What is a healthy fish?

[Paul B]

Actually Lasse, although Aids has nothing to do with fish as far as I know, I just took a class on the Plague which was mostly a virus and not bacterial like was commonly thought which is why many people who survived the Plague are immune from Aids. But I wasn't making any comparisms of HIV and Aids here and, like many things, I don't even know anything about it.

 

[Lasse]

I´m sorry @Paul B - I express myself in a bad way. The post was not intended to answer your post - it was a reply to this statement and done late in the night with help of my phone

Prophylactic treatments are commonplace amongst us humans? Some recently approved but controversial prophylactic drugs such as Truvada and PEP have help curbed new HIV infection rates around the world. there are some very rare cases of side effects such as kidney problems in certain people as with any drug, there will be those rare cases of adverse reactions..
I assume it's the same with fish, some fish will be able to take treatments much better without damage/long term effects while some can have complications from it.

I do not see most antiviral drugs as prophylactic treatment like the way prophylactic QT hardliners do - especially not anti HIV drugs. This because that HIV just target the things that is crucial for our natural defense system.

i have taken antiviral drugs by myself but it was after the first signs of the disease shown up (shingles) - after the first signs of this disease - you have 72 hours to take the drug - If not - you will have a hell for half a year(mostly if you are over 50). Shingles is a good example that the science do not use antiviral drugs as prophylactic treatment because it only hits adults (normally - children can get it but normally not) that have had the disease chicken-pox as child. If you have had chicken-pox as child - you have always the risk to get shingles as adult (often plus 50 years) because you can have inactive virus particles in certain sensory ganglia that with age can be active and start to propagate with help of your own cells - and especially in situations with a lowered immune system. There is no drug that can be effective against a resting virus (it is not a living thing) - therefore prophylactic treatment is worthless if you do not know that you can face the virus in 72 hours or that you know that it have been a risk for infection the last 72 hours. in my case with herpes zoster - I had the virus inactive and a very stressful period of my life woke it up - but i was happy - had a doctor visits the same day that I discover the first signs and the disease was over after a week in my case.

But i will argue a little with your statement of the plague. IMO - you are both right and wrong The plague that we in Sweden call "Digerdöden" (English Black Death) was probably caused by virus - not a bacteria - IMO. It hit Europe during the last part of the 14th century and last many years from that. It is interesting to know that the most common way of defeat it was to place newcomers in isolation for 40 days. The English word quarantine is from the beginning a french word - quarantaine . that have come from the Italian word quarantena - that´s means 40 days (period)

Among the evidences for this is that the climate in Europe (especially up here in the north) was too cold for black rats to live in and that research have shown that the time from infection to death was around 37 days. The incubation time seems to have been around 32 days (the time between infection and disease) (source Susan Scott and Christopher Duncan »The return of the Black Death)

The black plague hit also Iceland in the 14th century - the rats arrived 300 years after that!

The bubonic plague that hit Europe during the 19th century seems to be another thing and caused by a bacteria. (incubation time for bubonic plague is below 10 days)

I must stress that there is still ongoing discussions about the cause of the black death - there is no consensus - but i have not seen any discussion about the cause of bubonic plague - but do you have good links to that Paul - I would love to see it.

The good things with these type of side discussions is that you get a perspective and some understanding of common way of look at things. In my case - I got small-pox when I was below 10 years old - I got the disease shingles when I was 66 years old. I carried the pathogen for at least 56 years - but still I think that I fill the criteria of Health expressed both by @Brew12 and WHO most of these 56 years. But that´s my opinion

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Paul B]

But i will argue a little with your statement of the plague. IMO - you are both right and wrong The plague that we in Sweden call "Digerdöden" (English Black Death) was probably caused by virus - not a bacteria -

Lasse, that's what I said :

Plague which was mostly a virus and not bacterial

Many people died from bacteria after they got the virus but the "Doctors" in those days in many cases didn't know what it was and there was so many people dying they figured they all died from the same thing even though some of them may have gotten run over by a Datsun School bus. ;Bucktooth

They didn't know a virus from a Bacteria from ich.
I don't have anything in writing on the Plague as I took a 6 hour course on it. Very interesting and I learned a lot of things I never knew, like there were three forms of it and it came from China on Gerbils.
I don't keep Gerbils.

