Possible solution to end RTN forever?!?

[MnFish1]

Results PUBLISHED on website
Reviewed by my Peers (you and thousands of others)
Have had this discussion many times before
Peer review means just that, peer reviewed. Nothing else.

With all deference - that is not the definition of 'peer review' used in the scientific community. I'm not trying to 'pile onto you'. But Peer review does not mean ask 500 reef tank owners to analyze your science (i.e. if there was a new cholesterol medicine, Merck would not just set up a website and say 'hey everyone this will lower your cholesterol - check it out and analyze my studies'. Instead peer review would be experts in the field analyzing the study etc. Same thing here. Bob Johnson from Omaha who is a truck driver (with a nice reef tank) reviewing your study is not the same as a marine biologist with expertise in this area reviewing your study.

I personally think this is a fascinating discussion - who knows - even if its not as good as you say - there is some science behind it that it MIGHT help.

 

[shred5]

Just because something is published on the internet does not make it true.

I was going to stay out of this but now because of the way the sponsor is acting I am having a hard time believing any of this is true.
The way you act I am starting to believe your claims as who you say are may not even be true.
I claim to be a scientist so it must be true.
I see why the other forum did not allow sponsors to talk about their products outside their own forums for a while.
This thread has certainly gone south when a sponsor is spreading insult because someone disagrees or doubts them..

 

[MnFish1]

Thank you for your response. As a fellow scientist you know scientific facts don’t require “peer reviewed publication in a scientific journal”. Unfortunately the peer review publish process has become highly unreliable

I respect your request for describing methods. And I suggest you attempt to run your own and validate the results or not. You will find I am correct.

Again - no offense - you're trying to market a product. I have no desire to try to replicate or repeat a study - when I have no details on what I'm replicating. Lets say I took you up on your 'offer' and said - ok then came back 6 months later and said ok - I did it this way -it didnt work - you'd merely say 'well you didnt do it the way I did'.

Without knowing what you did its impossible to know.

PS about the Peer Review process - thats taken slightly out of context - its from an editoria l concerning Pharma companies and published research - but here is an interesting article - that describes what thats about. I think the quote below from the article is appropriate. (https://participatorymedicine.org/e...corruption-of-american-medicine-ny-times.html):

Good research is transparent: you can see what the researcher did, you can see his/her data, you can try to reproduce it yourself. You can build a future on it. I shy away from anyone – establishment or not – who’s hostile to questions about their methods and thoughts.

 

[Prime Coral]

I disagree. Remember back when Linus Pauling was "sure that high dose vitamin C cured the common cold?"

With all due respect, you're not the only 'scientist' here. Your experimental proof has never been shown. I asked several posts ago to describe the methods you used to obtain a pure culture of Philaster - and then 'reinfect coral'. Unless you did something to prevent ANY OTHER KIND OF bacteria, virus, fungus, or ciliate - and did genetic testing on the ciliates both before and after there is no way to know if you fulfilled Kochs postulates. Id like to know how you obtained a 'pure culture' of Philaster - and how you proved that? Maybe you have done all these things - you just aren't stating that in your evidence.

As a scientist, It seems that the way to go about something like this -is to write an article and send it to a peer reviewed journal and let other experts in the field analyze your methods and conclusions. You certainly have the scientific background to do so - I have written several myself.

I'll ask again - why is the product not fish safe? How do you know its safe for every other oceanic life form? Lets say its 'a fact' that it kills Philaster and many other worms. What harm will that do to tank biodiversity/ etc?

I cannot repost all of my work every time someone questions it. You ask good questions. Did you do your research on my credentials, lab experience, qualifications? No you didn’t. So now you want me to earn your trust from a complete stranger. And I am asked to do it a hundred times a day over and over. I don’t have time for that and neither would you.
Publishing papers in journals have 100% to do with are you friends with the editor or some other unscientific relationship with the editor. Peer reviewers don’t determine if a scientific paper gets published. They only make comments. I am a reviewer for 3 scientific journals and peer reviewer is only that, a reviewer.
Sorry but the cause of leprosy, Black Plague, malaria and hundreds of other parasitic infections and diseases DID NOT REQUIRE genetic analysis or any other fancy testing. No this coral RTN and STN can easily be diagnosed just as hundreds of other causative microorganism diseases have, good scientific methods and a microscope. Don’t need to complicate it. Complicated thinking is why it had never been discovered as the cause of coral tissue necrosis until now. The best science is simple.

 

[shred5]

Thank you for your response. As a fellow scientist you know scientific facts don’t require “peer reviewed publication in a scientific journal”. Unfortunately the peer review publish process has become highly unreliable

I respect your request for describing methods. And I suggest you attempt to run your own and validate the results or not. You will find I am correct.

