Possible solution to end RTN forever?!?

[LMDAVE]

Is this product also claiming to treat Vermetid snails as a coincidental side effect?


"These Vermetid Snails died after being dipped twice in Prime Coral STOP RTN Coral Dip. Coincidence? or a new treatment for Vermetid snails?"

 

[Lowell Lemon]

I have to say I am disappointed by academics eating their own.

This discussion mirrors the problems in our nation and world with political parties, races, and tribes. In all these cases civility goes a long way in the discussion. That should preclude the necessity to thump your own chest and shove your superior intelligence down the throat of the rest of the poor unwashed masses who would like to learn from an intelligent discussion.

Look it is a know fact that each cubic milliter of sea water holds about 1 million bacteria and about 10 million viruses. This begs the question of how these organisms interact and how does it affect the disease process? This does not even include the possible ciliated protozoa, and other micro fauna included in those samples. There is a lot of unknown possible interactions in the soup we call sea water.

@MnFish1 , @Big Johnny , @Demonic @ca1ore , @sde1500, @jda with the exception of MnFish1 no one else has put up their bonfides but leveled lots of hostility and I have to ask for what reason? It must go beyond just some skepticism and I am not sure why? We all have a choice in how we respond and with several of you this is part for any discussion you enter and I just have to ask why? Are you threatened by someone else's opinion or their apparent success? Are you deluded enough to think you are the smartest person in the room and cannot learn something useful from someone else? I have the least bonfides in the group I am sure! Respect and civility are lacking in our nation and world. Can you not with your superior intellects see that this is part of the problem and not the solution? Perhaps some of you are just trolls that live for the lowbrow dig and if so a real discussion will not miss you in the least since you have nothing of value to offer.

I may not be qualified to comment but some things stand out in the conversation. Other sources have verified the presence of the these ciliates in several samples world wide. The doctor has identified what he believes to be a suspect group of organisms and using the four step process outlined established his theory and presented to you for your consideration. Now it is up to you to go to your lab and disprove his theory and work. If and until you can do that ask respectful questions and treat each other as fellow investigators. So show respect and give respect to you fellow researcher or hobbiest whatever the case may be.

Speculation and skepticism without the ability to back it up with some intelligent and respectful questions just presents itself as ignorance and arrogance. Can we now proceed with an intellectual, honest, and civil discussion? Please avoid the gotcha attempts to trip up various presenters that is just lowbrow and counter productive. Ask questions for clarification not with the intent to attack or belittle. We all mispeake or choose the wrong words or arguments when trying to short cut our communication. Give each other time to be civil and stop assuming the worst about each other and this presentation.

By choosing how you respond you can choose to be the solution and not the problem. I will drop in again since this is a vital and important topic. Good day gentlemen and ladies!

 

[MnFish1]

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.

Here is a start Gregg:

White Syndrome in Acropora muricata: Non-specific bacterial infection and ciliate histophagy

• February 2015
• Molecular Ecology 24(5)

In addition to the three bacterial pathogenic candidates and as previously shown for WS and more recently for White Band Disease (WBD) in the Caribbean, all samples of the disease were specifically associated with the histophagous ciliate Philaster lucinda. From the pattern of disease progression and histopathology in relation to the selective elimination of microbial groups, we conclude that these ‘white’ diseases are a result of a non-specific bacterial infection and a ‘secondary’ infection by the P. lucinda ciliate.

Although we have not observed the initiation of infection, a non-specific, multi-species bacterial infection appears to be a co-requirement for WS lesion progression and we hypothesize that the bacterial infection occurs initially, weakening the defences of the host to predation by the ciliates. Such ciliate histophagy, gives rise to the characteristic white band of denuded coral skeleton that gives these diseases their names.

In this paper it clearly states that:

The Philaster sp. ciliate and several bacterial pathogens appear to be ubiquitous in coral reef environments, including aquarium systems (Sweet et al.
2013a). Therefore, in an attempt to address specific roles of these ubiquitous micro-organisms, we used an alternative approach aimed to narrow down the identification of potential pathogens of WBD using experimental antibiotic treat- ments. This approach selectively inhibited bacterial and ciliate associates from diseased corals and allowed us to determine the effects on the disease progression and histopathology (Sweet et al.
2014). We found that by eliminating the entire suite of bacterial and ciliate associates of the disease, WBD progression could be halted. This finding is consistent with Kline & Vollmer (2011), who concluded that WBD is a bacterially mediated disease from transmission of the disease via a 0.45-lm fil-trate of diseased tissues that could be rendered ineffective by antibiotic treatment. However, at the time, interactions with ciliates and other potential pathogens already associated with the experimental samples were not investigated by Kline & Vollmer (2011). From the more recent study, we were able to conclude that the Philaster sp. ciliate appeared to not be the primary pathogen of WBD, as its elimination during certain treatments did not prevent lesion progression (Sweet et al. 2014). That said, the histopathology of the disease was altered upon reduction of populations of the ciliate, suggesting that it is a ‘secondary’ pathogen, contributing to the specific pathogenesis, rather than a secondary invader consuming tissues killed by a spe- cific bacterial primary infection.