Sorry you can ignore this entire post as it has little to do with fish except I am writing it in view of the sea and once in a while a sea bass jumps out of the water.

Don't read this link as it is about "The Black Death" and has nothing to do with this thread or any thread. Lasse asked about it and it also fascinates me just like the pancakes I will make in 5 minutes facinates me.

Bubonic Plague and Black Death World History

Visit this site providing information about the Bubonic Plague and Black Death World History. Spread, symptons,cure and World History medical treatment of the Bubonic Plague and Black Death. Facts about the consequences of the Bubonic Plague and Black Death in World History

www.william-shakespeare.info

Excerpt:
Elizabethan Physicians wore long dark robes with pointed hoods, leather gloves, boots, and the most bizarre masks featuring long beaks which were filled with bergamot oil. Amulets of dried blood and ground-up toads were worn at the waists of the Elizabethan Physicians. It was their custom to douse themselves with vinegar and chew angelica before approaching a victim.

(Sometimes my Doctor wears this when he examines me. ;Bucktooth)

 

[lakai]

FYi - this doesnt do anything ?

It means that he's had enough popcorn.

 

[lakai]

I don't get why even talk about stuff like AIDS in this thread. Are you guys getting prophylactic treatment for AIDS or something? I'm not.

Either way my take on QT is this.

Are you able to tell how any of these fish died? I've got a freezer full of dead fish. None of them have visible signs of any disease. I keep them so that one day I can find out why.

Hint: No two groups were ever in the same tank. Some I've had for almost a year, some only a few days or a week. Some went through prophylactic treatment immediately, some not at all. Only one of these fish was in a tank where a hippo tang that I've had for 9 months with no new introductions all of the sudden out of no where got ich. That went against everything I've read about the lifecycle of ich.

My personal experience, not doing prophylactic treating fish in qt I get healthy fish. I don't care what any scientific study says. The moment I started doing more than observation QT I started losing a lot of fish. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. I followed and triple checked before hand so I don't believe I am doing it incorrectly but I'm am pointing the finger at no one but myself for these losses.

Would some of these fish be alive and healthy if I had only kept them in observation ? I don't know. What I do know is that I've lost more fish through prophylactic treatment than not. I've lost enough trying to prevent an issue that I feel sad that a fish loss doesn't devastate me anymore.

If anything good that has come out of prophylactic treating fish is that the stress of losing a fish takes less of a toll on me emotionally now. It has conditioned me to where I try and convince myself that these fish would have died anyways and taken out every other fish with them. The problem is that I don't believe any of that. Maybe this is how the strong advocates of QT feel. I don't know. It just sucks either way.

If I lose fish, I don't want to be the cause of their death anymore. QT is supposed to prevent deaths and that is just not what it is resulting in.

 

[MnFish1]

Actually Lasse, although Aids has nothing to do with fish as far as I know, I just took a class on the Plague which was mostly a virus and not bacterial like was commonly thought which is why many people who survived the Plague are immune from Aids. But I wasn't making any comparisms of HIV and Aids here and, like many things, I don't even know anything about it.

This is a theory -not widely accepted - and if you dont know anything about it - why do you keep repeating it - as if that statement means that 'even if you're wrong' - it doesnt matter....

Bubonic plague - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ca1ore]

Interesting article .... though I could not bring myself to read nine pages of comments .... so apologies in advance If I repeat some stuff already said. I’ve personally always used observational QT. I treat fish if symptoms present, but otherwise I just fatten them up for a couple of months. If a fish looks and behaves asymptomatically after that length of time I’d deem them healthy and into the display they go. I do have ich in my system, have had for years. The notion of pathogen virulence is a point of interest to me. I had a conversation with a gentleman years ago who was a fish pathologist (or something like that) and he suggested that parasites like ich existed as many different strains with varying levels of potency and that a fish immune system might easily fight of one but not another. Perhaps the strain in my system is of lower potency. It is even possible that’s it’s gone by now. I know it was still there last year because an Achilles I tried to add quickly showed symptoms. It was easily cured in QT and than locally sold.

