Can managing ich really work?

[4FordFamily]

@4FordFamily was the prime example of having a ton of tangs (still does) and just managing ich and going against the grain, back in the days of RC. I remember how frustrating RC was and all the snobbery that was there (probably still is, one particular member). He now advocates QT 100%, that should tell any person entering this hobby a lot.

Yes, I was a HUGE proponent AGAINST QT. That's where my article came out, I thought others could learn. It wasn't as successful toward the end, and like many, (such as gamblers) my biases were toward successes, not losses. My tolerance for loss was too high in retrospect. I am not proud of that.

But it's true that for a long time I managed parasites relatively successfully.

 

[SeaDweller]

Yes, I was a HUGE proponent AGAINST QT. That's where my article came out, I thought others could learn. It wasn't as successful toward the end, and like many, (such as gamblers) my biases were toward successes, not losses. My tolerance for loss was too high in retrospect. I am not proud of that.

But it's true that for a long time I managed parasites relatively successfully.

You've seen both sides of the coin. To think ich is gonna disappear from a tank that hasn't run fallow, and the fish haven't been QT'ed for it, is just silly.

The only thing that might give us "managers" "hope" is an article/paper from years ago that says with each new generation from the same strain, it becomes weaker, and that's like 11 generations, aka 1 year. But it doesn't go on to say if that particular strain dies out or not. Apparently not in my tank, but it IS indeed weaker.