(2) (PDF) White Syndrome in Acropora muricata: Non-specific bacterial infection and ciliate histophagy. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ic_bacterial_infection_and_ciliate_histophagy[accessed Mar 04 2019].

 

[ca1ore]

@Lowell Lemon .... hostility how? Challenging assumptions is not hostility, it is reasonable skepticism? Hostility would be name calling or insult. I see none of that here. I’m not an academic but I do know enough about the scientific method to feel vaguely uneasy with this discussion.

 

[MnFish1]

I have to say I am disappointed by academics eating their own.

This discussion mirrors the problems in our nation and world with political parties, races, and tribes. In all these cases civility goes a long way in the discussion. That should preclude the necessity to thump your own chest and shove your superior intelligence down the throat of the rest of the poor unwashed masses who would like to learn from an intelligent discussion.

Look it is a know fact that each cubic milliter of sea water holds about 1 million bacteria and about 10 million viruses. This begs the question of how these organisms interact and how does it affect the disease process? This does not even include the possible ciliated protozoa, and other micro fauna included in those samples. There is a lot of unknown possible interactions in the soup we call sea water.

@MnFish1 , @Big Johnny , @Demonic @ca1ore , @sde1500, @jda with the exception of MnFish1 no one else has put up their bonfides but leveled lots of hostility and I have to ask for what reason? It must go beyond just some skepticism and I am not sure why? We all have a choice in how we respond and with several of you this is part for any discussion you enter and I just have to ask why? Are you threatened by someone else's opinion or their apparent success? Are you deluded enough to think you are the smartest person in the room and cannot learn something useful from someone else? I have the least bonfides in the group I am sure! Respect and civility are lacking in our nation and world. Can you not with you superior intellects see that this is part of the problem and not the solution? Perhaps some of you are just trolls that live for the lowbrow dig and if so a real discussion will not miss you in the least since you have nothing of value to offer.

I may not be qualified to comment but some things stand out in the conversation. Other sources have verified the presence of the these ciliates in several samples world wide. The doctor has identified what he believes to be a suspect group of organisms and using the four step process outlined established his theoryand presented to you for your consideration. Now it is up to you to go to the your lab and disprove his theory and work. If and until you can do that ask respectful questions and treat each other as fellow investigators. So show respect and give respect to you fellow researcher or hobbiest whatever the case may be.

Speculation and skepticism without the ability to back it up with some intelligent and respectful questions just presents itself as ignorance and arrogance. Can we now proceed with an intellectual, honest, and civil discussion? Please avoid the gotcha attempts to trip up various presenters that is just lowbrow and counter productive. Ask questions for clarification not with the intent to attack or belittle. We all mispeake or choose the wrong words or arguments when trying to short cut our communication. Give each other time to be civil and stop assuming the worst about each other and this presentation.

By choosing how you respond you can choose to be the solution and not the problem. I will drop in again since this is a vital and important topic. Good day gentlemen and ladies!

With all due respect - and I agree generally about civility- from a science perspective it is not for the people asking questions to disprove a theory or idea. Its up to the person presenting the idea to show proof. I dont know how much of a science background you have - I do - and I find these articles difficult to read and understand(the published articles on this topic) - but what I have realized is that their materials, methods, and rationale are well spelled out.

I will say again - and I'm no authority on this or anything else. I believe that Dr. D believes what he says. I believe he has developed a product HE thinks will help people with this horrible problem. Going forward he may be completely correct in his statements that getting rid of these ciliates will eliminate RTN.

My issue is he is saying these things now - and there is not enough evidence that this is the case. There seem to me (though we dont know the methodology) that there are some flaws to the reasoning (though it may be my misunderstanding). There is peer reviewed research thats been replicated - that suggests RTN is not primarily caused by ciliates of any kind. This seems different than the information posted enthusiastically by the OP.

As to the tone of the discussion - there has been a bit of incivility on both sides - and some directed against me personally - though I've actually posted information which shows that there might be some merit to what Dr. D is saying. So with all due respect again - I think calling out the individuals above is a little unfair. Again JMHO.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

@Lowell Lemon

I appreciate your overall position, but I don’t think that’s necessarily what’s going on here.