While I do not care about peer review, just because you say it is so does not make it so but it does not make you wrong either. Lots of discoveries are made in this hobby by people without any credentials too.
The problem is you are telling everyone else they are wrong too and not being cool about it.

I know it is the internet generation who now days throws insult around and has no social skills. I disagree so I will insult you.

 

[BigJohnny]

I respect your request for describing methods. And I suggest you attempt to run your own and validate the results or not. You will find I am correct.

-says no legit scientist ever

 

[Prime Coral]

Again - no offense - you're trying to market a product. I have no desire to try to replicate or repeat a study - when I have no details on what I'm replicating. Lets say I took you up on your 'offer' and said - ok then came back 6 months later and said ok - I did it this way -it didnt work - you'd merely say 'well you didnt do it the way I did'.

Without knowing what you did its impossible to know.

PS about the Peer Review process - thats taken slightly out of context - its from an editoria l concerning Pharma companies and published research - but here is an interesting article - that describes what thats about. I think the quote below from the article is appropriate. (https://participatorymedicine.org/e...corruption-of-american-medicine-ny-times.html):

Good research is transparent: you can see what the researcher did, you can see his/her data, you can try to reproduce it yourself. You can build a future on it. I shy away from anyone – establishment or not – who’s hostile to questions about their methods and thoughts.

I am not here to convince the stubborn and those who have secondary gain such as financial relations with commercial companies that don’t want this information out to the public. Who are you helping here?
You are not behaving scientifically. Your first comments were DISBELIEF. That is 100% not scientific and everyone here knows it. Wrong approach” scientist”. We are no longer able to be scientific when our personal views and biases cloud of vision. You need your vision checked

 

[Prime Coral]

There is some interesting issues here and discussion but wow these turn nasty fast. I hope even if this isn’t the end all solution it can at least be a step or get people engaged.

I did get a giggle out of the qualifications bashing and even when said was a double major in biochemistry/cell biology with a second degree in chemistry and a medical degree with being a neurosurgeon it still wasn’t good enough. Tough crowd!

I can see why he would get upset, but I hope it doesn’t detract from the larger conversation.

Awesome thanks. Sad isn’t it.
I didn’t even mention I was a principal investigator for an NIH grant studying neurons and have published many scientific papers over the years and sit on review boards for several neuroscience journals.
Again Not here to sell a product but just to educate people on the FACT RTN and STN are due to infection by protozoan parasites that invade the coral gut/ gastrovascular cavity and eat the coral alive causing RTN and STN.

 

[sde1500]

Reviewed by my Peers (you and thousands of others)

You are doing your best to make it quite clear you view no one here as a "peer".

I am not here to convince the stubborn and those who have secondary gain such as financial relations with commercial companies that don’t want this information out to the public. Who are you helping here?
You are not behaving scientifically. Your first comments were DISBELIEF. That is 100% not scientific and everyone here knows it. Wrong approach” scientist”. We are no longer able to be scientific when our personal views and biases cloud of vision. You need your vision checked

Using responses like this shows my point.

 

[Prime Coral]

Where are the actual studies documented? All I see are your findings with no evidence. What set up and procedures did you follow? What methods did you use to ensure no cross contamination took place? Did you catalogue, photograph, and track all 500+ specimens? How many different sources did they come from? How were they stored prior to testing? What "lab" did you do this in? Where is all that information?

Here is the biggest flaw in your findings:

"Dr. Deukmedjian received coral specimens from a wide variety of aquaculture facilities experiencing an outbreak of spontaneous tissue necrosis."

Findings

All corals demonstrating rapid tissue necrosis were infected with an infestation of philaster lucinda and philaster guamense without exception"

-This does not prove a causative relationship. You do not know if they were responsible for the rtn/stn on corals that were already rtn/stning. I know what your response will be and just because you moved the parasite to healthy corals and they started rtn/stning, doesnt mean the corals you pulled the parasites off of in the first place rtn/stnd because of them. It only proves that those parasites can cause stn/rtn. To say that they are the only cause, that's not science, that's an assumption. Also, why do you say ONLY cause in one line on the website and then LEADING cause on another? Which is it?

Also, were the "healthy corals" that you infected with the parasites from the same facilities that sent you rtn/stning corals? If not where were they from? Were they stored in the same system as any of the other corals at anytime? How were the parasites transferred from the infected stn/rtn corals to the infected corals? What methods did you use to prevent cross contamination with bacteria or other organisms?

And finally, what other bacteria/parasites did you identify on every single coral in the study and were there any others that were present on all samples?

I could go on and on. You have not presented enough evidence that the proper studies have been performed, and they certainly havent been peer reviewed.

Thanks for just completing a peer review for me!
PS: peer review means exactly what you just did and nothing else. The author doesn’t need to answer a single question to get published in today’s scientific publication world. Just needs to be buddy buddy with the editor , kinda like we are buddy buddies.

