Possible solution to end RTN forever?!?

[jda]

Can anybody help me to understand this? This is why they think that’s it’s not a primary pathogen:

“However, selective elimination of this pathogen using the antibiotic metronidazole failed to arrest disease lesion progression in controlled experiments, indicating that the Philaster ciliate is unlikely to be a primary pathogen of WBD.”

How would this make it unlikely? Not sure I understand.

They killed the Philaster with Metro (like so many other people/studies have said) and the tissue necrosis still happened with no Philaster in the equation. This could mean a lot of things, but they are saying that it is unlikely that the Philaster did not pull the trigger in your "smoking gun" theory and was just there to clean up afterward and was holding the gun when the cops showed up.... and that if the Philaster did not show up on the scene, the coral is still dead and the smoking guy is just lying on the floor. It could mean that Philaster is one of many things that cause WBD. What it means, FOR SURE, is that eliminating Philaster with Metro, or some other herbal remedy, will not stop tissue necrosis.

This should be easy to see. I am with @MnFish1 on this one... there seems to be a secondary agenda here. Even the reefers who see the pile of bristleworms cleaning up their dead clam are easier to convince that they did not kill it.

To anybody who is reading this, confused or wants to try to eliminate Philaster, just get some Metronidazole. It appears from many sources that it is deadly to Philaster - the only person who said that it does not is selling you a different product. Maybe it will work, maybe it wont, but it is safe and cheap to try.

 

[Jose Mayo]

Agreed

I think we need to start looking around at 100X+. It's just hard for me to believe that something of that size would even come close to RTN of a full Acropora colony in 24 hrs. I don't think the numbers are there either.

In a lot of these studies you hear...

In most cases....
It's likely...
Most probably...
It appears to be...

All this means to me is that they still don't know what's going on. That one study that was quoted above and below found 16 suspects. Out of those 16 the Philaster L. ciliate's were the most consistent microorganisms present. Even in the studies they point out that they've been caught eating live tissue, dead tissue, and zooxanthellae. It's one of the only suspects caught eating live coral tissue, but then they rule the Philaster's out.?? But remember....they misidentified one of the pathogens. I just don't trust the study. Not to mention they used a Transmission Electron Microscope. This is roughly a $95,000 microscope that offers the most powerful magnification- potentially over one million times or more than a compound microscope and yet they can't identify if one of the 14 bacteria's found was the causation.? This is hard to believe.

Can anybody remember from reading any of these studies where it actually mentions what's eating intact coral tissue other than the Philaster Lucinda? Please site the source below. Here's the source stating what I've just written:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4964940/

All these diseases are associated with the specific ciliate Philaster lucinda, and it remains the only agent with direct evidence for involvement in pathogenesis as it has been observed to consume intact coral tissues at the lesion interface (Sweet & Bythell 2012).

One of the best characteristics of science is falsifiability, and worse is falsification. A scientist does not bother to pass on what he believes, but to pass on what he observes and then try to concatenate information in the light of logic, and then offer a possible conclusion. The scientist who categorically affirms his truths is in truth a fool.

Regards

PS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

One of the best characteristics of science is falsifiability, and worse is falsification. A scientist does not bother to pass on what he believes, but to pass on what he observes and then try to concatenate information in the light of logic, and then offer a possible conclusion. The scientist who categorically affirms his truths is in truth a fool.

Regards

Well said. Thank you, Jose

 

[Lowell Lemon]

Its important to document others contributions - I dont see it here - sorry @Lowell Lemon and you normally persuade me .....

I am not trying to persuade you in the areas of documents just the concept of how to treat each other in the discussion. I gave an example of two known researchers who were ignored by their professional associates until they were "discovered" to have something of value. They had something of value to offer all along but many discounted them for various reasons.

So from what I am learning in this discussion. I see the possibility that the causitive agent is unknown but the greatest amount of destruction is caused by the ciliates. What I mean by that is we may not know the triggering event that pushes the first domino over but the ciliates seem to take opportunity to finish off the host. This is similar to my experience with Tricodina in marine fish.

This still presents the aquarist the opportunity to limit the destruction caused by ciliates and perhaps prevent the total collapse of the colony and or aquarium. So while intervention may be late in the game it still might be the game changer for many at this time. If that is the case then the doctor has still given us an important tool to prevent total wipe outs when used properly. He has still demonstrated an advancement that merits further study and understanding. So as you mentioned he has advanced our fight against the disease and increased our awareness of possible solutions. He may have even found the cure for aquarist but I agree that us to early to be determimed.