 

[Paul B]

I don't get why even talk about stuff like AIDS in this thread. Are you guys getting prophylactic treatment for AIDS or something? I'm not.

No, Sorry.

Are you able to tell how any of these fish died? I've got a freezer full of dead fish. None of them have visible signs of any disease.

Not from here, but of course I have always felt that almost any medication on a fish will have a negative efect on it's health even if it kills the targeted pathogen. Their gut bacteria was destroyed so anything and everything could have killed them and they don't need any outward signs of infection.

It's a shame either way because I hate to see fish dying for no reason when they were perfectly healthy in the sea.

 

[Brew12]

Hint: No two groups were ever in the same tank. Some I've had for almost a year, some only a few days or a week. Some went through prophylactic treatment immediately, some not at all. Only one of these fish was in a tank where a hippo tang that I've had for 9 months with no new introductions all of the sudden out of no where got ich. That went against everything I've read about the lifecycle of ich.

Posts like yours are what motivate me to keep digging deeper into fish health.

What you saw with your Hippo makes perfect sense. A healthy fish can be a carrier of ich. It's immune system limits the size and reproductive rate of the parasites to make it asymptomatic but it does not completely eradicate it. Odds are some new stressor was introduced a week or two before the ich outbreak. That stressor weakened the immune system of the fish and allowed the parasite to transition from pathogen to disease.

My personal experience, not doing prophylactic treating fish in qt I get healthy fish.

It's not just your personal experience. I posted earlier, but the 2 people in my local area with the worst success keeping fish are ones who do a full prophylactic treatment. Most deaths are either obviously bacterial or they have no outward signs. I had much better luck than they did but I also only used copper or CP regularly and rarely kept a fish in copper or CP more than 8 days. I avoided using Metroplex or General Cure unless it was absolutely necessary. Is that why I had better results? I don't know but I think some studies support it.
I've also posted outside of this thread my results from getting away from prophylactic treatment and it was not without issues. I added fish that I knew came from a system with ich and suspected had velvet. I lost my 6-line wrasse and my Starry Blenny within 3 weeks. I also lost my Convict Tang while I was at MACNA. I know it was because of aggression with my Hippo tang but I can't say for sure that the aggression wasn't triggered by a disease. The 6-line and Blenny were also the only fish that were fully grown when I got them so were likely the oldest fish in my system.
Just like I was honest and documented all my losses in QT I will continue to be honest and report all my losses now that I have transferred away from prophylactic treatment. This part of my reefing journey is still too new to be conclusive.

 

[Lasse]

I don't get why even talk about stuff like AIDS in this thread. Are you guys getting prophylactic treatment for AIDS or something? I'm not.

It was mentioned by someone that state that it was normally to prophylactic treat the fear of HIV and AIDS. I take time to try to debunk that because HIV and AIDS is excellent examples of what happens when our normal defense system is whipped out. For me it does not differ if the immune system is whipped out by a virus (HIV), stress or some compounds like copper or whatever. The outcome can be the same. This means that I take steps that for minimize the risk. It means that I try to not face the HIV virus by myself and not try to face my fish with known risk factors just in a try to avoid unknown risks. And - please not comment that trying to not face a parasite is the same as avoiding a virus that break down the immune system.

Either way my take on QT is this.

Are you able to tell how any of these fish died? I've got a freezer full of dead fish. None of them have visible signs of any disease. I keep them so that one day I can find out why.

Hint: No two groups were ever in the same tank. Some I've had for almost a year, some only a few days or a week. Some went through prophylactic treatment immediately, some not at all. Only one of these fish was in a tank where a hippo tang that I've had for 9 months with no new introductions all of the sudden out of no where got ich. That went against everything I've read about the lifecycle of ich.