He has been met with a lot of skepticism, primarily from making absolute claims based on methodology that seems incomplete, data that seems thin, and a heavy dose of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I can’t speak for others, but from my perspective, he threw me a bone, but what I want is meat.

He’s getting the brother-in-law treatment here. Had he submitted this for publication in a scientific journal, he would have been shot down far more abruptly.

 

[MnFish1]

I have to say I am disappointed by academics eating their own.

PS - this is nothing - and has been the same way since the time of Pasteur and Lister. If you had been at some of the meetings I have where research protocols were being discussed you would be shocked. The way science advances is one person advances a theory and others challenge it - try to replicate it and things gradually become accepted once they are 'tried and true'. Look at the guy that discovered H pylori and its relationship to ulcers/gastritis, etc... He was eventually proven to be correct - though at the time - his ideas seemed crazy. This case, I feel is different in many ways.

 

[sde1500]

with the exception of MnFish1 no one else has put up their bonfides but leveled lots of hostility and I have to ask for what reason? It must go beyond just some skepticism and I am not sure why?

I am nothing more than an interested skeptic. The responses I saw by Prime bothered me. Questions, and skepticism have been met with hostility, no more or less than some here have shown towards the idea as well. I've perused the web site, it leaves more questions than answers. Interactions here don't seem to prove much to answer questions.

Are you threatened by someone else's opinion or their apparent success? Are you deluded enough to think you are the smartest person in the room and cannot learn something useful from someone else? I have the least bonfides in the group I am sure

Hardly. This is not the place for anyone that is bothered by someone else's success, as there is likely someone here doing better in life, depending on your definition of that, than you are. Much of this I know is beyond me, but I am interested in it.

Now it is up to you to go to the your lab and disprove his theory and work. If and until you can do that ask respectful questions and treat each other as fellow investigators. So show respect and give respect to you fellow researcher or hobbiest whatever the case may be.

No lab here. I'd love to see some do some testing to review as well though.

Speculation and skepticism without the ability to back it up with some intelligent and respectful questions just presents itself as ignorance and arrogance.

I think skepticism is fine and should be present. As I've said, this hobby is rife with snake oil cure all products that don't work. Details are light at best on the web site. Youtube video I don't find to be the best source for delivering ground breaking scientific discoveries, neither is their own commercial website. And so, the motive is questioned. Is that truly wrong? This one will be hard to prove by hobbyists. As opposed to something like dosing flucanazole for algae, much easier for the average person to document success with. I think that will make this more of a challenge to create widespread acceptance and adoption, which is only compounded by people here being talked down to by the business owner.

 

[Miguel Medina]

[QUOTE = "Jose Mayo, post: 5787123, miembro: 90756"] Para colaborar, se sabe que el parásito Philaster lucinda es sensible al metronidazol en baja concentración, con MIC (concentración inhibitoria mínima) del orden de 1 mg / Litro administrado 12/12 horas durante 6 días. El metronidazol es seguro para peces, corales, crustáceos y el filtro biológico (a esta concentración y hasta 10 veces más alto), no alcanza el ciclo del nitrógeno y puede administrarse directamente en el tanque de exhibición sin mayores consecuencias. Sin embargo ... los experimentos de erradicación bien realizados del parásito Philaster lucinda no lograron detener la progresión de la RTN en los corales, como se demuestra en el siguiente tema:

¿Probable nuevo enfoque en el síndrome de STN?

Saludos [/ QUOTE]
This was my first book describing many drugs to fight many spectra

 

[MnFish1]

[QUOTE = "Jose Mayo, post: 5787123, miembro: 90756"] Para colaborar, se sabe que el parásito Philaster lucinda es sensible al metronidazol en baja concentración, con MIC (concentración inhibitoria mínima) del orden de 1 mg / Litro administrado 12/12 horas durante 6 días. El metronidazol es seguro para peces, corales, crustáceos y el filtro biológico (a esta concentración y hasta 10 veces más alto), no alcanza el ciclo del nitrógeno y puede administrarse directamente en el tanque de exhibición sin mayores consecuencias. Sin embargo ... los experimentos de erradicación bien realizados del parásito Philaster lucinda no lograron detener la progresión de la RTN en los corales, como se demuestra en el siguiente tema:

¿Probable nuevo enfoque en el síndrome de STN?