 

[Prime Coral]

There is a problem with this @Reefahholic In the abstract for this article - it states that there are MANY ciliates associated with White Band disease (RTN) - and that there is no evidence that Philaster/ciliates are causal in RTN - but it deserves further investigation. IN summary (contrary to Prime coral's statements) - that

1. Many other ciliates are associated with RTN (the information elsewhere in the thread states there is only 1 (Philaster)
2. Philaster and another ciliate have been found to contain zooxanthellae suggesting that they MIGHT be playing a role in the disease itself (rather than 'its a sure thing')
3. It clearly states that there are bacteria at the site of the injury (Also contrary to what Prime Coral says)
4. It clearly states that they were not able to discern the roles of the ciliates play in disease causation..

Here we show that a wide variety of ciliates are associated with all nine coral diseases assessed. Many of these ciliates such as Trochilia petrani and Glauconema trihymene feed on the bacteria which are likely colonizing the bare skeleton exposed by the advancing disease lesion or the necrotic tissue itself. Others such as Pseudokeronopsis and Licnophora macfarlandi are common predators of other protozoans and will be attracted by the increase in other ciliate species to the lesion interface. However, a few ciliate species (namely Varistrombidium kielum, Philaster lucinda, P. guamensis, a Euplotes sp., a Trachelotractus sp. and a Condylostoma sp.) appear to harbor symbiotic algae, potentially from the coral themselves, a result which may indicate they play some role in the disease pathology at the very least. Although, from this study alone we are not able to discern what roles any of these ciliates play in disease causation, the consistent presence of such communities with disease lesion interfaces warrants further investigation.

Please stop trying to mislead people

Michael Sweet was very specific with the word he chose “associated with” for a reason. He is a real scientist and knows he cannot make the jump from “associated with” to “causes” because he lacks the evidence. Only I have performed the necessary experiments to prove a causal relationship between protozoan Philaster and coral tissue necrosis.

 

[Prime Coral]

Quick question regarding the dip: Do you have to use all of the dip at once? Can you use a 1/4 of the bottle and make a gallon? What is the shelf life of the dip once it is mixed in the bottle?

You can use as little as you want to just keep the volume ratios constant as you pointed out. Dip shelf life is 6 weeks once mixed in bottle as long as refrigerated

 

[Prime Coral]

He contradicts himself in many ways, on the website too.

Honestly I don’t. I can see how some people would get confused. It’s complicated stuff for some

 

[MnFish1]

I cannot repost all of my work every time someone questions it. You ask good questions. Did you do your research on my credentials, lab experience, qualifications? No you didn’t. So now you want me to earn your trust from a complete stranger. And I am asked to do it a hundred times a day over and over. I don’t have time for that and neither would you.
Publishing papers in journals have 100% to do with are you friends with the editor or some other unscientific relationship with the editor. Peer reviewers don’t determine if a scientific paper gets published. They only make comments. I am a reviewer for 3 scientific journals and peer reviewer is only that, a reviewer.
Sorry but the cause of leprosy, Black Plague, malaria and hundreds of other parasitic infections and diseases DID NOT REQUIRE genetic analysis or any other fancy testing. No this coral RTN and STN can easily be diagnosed just as hundreds of other causative microorganism diseases have, good scientific methods and a microscope. Don’t need to complicate it. Complicated thinking is why it had never been discovered as the cause of coral tissue necrosis until now. The best science is simple.

Actually I did google your name - I see you published some papers on c1-2 spinal intervention. I have no doubt believing your what you say you are.

I also (like you) don't have time to go into the history of Koch's postulates, or describe how bacteria were identified and named. I will point out that since genetic testing came into be - many genera and species of bacteria have been completely renamed/classified because it was found that they bore no relationship to the bacteria to which they were thought to be related. If we were in 1900 the experiments you did would be a good start. Its not 1900 (but again - no offense - the methods you are using ignore decades of other research).

The papers about Philaster that have been posted on this site have asked the question about the relationship between Philaster and RTN since at least 2014 and I think some earlier as well. There is NO published data that suggests that Philaster or other ciliates 'cause' RTN. certainly there is research going on - this is not exactly a new idea.

Lastly - if you think the peer review process is so flawed - why do you do it? If you think its meaningless - why do you participate in peer review? To me there is an issue here - on one hand you are a hobbiest coming to a reef site with an idea - and some home videos and some evidence that what you say is correct. Thats great - thats what this forum is about. The problem (IMHO) comes when you then start bringing out science, etc and degrees and statements that 'this is fact, this is proven, this is science' - but you dont want to back it up using the 'scientific method'. When someone asks why you dont write an article describing all of your methods, etc and submit it for peer review - you seem to slam peer review. Then in the next post state that you're a peer reviewer for 3 journals. I apologize if I am confused.