My personal experience, not doing prophylactic treating fish in qt I get healthy fish. I don't care what any scientific study says. The moment I started doing more than observation QT I started losing a lot of fish. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. I followed and triple checked before hand so I don't believe I am doing it incorrectly but I'm am pointing the finger at no one but myself for these losses.

Would some of these fish be alive and healthy if I had only kept them in observation ? I don't know. What I do know is that I've lost more fish through prophylactic treatment than not. I've lost enough trying to prevent an issue that I feel sad that a fish loss doesn't devastate me anymore.

If anything good that has come out of prophylactic treating fish is that the stress of losing a fish takes less of a toll on me emotionally now. It has conditioned me to where I try and convince myself that these fish would have died anyways and taken out every other fish with them. The problem is that I don't believe any of that. Maybe this is how the strong advocates of QT feel. I don't know. It just sucks either way.

If I lose fish, I don't want to be the cause of their death anymore. QT is supposed to prevent deaths and that is just not what it is resulting in

Excellent - this is exactly my point and experiences when chemical prophylactic treatment has been the tool in order to get healthy fish. I do not doubt for a moment that people advocating for prophylactic methods do it because they want as healthy fishes as possible and want to help people to archive this However - for me - my experiences and knowledge says that this method is a real dead end which ending above a deep gorge. However - I have no personal experiences of this and I need to

confuse them with a bunch of theories and long-winded explanations.

in order to make my point.

Unfortunately - IMO - lately a method of cherry picking individual words or sentences in order to discredit an opinion or poster has become common here at R2R among some members. This means that if you write something that is not main street - you have to weight your words on a scale for gold. Hence, you need "long-winded explanations" in order to make your point. These cherry-picking of words and sentences totally destroy threads and sometimes force the mods to close threads. And - IMO - this is just the goal with these posts

I hope that the mods find methods to handle this without violate the right to have another opinion. Personally I will only comment this type of behavior with the comment - "cherry-picking" and from now - every one reading this will know what I mean

Thank you again for posting your experiences and to @Brew12 for writing this article. It should be a sticky on the disease forum in order to let people make their own decisions how to handle their fishes. I believe that all human living can make their own wise decisions if they have enough of knowledge, facts and different viewpoints.

Interesting article .... though I could not bring myself to read nine pages of comments .... so apologies in advance If I repeat some stuff already said. I’ve personally always used observational QT. I treat fish if symptoms present, but otherwise I just fatten them up for a couple of months. If a fish looks and behaves asymptomatically after that length of time I’d deem them healthy and into the display they go. I do have ich in my system, have had for years. The notion of pathogen virulence is a point of interest to me. I had a conversation with a gentleman years ago who was a fish pathologist (or something like that) and he suggested that parasites like ich existed as many different strains with varying levels of potency and that a fish immune system might easily fight of one but not another. Perhaps the strain in my system is of lower potency. It is even possible that’s it’s gone by now. I know it was still there last year because an Achilles I tried to add quickly showed symptoms. It was easily cured in QT and than locally sold.

I agree with you that observation QT is a good way to goo if you have very sensitive species or want to be sure. However I would slowly doing WC with help of display tank water during the QT period. This because I would try to do a "vaccination" against the microorganisms in my DT and let the new fish get the same smell as my old (IMO - this will take down initial aggression when you introduce them). If you get a disease - you can treat in the QT

Your gentleman is probably right. The reason why a general vaccine against Cryptocaryon irritans not existing yet is because the different strains of the parasite. Maybe not because of any in-build "higher virulence" but because the immune system need to form different antibodies for different strains. There is vaccines against some strains of the parasites - but not any that´s effective against all. But this also show that fish can accomplish immunity against Cryptocaryon irritans but it is "strain"-specific.

