What is a healthy fish?

[MnFish1]

That was @Brew12 that apparently thinks you need a science degree to participate in a discussion about disease on a hobbyists reefing board. I was merely pointing out that I met his standard. I frankly don’t care if you have a degree at all.

I mostly disagree with your opinions, and frankly, the things we disagree about mostly are not about scientific things. I mostly object to the fact that you don’t follow the discussion and mostly seem to be interested in just petty personal argument rather than the actual topic. It’s just a waste of everyone else’s time. See your comment above for proof.

Watch - and please report this. I dont care what you think. In every thread you seem to post its a total negative sarcastic response. Its disgusting - according to the TOS of this site - I for one would be happy if you were banned. I think you try to stir up trouble wherever and whenever you can - this is my opinion - I may be wrong. From now on - if you think im going 'off track' on the discussion - that what the PM function is for - or? please feel free to do it (to me) in the meantime - anyone looking back on the posts you've made there are few positives and multiple negatives. IMO

 

[Paul Sands]

@Paul Sands Can we please have your scientifically definition of health and disease? I would love to have that and if you also can bring references it should be great. And please - no cherry picking

Sincerely Lasse

Sure. I prefer the WHO’s definition but I know that doesn’t fit your agenda.

I suspect that you know that “disease” is extremely difficult to define succinctly, which is why it usually isn’t.

 

[Paul Sands]

Watch - and please report this. I dont care what you think. In every thread you seem to post its a total negative sarcastic response. Its disgusting - according to the TOS of this site - I for one would be happy if you were banned. I think you try to stir up trouble wherever and whenever you can - this is my opinion - I may be wrong. From now on - if you think im going 'off track' on the discussion - that what the PM function is for - or? please feel free to do it (to me) in the meantime - anyone looking back on the posts you've made there are few positives and multiple negatives. IMO

pot meet kettle.

 

[MnFish1]

pot meet kettle. Stop trying to suck me into the posts that you have made. IMHO - two wrongs dont make a right - if the site thinks ive been inappropriate - they can tall me. Just unhitch yourself from me - please

doesnt make sense

 

[MnFish1]

pot meet kettle.

Get real. Anyone can see my posting vs yours. And frankly I dont care to debate it here. It seems that you have an agenda on multiple issues - QT, currently the MIndstream. Its fine I dont care. But - Though I used the pot meet kettle and others have used it as we'll in response to your posts - I think you have an agenda - I might be wrong.

 

[Paul Sands]

Get real. Anyone can see my posting vs yours. And frankly I dont care to debate it here. It seems that you have an agenda on multiple issues - QT, currently the MIndstream. Its fine I dont care. But - Though I used the pot meet kettle and others have used it as we'll in response to your posts - I think you have an agenda - I might be wrong.

What is my agenda? This should be fascinating.

 

[pdxmonkeyboy]

What would a forum be without the all knowing trolls. ;Yawn

 

[Lasse]

I quoted one study that noted there wasn’t any benefit to a number of species/diseases for reference.

You cherry picking 6 lines from this review

The abstract of that review was (from 2013)

Abstract
Administration of glucans through immersion, dietary inclusion or injection has been found to enhance many types of immune responses, resistance to bacterial and viral infections and to environmental stress in many fish species. Although the efficacy of the glucan varies with types and administration, glucan used as an immunomodulatory and mostly immunostimulatory additive has been found satisfactory in eliciting immunity in commercial aquaculture. Development of more efficient administration methods will facilitate the routine and prophylactic use of glucans as natural immunostimulants of fish. Using a PubMed search, this review has an extensive literature on glucan in fish immunity.

The conclusion in the review was

Conclusions
Administration of glucans through various routes including immersion, feed or injection have been found to enhance many types of immune responses, resistance to bacterial and viral infections and resistance to environmental stress. Although the efficacy of the glucan to some extent varies with type and administration, glucan used as an immunomodulatory additive has been found to be active in eliciting immunity in commercial aquaculture[100] and is currently routinely used in commercial farming. Development of more efficient administration methods will facilitate the routine and prophylactic use of glucans as natural immunostimulants of fish. Lately, interest focused on mechanisms of action. However, nothing conclusive can be reached as a result of these studies and the effects of glucan on modulation of gene expression leading to stimulation of fish immunity still require elucidation. Therefore, the limited knowledge of mechanisms of glucan action on fish immunity does not currently allow better and more specific use of glucan in aquaculture.

WHO:s definition of health fit me very well - but if it should make sense you need to have a definition of disease. Your definition is clearly that a single pathogen will make a disease. Its not mine - a disease for me is the opposite to WHO:s definition of health. And the fact that my stomach is full of pathogens (that have caused me a disease two years ago) they do not cause me a disease at the moment - but they are still there. At the moment I am "in a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being " but I still carrying pathogenic microorganism in my digestive tract that can kill me in 48 hours if the physical barriers or my immune system broke down. and its faster than a ich attack.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

What is my agenda? This should be fascinating.

Its not for me to decide. I wish you well

 

[Brew12]

Flaming petty personal attacks. Very classy.

I've chosen to ignore your flaming petty personal attacks against me. I've also been very careful to only attack your comments, not you.