Saludos [/ QUOTE]
This was my first book describing many drugs to fight many spectra

Here is the translation:

To collaborate, it is known that the Philaster lucinda parasite is sensitive to metronidazole in low concentration, with MIC (minimum inhibitory concentration) of the order of 1 mg / Liter administered 12/12 hours for 6 days. Metronidazole is safe for fish, corals, crustaceans and the biological filter (at this concentration and up to 10 times higher), does not reach the nitrogen cycle and can be administered directly in the exhibition tank without major consequences. However ... well-conducted eradication experiments of the Philaster lucinda parasite failed to stop the progression of RTN in corals, as demonstrated in the following topic:

Likely new approach in STN syndrome?

 

[BigJohnny]

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

No confusion, I can take more pictures and screenshots if you want

 

[Millimylilly]

Thanks for doing the experiment. I appreciate the information you collected. How can we check to see if we have the protozoans in our tanks? What do they look like under a microscope?

 

[BigJohnny]

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...

Haha uh, yes it does. Saying something is the ONLY cause and then saying it's just the LEADING cause is a contradiction because leading requires following as in other causes.

Do I have to go back and quote every single time you've said the parasite is the only cause of stn/rtn?

 

[BigJohnny]

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.

Multiple people have asked, he either says he doesnt have time, doesn't believe in peer review, or tells you to try the experiments yourself.

 

[Rakie]

So if you haven't heard...Prime Coral has some impressive videos showing a parasite that's responsible for RTN and others that might be responsible for STN. This guy is from Florida and his name is Dr. Ara Deukmedjian. This Philaster parasite that he's captured on video eating acros sure fits the description of being the RTN culprit for all these years. This thing is very aerodynamic, extremely fast, and the numbers found on the Acropora frags and colonies are staggering. I've owned several microscopes and have never seen anything like it. Maybe I was looking in the wrong places! In his multiple videos, they've literally been caught with their hands in the cookie jar- if you will. Yep...munching away on beautiful acropora colonies, chalices, and other SPS. All of them full of zooxanthellae too! I'll post a video below, but it's very impressive. We'll get into more details later.

There's also a study back from 2014 that links Ciliate communities to coral disease. Yes ICH is one of them! I found this very interesting. Make sure you watch that video as well.

2014 Study found here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1385110115300095

In Houston...we're already hot on the trail doing research and testing. Dr. Deukmedjian does sell a product that is used as a dip. He also has another for in-tank treatment. This has lead many people to become very skeptical, but after you watch the video evidence of these parasites dying, you start to think wow! Trust me though...these videos are incredible! They speak for themselves. Anyway, the in-tank treatment is questionable with fish, but the dip is already working for several people. Psxerholic has been testing and I'm testing now too. Psx has already reported success with his fish. I think he mentioned he did loose one. I'm not sure if that was due to the treatment or what.?

Many more questions to be asked and nobody has all the answers yet which is why we're all working hard to find out more details. I'll link a video below that highlights the best two videos. There's many more on his channel. See the description section on my video for all the information about the products and join us in our search for all the answers and help test with us.

@gcarroll -- This is interesting if you haven't seen it. I'm sure there's more information developing but an interesting read none the less.

 

[MnFish1]

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.

BTW - my guess is that most scientists would disagree with you. In fact - what actually happens (or at least happened when I was submitting papers) is that it was sent to a publication - reviewers were chosen to review the paper (usually people whose research was cited in the new paper - or other 'experts'). Reviewers were then asked for their comments - which were sent back to the authors to either correct or rebut the problems (if any) the reviewers had (and just like on this website - there were always ALWAYS questions and or problems.

As to your definition of Peer Review. If you define yourself as an average reefer - you're right - this is peer review. It doesnt seem to me that thats what you're doing - you're describing yourself as a chemist, biochemist, someone who has worked at Scripps, a neurophysiology researcher (on the NIH grant) - as well as an MD/Neurosurgeon. So im confused - are we to consider you the same as anyone else who has an idea? Or are we to consider you more knowledgable (from a science and marine biology standpoint). Because imho you cant have it both ways.

My definition of Peer review (for your work) - is experts in coral infections - not someone with a tank in their basement (like me lol).

 

[BigJohnny]

I have to say I am disappointed by academics eating their own.

This discussion mirrors the problems in our nation and world with political parties, races, and tribes. In all these cases civility goes a long way in the discussion. That should preclude the necessity to thump your own chest and shove your superior intelligence down the throat of the rest of the poor unwashed masses who would like to learn from an intelligent discussion.

Look it is a know fact that each cubic milliter of sea water holds about 1 million bacteria and about 10 million viruses. This begs the question of how these organisms interact and how does it affect the disease process? This does not even include the possible ciliated protozoa, and other micro fauna included in those samples. There is a lot of unknown possible interactions in the soup we call sea water.

