healthy if they were.

In your article (or maybe somewhere along the discussion), you mentioned people unnecessarily treating their fish with copper and how that's seen by many people as inhumane. It's also easy to see how people could view purposefully infecting a fish with ich as inhumane as opposed to just avoiding ich in the first place.

 

[Brew12]

I don’t know why you think it’s easier to manage a disease instead of just avoiding it in the first place.

When you were younger, did you look for someone with herpes on their lips so that you could kiss them and be “healthier”? You realize that is an insane argument, right? Why is it different with fish?

Because my body will not fight off herpes. I am not a fish, I have a much better innate immune system than they do.

I didn't avoid playing with kids when I was younger for fear of contracting germs though. Why? Because a healthy persons immune system should be able to fight most of them off. You may get sick for awhile, but normally you will get better. It's a luxury fish don't have. Their innate system is weak. They rely on limited exposure to build a resistance and avoid being overcome. We don't need to do that in most cases. For the few we do, we develop vaccines.

 

[Paul Sands]

Unless people build up a resistance to deer ticks that prevents them from feeding more than a fraction of what they are capable of without harming the person, it isn't a fair comparison.
What you are trying to do is say a boy in a bubble with very limited immune response is healthier than a normal boy playing in the dirt because the boy in the bubble isn't exposed to pathogens. It just isn't true.
I haven't seen anyone say the damaging parasitic worms should be left on a fish that their immune system can't handle. That would be a fair comparison to a person with deer ticks.

Ich is a parasite. Velvet is a parasite. Flukes are parasites. All these have symptoms that most people would see as negative: torn fins, cloudy eyes, excess mucus, etc. Even when fish become partially immune, they are still being affected by the parasites. If they are living in an aquarium that is infected, they will constantly be infected by the parasites. They may have resulting infections. Some fish may develop a stronger immunity, but some fish may develop very little. You have no idea how being constantly infected may affect their health and behavior versus if they weren’t.

 

[WVNed]

LOL Perhaps I should bleach my fish.

Probably not.

Beware the parasites

 

[MnFish1]

I'm actually not trying to distort what you are saying. I'm actually just quoting what you typed. I'm not the only one on this thread confused by your posts if that's not what you meant.

The only thing a fish gains from exposure to ich is a slight resistance to ich.

Am I less healthy than my mom because I don't have the vaccination for a disease I will never come in contact with?

# 2 and 3 are 'straw man' arguments. Firstly - No - you're not the only one thats confused - @Paul Sands appears to be confused as well.

You need to document # 2. - Since there is at least one - if not several references shown where immunity of survivors of CI (which is most of the wild fish caught - which you seem to be missing) is nearly 100%

#3 - you are definitely stronger if you have had the polio vaccine that someone that has not received it - (if you are exposed to it).

The problem is - you are totally ignoring the purpose of this thread - 1. What if we cant Prophylactally treat the way we have been doing - and 2. Is it better to start to worry about this now - rather than when its no longer legal? Again - It would be so helpful if you would just state your position instead of incessantly asking questions of others. IMHO

 

[Paul Sands]

Because my body will not fight off herpes. I am not a fish, I have a much better innate immune system than they do.

I didn't avoid playing with kids when I was younger for fear of contracting germs though. Why? Because a healthy persons immune system should be able to fight most of them off. You may get sick for awhile, but normally you will get better. It's a luxury fish don't have. Their innate system is weak. They rely on limited exposure to build a resistance and avoid being overcome. We don't need to do that in most cases. For the few we do, we develop vaccines.

Many fish don’t develop resistance to ich or velvet either. They just die. Apparently they are “healthier” that way.

 

[MnFish1]

Ich is a parasite. Velvet is a parasite. Flukes are parasites. All these have symptoms that most people would see as negative: torn fins, cloudy eyes, excess mucus, etc. Even when fish become partially immune, they are still being affected by the parasites. If they are living in an aquarium that is infected, they will constantly be infected by the parasites. They may have resulting infections. Some fish may develop a stronger immunity, but some fish may develop very little. You have no idea how being constantly infected may affect their health and behavior versus if they weren’t.

Nor do you... There are anectodal experiences on this forum that contradict your dire predictions. (I don't happen to agree with all of them). But - as I said to the prior poster - you are ignoring the purpose of the thread - ie. what to do when /if these 'remedies' are no longer a viable option. I know you've said TTM, hypo salinity, etc - yet there are also pages of threads here saying that TTM is a death sentence (I also dont agree with this). Rather than just argue - why not come up with solutions to the problem this thread is trying to address.

 

[MnFish1]

Many fish don’t develop resistance to ich or velvet either. They just die. Apparently they are “healthier” that way.

IN this you're probably correct - in the wild and in our tanks.

 

[WVNed]

I buy fish and things. I bring them home and put them in my tank. They do fine.
No airlocks required.

 

[Brew12]

The only thing a fish gains from exposure to ich is a slight resistance to ich.

This is why I don't feel you are being honest with this discussion. How is going from an almost 100% mortality rate to an over 95% survival rate based on different studies a "slight resistance".

If a fish is never going to be exposed to ich, it doesn't need that immunity and it gains nothing by having it.

The only way to know this is if you treat your fish in a sterile tank and never add anything to it. Plenty of people have accidentally added parasites into their systems and lost everything.

In your article (or maybe somewhere along the discussion), you mentioned people unnecessarily treating their fish with copper and how that's seen by many people as inhumane. It's also easy to see how people could view purposefully infecting a fish with ich as inhumane as opposed to just avoiding ich in the first place.

I do see how people feel that allowing fish to be infected with ich is inhumane, just like I see why people feel that way about the fact I treat with copper.