Microbacter Clean: Before Vs After

[Dan_P]

I agree. They suggest that the bottled bacteria possibly had an effect...how likely or unlikely that this caused the effect is no clearer than the sources this undocumented evidence came from. Im a little curious how and where all this evidence was gathered in support of bacteria consumed by corals providing nitrates and phosphates if it wasnt a peer-reviewed study...seems difficult to assess by making daily observations alone...

Also, if someone hasn't heard this yet, correlation does not imply causation...

I am skeptical of there being a correlation because aquarist have such a strong influence on what happens in an aquarium AND they are making less than rigorous observations of effects.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

I am skeptical of there being a correlation because aquarist have such a strong influence on what happens in an aquarium AND they are making less than rigorous observations of effects.

I was trying to be less blunt, but yeah...I agree with you 100%.

 

[Solo McReefer]

Yeah but…

While the points made are valid, they only suggest that there is possibility not the probability that a bacteria-in-a-bottle product does anything. I would really like to see the data that a product performs any of the functions claimed. Customer testimonials are not the type of data interests me.

Hey, who’s the dude in the white coat?

That's Dr Barry Marshall

When he developed a hypothesis that "stress" didn't cause stomach ulcers, but bacteria did

The ENTIRE Scientific and Medical community mocked and laughed at him. Everyone knew that stress caused ulcers

Couldn't get grant money to test the hypothesis

So he swallowed Helicobacter pylori and immediately developed stomach ulcers

Everyone in science and medicine should know who he is and what he did

The point being, you're never going to get any grant money for double blind peer reviewed science on anything you are asking for. The best you're going to get is 'evidence based'.

If that's not good enough for you "that's anecdotal" "confirmation biased" "correlation is not causation" etc, oh no, anyway

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

That's Dr Barry Marshall

When he developed a hypothesis that "stress" didn't cause stomach ulcers, but bacteria did

The ENTIRE Scientific and Medical community mocked and laughed at him. Everyone knew that stress caused ulcers

Couldn't get grant money to test the hypothesis

So he swallowed Helicobacter pylori and immediately developed stomach ulcers

Everyone in science and medicine should know who he is and what he did

The point being, you're never going to get any grant money for double blind peer reviewed science on anything you are asking for. The best you're going to get is 'evidence based'.

If that's not good enough for you "that's anecdotal" "confirmation biased" "correlation is not causation" etc, oh no, anyway

Yeah, it would tough to get funding for a double-blind study to investigate this...the first question would be "Why are you designing a DOUBLE-BLIND STUDY to test this". Do you know what a double blind study is?

If the research is important, funding might not be easy to find, it NEVER is, but it could be found.

Just a note, perhaps bacteria are just 1 of many causes of stomach ulcers...when you wrote that, did you take into consideration that the pre-existing beliefs for the causes of stomach ulcers may have also been true or closely related?

 

[Dan_P]

That's Dr Barry Marshall

When he developed a hypothesis that "stress" didn't cause stomach ulcers, but bacteria did

The ENTIRE Scientific and Medical community mocked and laughed at him. Everyone knew that stress caused ulcers

Couldn't get grant money to test the hypothesis

So he swallowed Helicobacter pylori and immediately developed stomach ulcers

Everyone in science and medicine should know who he is and what he did

I like these types of stories. The daring individual, fighting against the current best thinking. Fighting the “man”. I worked with the guy that discovered aspartame was sweet. He bucked the system ( in the lab keep your fingers away from your face) by moistening his fingers to pick up a piece of weighing paper or something like that.

Anyway these stories are very misleading because we don’t hear about the thousands of goofs who screwed up doing the exact same thing.

The point being, you're never going to get any grant money for double blind peer reviewed science on anything you are asking for. The best you're going to get is 'evidence based'.

If that's not good enough for you "that's anecdotal" "confirmation biased" "correlation is not causation" etc, oh no, anyway

There is a larger range of options for understanding reality than either anecdotal information or double-blind studies. Here’s why it seems there isn’t.

Human brains are wired to believe in stuff. Human brains also favor using intuition to explain how reality works. Engaging in the more arduous activity of thinking is not a reflex response. Basing an explanation on anecdotal information and denying facts or other possible explanations that are threatening is easy. It is also a self limiting approach to understanding stuff.

So if you are happy with an intuitive approach, go for it. Sometimes, but not often, the obvious is the answer.

 

[Solo McReefer]

Just a note,

You missed the point entirely

Even after it's been spelled out

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

You missed the point entirely

Even after it's been spelled out

No, I got the point you tried to make, I just found it to be pointless haha