@MnFish1 , @Big Johnny , @Demonic @ca1ore , @sde1500, @jda with the exception of MnFish1 no one else has put up their bonfides but leveled lots of hostility and I have to ask for what reason? It must go beyond just some skepticism and I am not sure why? We all have a choice in how we respond and with several of you this is part for any discussion you enter and I just have to ask why? Are you threatened by someone else's opinion or their apparent success? Are you deluded enough to think you are the smartest person in the room and cannot learn something useful from someone else? I have the least bonfides in the group I am sure! Respect and civility are lacking in our nation and world. Can you not with you superior intellects see that this is part of the problem and not the solution? Perhaps some of you are just trolls that live for the lowbrow dig and if so a real discussion will not miss you in the least since you have nothing of value to offer.

I may not be qualified to comment but some things stand out in the conversation. Other sources have verified the presence of the these ciliates in several samples world wide. The doctor has identified what he believes to be a suspect group of organisms and using the four step process outlined established his theory and presented to you for your consideration. Now it is up to you to go to the your lab and disprove his theory and work. If and until you can do that ask respectful questions and treat each other as fellow investigators. So show respect and give respect to you fellow researcher or hobbiest whatever the case may be.

Speculation and skepticism without the ability to back it up with some intelligent and respectful questions just presents itself as ignorance and arrogance. Can we now proceed with an intellectual, honest, and civil discussion? Please avoid the gotcha attempts to trip up various presenters that is just lowbrow and counter productive. Ask questions for clarification not with the intent to attack or belittle. We all mispeake or choose the wrong words or arguments when trying to short cut our communication. Give each other time to be civil and stop assuming the worst about each other and this presentation.

By choosing how you respond you can choose to be the solution and not the problem. I will drop in again since this is a vital and important topic. Good day gentlemen and ladies!

My hostility comes from the disgust of his blatant attempt to manipulate people into buying a product by misrepresenting information, and also the way he responds to legitimate questions about his research. Plenty of people (including mrfish who you mentioned) were not hostile and were insulted or dismissed immediately. There's a reason 90% of this thread is attacking him, because he deserves it.

I said early on if he had approached it differently it would be great. Stating things as fact that arent and then fear mongering by using phrases like "spreading like aids", "worst then ever" "only cure" - some maybe paraphrased, infuriates me. The deception had to be addressed and I know that I have opened peoples eyes to the holes in this mans research and motivations.

I'm not just going to stand by and let people fall victim to his schtick.

 

[BigJohnny]

@Lowell Lemon .... hostility how? Challenging assumptions is not hostility, it is reasonable skepticism? Hostility would be name calling or insult. I see none of that here. I’m not an academic but I do know enough about the scientific method to feel vaguely uneasy with this discussion.

I definitely insulted him lol. You didnt though, nor did many others who were rudely dismissed.

 

[MnFish1]

My hostility comes from the disgust of his blatant attempt to manipulate people into buying a product by misrepresenting information, and also the way he responds to legitimate questions about his research. Plenty of people (including mrfish who you mentioned) were not hostile and were insulted or dismissed immediately. There's a reason 90% of this thread is attacking him, because he deserves it.

I said early on if he had approached it differently it would be great. Stating things as fact that arent and then fear mongering by using phrases like "spreading like aids", "worst then ever" "only cure" - some maybe paraphrased, infuriates me. The deception had to be addressed and I know that I have opened peoples eyes to the holes in this mans research and motivations.

I'm not just going to stand by and let people fall victim to his schtick.

Part of the issue MIGHT be - that (and I'm not trying to bash @reefaholic - the OP ) is that when the thread started it was presented by the OP like it was the second coming of Jesus (or whoever you think might be coming). People even suggested he was working for the company. This started the ball rolling (at least to my reading of the first couple pages). Dr. D wasn't involved in some of the claims until later.

Having said that - I just hope Dr. D can answer the couple of questions I've asked - as well as discuss some of the research that seems to contradict his position. In the thread mentioned above by Miguel - there was a very interesting actual PICTURE of coral with RTN/WBD being treated with nothing, various antibiotics including metronidazole Metronidazole - which killed Philaster did not Halt the spread - the antibiotics (ampicillin esp) did. ND is No Disease (control), WBD is white band disease. amp is ampicillin, gent is gentamicin metronidazole is the last

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

Multiple people have asked, he either says he doesnt have time, doesn't believe in peer review, or tells you to try the experiments yourself.

Yeah...that’s not how it works.

Not my job to do other people’s research for them.