A Hypocrites View on Not Using Quarantine

[WVNed]

My guess is that you dont have any - I have argued this with @Paul B for a couple years. But - what do I know

I believe you. I don't do anything special and make no special arguments about my fish or my husbandry of them except that I have long experience of what to do when and what not to do.

 

[Paul Sands]

Just in this paragraph you've created 'false terms'. Firstly - you dont know what 'most people' think 'immune means'. Secondly you change from 'immunity just means resistance of some degree' to 'partial resistance'. you then leap to fish continue to be infected by ich (which is really cryptocaryon not ich) when they are 'immune' or 'partially resistant' - pretending that those to phrases are equivalent because you decided they are.

There is a vast difference between 'immune' and 'partially resistant' first of all.
Secondly - the studies quoted here - stated that fish that were immune did not have ANY (0) tormonts on them at the 3 month point - so - they weren't partially 'immune' or 'resistant'.
Thirdly The thing you seem to get hung up on is this: if 100 fish are exposed to CI - not every one of them will become immune. BUT - those that do become immune - are immune. not partially immune or partially restitant or whatever term you want to use. This at least according to the studies supplied. Not every fish that gets CI will live. Some will Die. Some will be partially immune - some will be 'immune'.

Semantics aside - none of this 'debate' has anything to do with the OP. So again - what's your solution to the problem?

The study I saw said very few were fully immune. The majority were partially immune and continue to be infected with ich. It seems like if you really wanted to be honest in this debate, you’d admit that fact instead of accusing others of dishonesty for trying to more accurately explain the facts in a way that most people would understand.

 

[KJoFan]

Well this thread has certainly brought the froth to the lips, so to speak.

I think...some can't see the forest for the trees in this thread now. Down the rabbit hole we've gone.

 

[Paul Sands]

Wait until Humblefish releases his paper on the problem with CP. I think it will open your eyes.

Maybe. Humblefish knows his stuff.

 

[Brew12]

The study I saw said very few were fully immune. The majority were partially immune and continue to be infected with ich. It seems like if you really wanted to be honest in this debate, you’d admit that fact instead of accusing others of dishonesty for trying to more accurately explain the facts in a way that most people would understand.

A fully immune fish will still carry ich. I don't know why that is hard for you to understand. I've even linked studies that show how the fish immune system uses chemicals to stunt the reproductive rate of parasites like Ich making them reproduce in non lethal numbers. Your lack of understanding does not make other people wrong.

 

[MnFish1]

The study I saw said very few were fully immune. The majority were partially immune and continue to be infected with ich. It seems like if you really wanted to be honest in this debate, you’d admit that fact instead of accusing others of dishonesty for trying to more accurately explain the facts in a way that most people would understand.

Just quote the part you're talking about - If you're talking about the abstract it says something similar to what youre saying - BUT - its not the whole story - there is a part of the study that takes non- immune fish - and determines how many become immune - then it takes the immune fish and challenge then with CI - what @Brew12 and I were talking about is (I think - at least thats what I was talking about) - the fish that were 'immune' compared to control 'non-immune' fish. The results at 3 and even 6 months were striking. I have never accused anyone of dishonesty here. Not you - or anyone else. And again - I'm not sure what the debate is - what is your opinion on the article (thats what we're supposed to be discussing here) - right?

 

[MnFish1]

The study I saw said very few were fully immune. The majority were partially immune and continue to be infected with ich. It seems like if you really wanted to be honest in this debate, you’d admit that fact instead of accusing others of dishonesty for trying to more accurately explain the facts in a way that most people would understand.

BTW - again. Infected can mean lots of different things. If you mean they have 1 infectious particle on a fin - perhaps - if you mean lethal disease - you'd be wrong. So - as I've also said at least 3 times - it depends on what you mean by 'infected'.

 

[Brew12]

Maybe. Humblefish knows his stuff.

I know he does. He is the one who encouraged me to join the Reefsquad, to be a Reefsquad leader and to be a forum moderator. We have spent countless hours going back and forth on what works and what doesn't work. One of the reasons he hasn't been as active on R2R lately is because of his frustration that he can't keep things updated like he wants for being stretched too thin.

 

[MnFish1]

A fully immune fish will still carry ich.

I think this is incorrect (again) - I think the truth is that a fully immune fish CAN still carry CI - but - most/many do not. At least according to Burgess.

 

[Brew12]

I think this is incorrect (again) - I think the truth is that a fully immune fish CAN still carry CI - but - most/many do not. At least according to Burgess.