 

[WVNed]

For years I have asked a simple question. If I get the same result by doing nothing that other people get by
doing QT and whatever why should I consider it?
I get varied responses from it's the kind of fish you have or just luck to burn the heretic.
Doing nothing is way easier.
I also have the difficulty of explaining my method because it is quite literally doing nothing but keeping the tank what I feel is the correct way.

To some extent I think it is like the way some people can cut a piece off a plant and stick it somewhere and it grows into a rain forest. They have what is called a green thumb. Perhaps I have a fish thumb. Perhaps I am delusional.

Now that I can no longer go to a LFS and pick the animals I want I am losing a lot more. With online ordering there seems to be an unspoken rule that with every 6 fish you buy one will be a stinker. Even those simply pass into the tank. I rarely see them again. They just aren't there in the morning.

 

[ca1ore]

For years I have asked a simple question. If I get the same result by doing nothing that other people get by doing QT and whatever why should I consider it?

The 'answer' to rhetorical questions is always self evident. For me, I do not get the same results by skipping observational QT, thus I shall continue to do it. It may be the fish you choose, the sources you favor, that you have a good eye ..... or dumb luck.

 

[WVNed]

The 'answer' to rhetorical questions is always self evident. For me, I do not get the same results by skipping observational QT, thus I shall continue to do it. It may be the fish you choose, the sources you favor, that you have a good eye ..... or dumb luck.

I have stuff from Petco to the Gulf of Mexico in my tanks. As for luck I don't believe in it. You make your own luck. I have 3 tanks with stuff from all over in them. From tangs to wild shrimp, macro and crabs.

I have a lifetime acheivement award for chronic diseases so If I believed in luck mine would have to be pretty bad.

 

[C. Eymann]

I'm not sure why the everyone got hung up on the example I used, the point I was making had nothing to do with how HIV effects our body/immune system, nor did it have anything to do with HIV therapy.

It had to do with preventing infection all together in the first place.

Which, yes there are drugs on the market that can basically make it near impossible for you to contract HIV if taken everyday.

Maybe I should have used a different pathogen as an example?

If you are an LEO and you get stuck with a dirty needle, you are generally loaded up on antivirals /PEP regime for 30-60 days, which as long as its started within 72hrs of exposure it's very effective in preventing infection. You would be dumb to refuse said PEP treatment.



Take Uronema for example, incredibly hard to get rid of and fish can carry it for long periods of time, TTM isnt really effective against it either.
You have a gorgeous collection of anthias in your tank already, but you want to add one more? Im definitely going to be prophylactically treating the new addition.

Just my .02

 

[MnFish1]

Which, yes there are drugs on the market that can basically make it near impossible for you to contract HIV if taken everyday.

Maybe I should have used a different pathogen as an example?

If you are an LEO and you get stuck with a dirty needle, you are generally loaded up on antivirals /PEP regime for 30-60 days, which as long as its started within 72hrs of exposure it's very effective in preventing infection. You would be dumb to refuse said PEP treatment.

What if I'm a scorpio (LOL. I dont know what your abbreviation LEO means). That said - you're right about prophylactic treatment for HIV - what you're not mentioning is the litany of side effects that MIGHT occur - which is the discussion point that some people use against prophylactic treatment for fish. Its a 'risk-benefit' issue,

For example - not every person that is sexually active takes pre-exposure prophylaxis - only those with high risk behaviors - but - some advocate prophylaxis with potentially dangerous medications for 'every fish'. Somewhere in there is a middle ground - I have the feeling we will not find it here

 

[C. Eymann]

What if I'm a scorpio (LOL. I dont know what your abbreviation LEO means). That said - you're right about prophylactic treatment for HIV - what you're not mentioning is the litany of side effects that MIGHT occur - which is the discussion point that some people use against prophylactic treatment for fish. Its a 'risk-benefit' issue,

For example - not every person that is sexually active takes pre-exposure prophylaxis - only those with high risk behaviors - but - some advocate prophylaxis with potentially dangerous medications for 'every fish'. Somewhere in there is a middle ground - I have the feeling we will not find it here

LEO- Law Enforcement Officer.

