You're making this far more personal than it needs to be. You're acting like I am running your dog over and Rich is riding shotgun peeing in your wheaties.
Cruz has made some extraordinary claims and has dodged every question for the data to back them up. The burden of proof is only on the person making the claims (this is how science works, if you tried to submit a paper for peer review with no data to back up claims, you'd be laughed out of academia), yet he (and many others) is continuing to tell others that the burden of proof is on them. Cruz continues to claim to be a scientist with 'science degrees' and yet refuses to actually comply with the 'science' part.
That is great! Squamosa when initially asked for data didn't supply much, now says he has data from before and during 'for all to see'. When asked for it he still doesn't supply it. You have supplied none either. Now you are pretending to be indignant that I am not telling you what I did? And that somehow, one day (which you have no idea how long I did whatever I did) is not enough when your initial literature said that improvements are seen in a single treatment. Amazing.
It has been proved that the yellowing of water can be corrected by carbon filtration. I believe it was a BRS video that showed a decrease in par going from memory. Possibly the micro bubbles are doing the same thing by facilitating nutrient export? Most say their water is clearer which would increase PAR I would think. Just a thought.
That is correct...
Not understood, thought. It seems the benefits are not from the soup itself, rather from placebo and conformation bias. There are a million other things that people have thought have an effect that don't or that actually have a negative effect. Finding out if something actually does what people say it does is a benefit of the scientific method.
That is forgetting all the people it did not work for. I know of at least 3 people that methodically tested it and had no remission of bryopsis, and I know a lot more that didn't methodically test it. It is hit and miss, and has not be shown to actually work reliably.
We have to have better evidence to support extreme claims. Anecdote is notoriously mistaken. Anecdote is a good starting point for research, but there needs to be more. We have seen so many products/methods in our hobby that people swear make things 'better' but then the fads go away because there is no actual evidence of the claims and people eventually learn that they get the same results without the extra work. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
AFAIK, the PH, ORP, and picture 'evidence' are all post-bubbling. Without painting a very clear picture of 'before', the results hold little water (pun intended
), and this is only one problem. Cruz still has yet to quantify the following (I've removed the ones on the list that are plausible):
AFAIK, the PH, ORP, and picture 'evidence' are all post-bubbling. Without painting a very clear picture of 'before', the results hold little water (pun intended
Some of these are easily quantifiable, such as measuring many points of data for CO2 levels before bubbling to establish the baseline and after bubbling to show the difference, and not just 'one off' measurements, as CO2 levels do vary over time. Some of these, such as 'better appetite in fish' and 'faster carapace hardening in inverts' are extremely difficult to quantify, and again Cruz continues to ignore that the burden of proof in these claims is on him, with more being necessary that just saying 'I think I see it, therefore it must be true.' Some other hobbyists report that they do seem to see an increase in vitality, but that can be fallacious thinking, as they were told beforehand that it is something that they should expect to see.
LOL! The 1000 was for where I said microbubbling didn't work, not that I didn't get the advertised results!