 

[MnFish1]

I am not here to convince the stubborn and those who have secondary gain such as financial relations with commercial companies that don’t want this information out to the public. Who are you helping here?
You are not behaving scientifically. Your first comments were DISBELIEF. That is 100% not scientific and everyone here knows it. Wrong approach” scientist”. We are no longer able to be scientific when our personal views and biases cloud of vision. You need your vision checked

Um - I have no commercial relationships with any company that doesnt want this information out here or any company. Im trying to help others understand science. Im also a talker and like to discuss science (you can ask almost anyone on this site and they will document that -it has nothing to do with you personally). On what basis would you think I have some secondary gain.

I would say my first comments were 'skepticism' and that IS 100% scientific. I also dug up articles suggesting that there might be something to what you were saying. I.e. I was looking for 'both sides', not just 'your side' or 'my side'. Unless you're confusing my posts with someone else I feel you're incorrect in your post above.

 

[Prime Coral]

Website quote:

"FACT: The number one cause of RTN are the Philaster Lucinda and Philaster Guamense parasites."

Busted. You've also said several times that "extreme" environmental swings can cause it. Like boiling lol

Of course boiling your coral will cause RTN. That doesn’t mean the first statement isn’t true. The number One cause of RTN is Philaster. Extreme environmental changes are very rare, except maybe in your system...

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

No I didn’t
This parasite causes all coral RTN and the STN parasites cause all coral STN. People started to ask me “what if I drop my pH to 4.2 and coral RTNs is that the parasite ?” Obviously not the parasite. Those extreme physical and chemical changes are what I am referring to. So without going into exhaustive detail about every single possible scenario I have made a broad statement

Do you have some published, PRd research that does go into exhaustive detail...preferably with data? You could just post that and spend a lot less time trying to respond to every post.

 

[Prime Coral]

Um - I have no commercial relationships with any company that doesnt want this information out here or any company. Im trying to help others understand science. Im also a talker and like to discuss science (you can ask almost anyone on this site and they will document that -it has nothing to do with you personally). On what basis would you think I have some secondary gain.

I would say my first comments were 'skepticism' and that IS 100% scientific. I also dug up articles suggesting that there might be something to what you were saying. I.e. I was looking for 'both sides', not just 'your side' or 'my side'. Unless you're confusing my posts with someone else I feel you're incorrect in your post above.

Funny how you say “your side “ or “ my side” . This statement 100% proves my point. You were never open minded as a real scientist always is. You were against “my side “ from the beginning. This is exactly wrong with the whole peer review process and trust me you are one of countless others that approach a new finding with what you call skepticism but we call bias

 

[MnFish1]

Of course boiling your coral will cause RTN. That doesn’t mean the first statement isn’t true. The number One cause of RTN is Philaster. Extreme environmental changes are very rare, except maybe in your system...

Questions:

1. Assume I have a tank now. Haven't had RTN. Would you recommend that I prophylactically use your product in the tank?
2. If I have a coral that has RTN is it best to treat the whole tank? or remove the coral and treat it separately. Based on your studies whats the rationale for your answer? Would you then treat the whole tank after removing the diseased coral?
3. I assume the recommendation would be to dip anything coming into the tank - including rocks, inverts (with solid bases), new coral etc. How about crabs, clams, etc? Can they be dipped safely? Its well known that cryptokaryon can encyst on shells, etc
4. If you cant dip certain things - how do you ensure that these ciliates are 'out of your system'? Does this mean a potential repeated pattern of treating the display tank when a coral develops RTN?
5. I may have missed it - is there a video showing success in treating RTN STN (i.e. before and after pictures)? What is the success rate of the product once RTN has started i.e. what percent success is achieved with this product?


Thanks

 

[MnFish1]

Funny how you say “your side “ or “ my side” . This statement 100% proves my point. You were never open minded as a real scientist always is. You were against “my side “ from the beginning. This is exactly wrong with the whole peer review process and trust me you are one of countless others that approach a new finding with what you call skepticism but we call bias

Why would I be biased? Why would anyone be biased? Except in response to the stuff that was posted at the beginning of the thread by the OP - suggesting that this was a miracle cure? I had no reason to be biased. I was referring to (when I started reading this thread) the fact that many people were kind of slamming reefaholic for various reasons. I looked up data to try to determine if there was any rationale to what he was saying. If you read what I have written at least 3 times - I find in an extremely interesting premise with some science behind it. I'm not sure why you're mincing words and seemingly trying to pick fights over little details. For the large part of this thread - I was talking to Reefaholic not you - so there was never 'your side' and 'my side'. But clearly there are at least 2 sides. yours - the people who think you are wrong - and what I think which is you may be right you may be wrong - there is no way to tell. My personal side vs your side is that you have made some statements that aren't justified (like - Philaster causes all types of RTN, there is no doubt, this is science, etcetc) - that is where we disagree - I have always had an open mind about the concept.