I was using the term as in a fish will carry ich like a suitcase will hold 10 shirts. Not to imply that it has to, only that they are capable of it.

 

[Brew12]

I think this is incorrect (again) - I think the truth is that a fully immune fish CAN still carry CI - but - most/many do not. At least according to Burgess.

How about a more reefing related example. My RODI storage tank will hold 35 gallons of water. Of course, it needs to be filled right now.

 

[Paul Sands]

BTW - again. Infected can mean lots of different things. If you mean they have 1 infectious particle on a fin - perhaps - if you mean lethal disease - you'd be wrong. So - as I've also said at least 3 times - it depends on what you mean by 'infected'.

Infected: “contaminated with harmful organisms.”

Seems appropriate when talking about ich.

 

[MnFish1]

Everyone here is saying the same thing - yet it seems like we're arguing. We're all reading (though - unless people have purchased the Burgess study - they haven't read the whole thing ) the same studies - yet disagreeing.... How is this possible? Part of it is the perspective from which we come. @Brew12 has given his perspective in the article. @Lasse has given his perspective - and I think I've given mine. (I dont QT myself - I dont like prophylactic treatment - but treat if there is a problem) - I only buy fish that have been through a minimum of a 2 week observation process - and possibly medication depending on the store). So - what is the issue here? The issue is that it has happened in some countries - and could here (especially in California) - that antibiotics we throw around (or some throw around) like candy here - will no longer be available. Chloroquine for example. Metroplex for example, etc etc.

It is really unclear to me why we're debating whether fish can be immune to parasites (though I think its an interesting discussion) - when we should be discussing the article. The 2 main people who have not given their perspectives (i.e. - what do they think about the article/or what should be done) continue to not do so - and so it becomes just a repetitive commentary on who said what - in varying contexts over pages and pages. I personally have given my perspective - and I respect the other people who have given theirs. Antibiotic and even copper resistance is here (based on my conversation with Seachem today) - and a lot of the problems are because people (average hobbyists and LFS) are doing incorrect things.

 

[MnFish1]

How about a more reefing related example. My RODI storage tank will hold 35 gallons of water. Of course, it needs to be filled right now.

this is interesting - while we were talking earlier - I realized all the sudden that my 210 gallon tank was filling (freshwater) - I averted a disaster though

 

[MnFish1]

Infected: “contaminated with harmful organisms.”

Seems appropriate when talking about ich.

For the sake of discussion. if I have MRSA growing in my nose - am I infected? Its a harmful organism - and its growing on my skin. I think your definition may need a little refinement - and im not saying that to be snarky - its just not that simple.

 

[Michael Gilbreath]

My tank is not old but I have been around for 20yrs had the fun of meeting Paul.B in person learned a lot from him. But I started in this hobby in early 90s. I learned what was need from a LFS owner who had been in business for yrs his tanks were not the cleanest but every fish he sold were healthy and no signs of any infections, he ran sumps that had more life and odd ball fish in them then any tanks I have seen. he taught me a lot of what Paul says and I have found it to work for me my fish or healthy there active the only fish I have lost was due to being not fast enough to get away from my clown and sailfin tang these two run the tank. i'm not saying I'm right but it works for me. My old tank I saw signs of ich but never lost a fish to it.

 

[Paul Sands]

For the sake of discussion. if I have MRSA growing in my nose - am I infected? Its a harmful organism - and its growing on my skin. I think your definition may need a little refinement - and im not saying that to be snarky - its just not that simple.

Speak to Miriam-Webster if you have problems with how words are defined.

 

[HomeSlizzice]

Everyone here is saying the same thing - yet it seems like we're arguing. We're all reading (though - unless people have purchased the Burgess study - they haven't read the whole thing ) the same studies - yet disagreeing.... How is this possible? Part of it is the perspective from which we come. @Brew12 has given his perspective in the article. @Lasse has given his perspective - and I think I've given mine. (I dont QT myself - I dont like prophylactic treatment - but treat if there is a problem) - I only buy fish that have been through a minimum of a 2 week observation process - and possibly medication depending on the store). So - what is the issue here? The issue is that it has happened in some countries - and could here (especially in California) - that antibiotics we throw around (or some throw around) like candy here - will no longer be available. Chloroquine for example. Metroplex for example, etc etc.