Again, as for the definition of a disease, just because you can’t observe the symptoms with your eyes, doesn’t mean the symptoms don’t exist. A fish with ich has a disease. They may not have visible symptoms, but they do indeed have a disease.

Where did I ever say that observation was used to determine if a fish has a disease? Scientists have PROVEN that a fish with crypto can function normally if immune. That means it is not diseased.

I didn’t backtrack my comment on glucan. I asked you to prove that it was useful in an aquarium. Rather than finding a citation, you decided to resort to insult me instead.

I never claimed it was useful in an aquarium. I only challenged your assertion that it wasn't useful for most aquarium fish. Even as I've dug into this I've only found information on one species I keep in my tank. If you have references showing that it isn't useful for most fish kept in the hobby I would love to see it.

Sure. I prefer the WHO’s definition but I know that doesn’t fit your agenda.

I suspect that you know that “disease” is extremely difficult to define succinctly, which is why it usually isn’t.

So what is the WHO's definition? I actually looked for it while doing research while writing it and they don't have one. You are using a fake definition to claim what I have posted is wrong. They define each specific disease in the applicable paper about that disease. They do define Health. Their definition of Health matches what I have called "Healthy". My comment in the article about a "holistic" approach was inspired by their definition of "Healthy".

 

[Humblefish]

This is still true in the US, but doesn't hold true world wide. The US is one of the few places left in the industrialized world that you can still buy antibiotics to use in an aquarium without a prescription. Canada banned the practice early this year. They haven't been legal in many parts of Europe for a long period of time. It's why you can't get Chemiclean in many parts of Europe.

It was supposed to have happened in the US in 2018 until the Trump administration rolled those regulations back. (Please, let's not make this political!!!) Eventually it will happen here. We need to get ready for a hobby where copper and H2O2 treatments are the only options, symptoms or no.

I'm hoping Humblefish's research on using H2O2 makes it a viable treatment option for prophylactic or treating symptoms.

Hopefully the US govt. doesn't throw aquarists under the bus until I've finished my H2O2 research. You can't even buy a bottle of copper in Canada anymore, and it seems they just watch their fish die nowadays. I love Europe, the architecture, cuisine, etc. But they can keep their excessive regulations to themselves.

 

[Brew12]

Hopefully the US govt. doesn't throw aquarists under the bus until I've finished my H2O2 research.

In theory, it should take another two years once it is back into the public for discussion. As far as I know it is not out there yet. But good luck! ;Bookworm;Writing

You can't even buy a bottle of copper in Canada anymore, and it seems they just watch their fish die nowadays.

I think there is an effort to change that. My understanding is that chelated copper products will be available again when they are re-marketed to not be fish medications. The biggest issue I'm aware of is that since they are all imported it has to go through an import approval process. Not sure if the suppliers will find that paperwork worthwhile.
They do still have H2O2 available there.

 

[RCeiver]

You claimed it had no benefit in an aquarium. Now you are backtracking and saying it may have no benefit to certain species. Which means your statement was wrong. It can have benefit.

I have to start this comment by saying that I probably have a bad opinion of you because of your dismissive response to my comment on the article, but anyone can scroll back and see that you are being dishonest about what was said and you should apologize and stop arguing dishonestly.

Here’s actual quotes:

“Glucan isn’t new. It’s been studied. It’s not beneficial for most fish in our aquariums.”

“While there have been some positive effects found, there are also studies that found no effect at all. Promoting this as some magic cure all is pretty much insane. It MAY be helpful in SOME instances.”

 

[lakai]

I forgot what this thread was about already.

 

[Lasse]

It’s not beneficial for most fish in our aquariums.”

Reference - please

See my post 88 about cherry picking

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

I have to start this comment by saying that I probably have a bad opinion of you because of your dismissive response to my comment on the article, but anyone can scroll back and see that you are being dishonest about what was said and you should apologize and stop arguing dishonestly.

Here’s actual quotes:

“Glucan isn’t new. It’s been studied. It’s not beneficial for most fish in our aquariums.”

“While there have been some positive effects found, there are also studies that found no effect at all. Promoting this as some magic cure all is pretty much insane. It MAY be helpful in SOME instances.”

all I can say to this is hahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahaha x 10,000

 

[RCeiver]

Reference - please

See my post 88 about cherry picking

Sincerely Lasse

I just quoted what was actually written here on this thread.

 

[MnFish1]

I just quoted what was actually written here on this thread.

SO - to my opinion - it would be best if you use the 'quote fucntion'. its right there - quote what you want to quote - and then resopond.. The last couple of your posts criticizing people didnt quote anything except 'your words'...... No criticism - just - use the site the way its supposed to be used?

 

[RCeiver]

SO - to my opinion - it would be best if you use the 'quote fucntion'. its right there - quote what you want to quote - and then resopond.. The last couple of your posts criticizing people didnt quote anything except 'your words'...... No criticism - just - use the site the way its supposed to be used?

I was lazy. Sue me.

 

[lakai]

SO - to my opinion - it would be best if you use the 'quote fucntion'.

its right there

quote what you want to

quote - and then resopond..

The last couple of your posts criticizing people didnt quote

anything except 'your words'...... No criticism - just - use the site the way its supposed to be used?