Agree with you, those on PrEP /PEP get labs done every 90days to monitor any complications that might arise, however the pool of people that do have side effects is very small.
I know we don't have the luxury of running labs on fish in QT, can't monitor renal function of the fish while administering treatment etc etc, Its definitely about weighing the risks, and again, in a perfect world TTM would be practical in every application and would be able to eliminate the risk of allowing any pathogen to enter your reef system.
Unfortunately its doesn't always work like that.

I guess it's a to each their own sorta of deal.
Risks vs rewards?

 

[Paul B]

WE don't need vaccinations for fish because in the sea they were exposed to everything they are going to be exposed to. I assume, there are fish diseases in the South Pacific that do not occur in the Caribbean or the Red Sea but I am not sure.
The oceans have been mixing for a long time and ballast from ships has been around for 4 or 5 hundred years which could have brought some of those diseases from different parts of the world together.

I live on Long Island NY and this was a big Whaling center since the 1500s and many of our whaling ships went to Japan and Hawaii. (I also took a course on Long Island Whaling but I never killed a whale so don't bring it up)

I still believe our fish are immune and we cause disease especially through treatment when there is no need for it.

It just seems odd that I don't have these problems. We hear all the time about fish dying in quarantine, but rarely about keeping a fish in a healthy, natural tank being fed the correct foods dying. I think that is near impossible. Fish are very robust and it takes a lot to kill them.

Just my opinion of course so don't beat me up or I will just go out on my boat and have a beer or two and forget all about it.

 

[ca1ore]

I agree with you that observation QT is a good way to goo if you have very sensitive species or want to be sure. However I would slowly doing WC with help of display tank water during the QT period. This because I would try to do a "vaccination" against the microorganisms in my DT and let the new fish get the same smell as my old (IMO - this will take down initial aggression when you introduce them). If you get a disease - you can treat in the QT.

100% agree. I initially fill my QT with display water (diluted down to incoming salinity) and then restore to 1.026 by diverting the removed salt water from my auto water change pump to the QT.

 

[Humblefish]

Unfortunately - IMO - lately a method of cherry picking individual words or sentences in order to discredit an opinion or poster has become common here at R2R among some members. This means that if you write something that is not main street - you have to weight your words on a scale for gold. Hence, you need "long-winded explanations" in order to make your point. These cherry-picking of words and sentences totally destroy threads and sometimes force the mods to close threads. And - IMO - this is just the goal with these posts

I hope that the mods find methods to handle this without violate the right to have another opinion. Personally I will only comment this type of behavior with the comment - "cherry-picking" and from now - every one reading this will know what I mean

At the end of the day, I value the right to make choices more than anything else. If someone asks for advice, and you & I give conflicting information in a thread... Let the OP decide for themselves whose advice to take. If that person decides not to use medications (or not to apply chemoprophylaxis in QT), and feed gut microbiota instead, I wish them and their fish all the best. And I really mean that. Because when a fish dies prematurely, everyone loses. An animal that should have never been plucked out of the ocean in the first place sees it's life end too soon, and the hobby gets one more black eye.

IMO; the "long-winded explanations" are counterproductive because most people are going to tune out after the first paragraph or two. I understand everyone has busy lives nowadays, and this is why I try to keep the information I disseminate to the point. (I don't always succeed.) As far as mods closing threads when things get too heated, that's just part of forum life. But it is one reason why I'm not on here as much as I used to be. I'll probably take another break soon, so there will be one less voice of opposition for what you are advocating. Which I think does work in Europe, but is a risky strategy to employ here in America given how disease polluted the supply chain currently is. Especially for newbies with young aquariums.

 

[Brew12]

WE don't need vaccinations for fish because in the sea they were exposed to everything they are going to be exposed to.

This comment is related to one concern I have that could have major implications on hobbyists. How is the proliferation of captive bred fish going to impact their disease resistance?
I haven't found any research at all into this.