It is really unclear to me why we're debating whether fish can be immune to parasites (though I think its an interesting discussion) - when we should be discussing the article. The 2 main people who have not given their perspectives (i.e. - what do they think about the article/or what should be done) continue to not do so - and so it becomes just a repetitive commentary on who said what - in varying contexts over pages and pages. I personally have given my perspective - and I respect the other people who have given theirs. Antibiotic and even copper resistance is here (based on my conversation with Seachem today) - and a lot of the problems are because people (average hobbyists and LFS) are doing incorrect things.

Thank you for saying this. I whole heartedly agree. I joined this thread and made my posts to discuss the topic in the article because it is something that effects me currently.

I have a new tank that is basically done cycling, and I’m deciding one what methods of QT to go with. I want to invest my time and money wisely.

After reefing for 13 years, and never using a QT; I had good success overall. My last tank I added fish and corals with dips from Hydroplex or coralrx depending on what I was adding. I lost all fish (regal angel, PBT, Fairy wrasse, Porters Angel, etc) except for my leopard wrasse from velvet.

So going forward i am wanting to obviously learn from some mistakes I’ve made and go forward with the most effective and safe option for my fish, but at the same time I don’t want to feel like I’m poisoning them by throwing every med in the book at them.


So, can we please get back on topic? If people want to discuss what parasite immunity is and if it’s possible then create your own thread to discuss.

 

[Lasse]

As for O2 levels, it has been shown that low levels of O2 can allow ich to cyst for years before hatching. It is now suspected that this is why fallow periods routinely fail to clear ich. If you aren't measuring O2 you cannot be sure that 76 days is enough.

I agree. The 76 fallow theory is based on 1 study showing that tomonts can exist encysted for at least 76 days (or 72 or whatever). The study does not say that they can´t exist for a longer period. It can exist encysted for more than half a year in low temperatures and is not unlikely tha low O2 levels could shout down the metabolism rate as low temperature can, I have never believed in this 70 something fallow period. And if it is like that (low oxygen levels supress the tomonts metabolism rate) we are back to sterile tanks without any bottom parts that can give anaerobic conditions.

I'm not the only one on this thread confused by your posts

For sure - you are two

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.

Excellent that you bring that up. Smallpox had been defeated for more than 3000 years with a variety of different strategies. One was isolation. It did not work. However – persons that survive the disease – did not get sick again – and therefore it was mostly children that die. In Sweden from around 1750 – there was some program there the priest or the sexton inoculated children with small amount of smallpox, but it was not without risks. However – in England a doctor noted that milkmaids never got the disease. He suspected that contact with cowpox was the reason. He injected fluid from cowpox in a child and let it meet smallpox shortly after that. No disease or infection. The first vaccine was born. And the word vaccine comes from the Latin word for cow (vacca). This is an “insane” example how immunity against one organism can give a healthier organism against other organisms. Today – the disease says to be eradicated and the vaccination program has stopped in many countries – however the fear for biological warfare with conserved strains of the virus has done new vaccination programmes actual again

Infection and infectious disease are not the same in any definition at all. An infectious disease is always caused by an infection, but an infection does not automatically create an infectious disease. However, the example with Ticks is wrong. Ticks is not an infection because ticks themselves can´t cause an infectious disease but they can be hosts for other infectious organisms

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Paul B]

They keep their fish healthy by not exposing them unnecessarily to parasites and diseases.

The fish came from the ocean so they were all exposed. If they did anything to eliminate those parasites, the fish have a weakened immune system and are 100% more likely to die of infection. Just my opinion.

However, no doubt that parasites causing tank wipeouts are responsible for a lot of people leaving the hobby, too.

Parasites should never wipe out a tank and that can only happen in a quarantined tank. An immune tank is protected from that and if it happens, the tank was not immune. The process of keeping the fish immune from the sea has to be done correctly just as quarantine does.

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?

Yes. An immune tank will only have a small number of parasites because the fishes immunity will not support millions of parasites. If that were the case, my tank would not be here as it has bein infected for decades. I can, and do add any fish with any disease and nothing will happen as I have posted numerous times.

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.

I lived in a jungle in Viet Nam for a year and the only people who got malaria (from mosquitoes carrying the parasite) were Americans. And we had to take pills every day. The Vietnamese people had no pills and they looked mighty healthy to me. If we got malaria it was a court martial offence because the pill prevented it. But if we didn't take the pill, we would almost always get malaria because it was so prevalent.

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

It's easier because you just take a fish and add it to your tank with no treatment or fanfare. What is simpler than that?
As I said many times, if I can do it, anyone can. I am an electrician not a magician.

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?

Maybe if she was really good looking, I would go for it.

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

Which fish are those? I never found a fish that could not get immune. Those fish are what we call Extinct.