I have many friends in the field of medicine and two if them are Nero surgeons. If you understood their training and what their jobs required of them you might cut the good doctor here some slack. I will say this, surgeons in general must be large and in charge to do what they do every day. You would not want them any other way because they save countless lives due to their mind set and training. A word to the wise is sufficient.

 

[Reefahholic]

This pretty much sums it up for me:

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 nonspecific bacterial infection and a ‘secondary’ infection by the Philaster lucinda ciliate. Although we have not observed the initiation of infection, a nonspecific, multispecies bacterial infection appears to be a co-requirement for WS lesion progression and we hypothesize that the bacterial infection occurs initially, weakening the defenses of the host to predation by the ciliates.

Although The Philaster lucinda ciliate's "may not" be the 1st cause....they're certainly the most consistent agents with direct evidence for involvement in pathogenesis as it has been observed to consume "INTACT CORAL TISSUES.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4964940/

All these diseases are associated with the specific ciliate Philaster lucinda, and it remains the only agent with direct evidence for involvement in pathogenesis as it has been observed to consume intact coral tissues at the lesion interface (Sweet & Bythell 2012).

I'm not concerned about who started it anymore. It looks like the most damage (RTN) is done by the Philaster. Doesn't matter if they're the secondary infection.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

This pretty much sums it up for me:

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 nonspecific bacterial infection and a ‘secondary’ infection by the Philaster lucinda ciliate. Although we have not observed the initiation of infection, a nonspecific, multispecies bacterial infection appears to be a co-requirement for WS lesion progression and we hypothesize that the bacterial infection occurs initially, weakening the defenses of the host to predation by the ciliates.

Although The Philaster lucinda ciliate's "may not" be the 1st cause....they're certainly the most consistent agents with direct evidence for involvement in pathogenesis as it has been observed to consume "INTACT CORAL TISSUES.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4964940/

All these diseases are associated with the specific ciliate Philaster lucinda, and it remains the only agent with direct evidence for involvement in pathogenesis as it has been observed to consume intact coral tissues at the lesion interface (Sweet & Bythell 2012).

I'm not concerned about who started it anymore. It looks like the most damage (RTN) is done by the Philaster. Doesn't matter if they're the secondary infection.

And all of this is a long way from ‘Philaster is the cause of RTN and I have the cure’

It even states that the Philaster only consumes intact tissue at the interface. To me, that indicates that the coral tissue that is consumed is somehow already compromised, and that the ‘healthy’ tissue beyond the interface has a resistance. Therefore, no primary agent, no Philaster consumption of coral tissue.

The claim that was made, ITT, was that Philaster was the cause of RTN, and if they get into your system (spoiler: they’re probably already there) and you don’t treat with Prime Coral, all your corals are going to die. Lofty claim, with little science to back it up.

 

[jda]

If you want to treat the tertiary issue, then here you go.

Bacteria is the secondary thing to look out for - no idea what to do here.

Of course, the first thing is to just keep the corals healthy in the first place.

Edit: BTW, I do not believe in treating symptoms when there is a known way to treat the root cause... just playing along.

 

[Jose Mayo]

This pretty much sums it up for me:

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 nonspecific bacterial infection and a ‘secondary’ infection by the Philaster lucinda ciliate. Although we have not observed the initiation of infection, a nonspecific, multispecies bacterial infection appears to be a co-requirement for WS lesion progression and we hypothesize that the bacterial infection occurs initially, weakening the defenses of the host to predation by the ciliates.

Although The Philaster lucinda ciliate's "may not" be the 1st cause....they're certainly the most consistent agents with direct evidence for involvement in pathogenesis as it has been observed to consume "INTACT CORAL TISSUES.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4964940/

All these diseases are associated with the specific ciliate Philaster lucinda, and it remains the only agent with direct evidence for involvement in pathogenesis as it has been observed to consume intact coral tissues at the lesion interface (Sweet & Bythell 2012).

I'm not concerned about who started it anymore. It looks like the most damage (RTN) is done by the Philaster. Doesn't matter if they're the secondary infection.

In the end, all that will matter is whether the treatment works. Only time will bring such an answer, but ... yet on science, disregarding the premises is not a good practice; there is no hierarchy in the facts when all the facts are contributing to a whole. It has been proven in well-conducted (and already mentioned) experiments that simply eliminating the pathogen Philaster lucinda is not able to halt the progression of RTN, so if the treatment we are discussing is capable of stopping the progression of RTN, the probable, from this statement, is that it is also capable of eliminating other factors involved, in addition to eliminating the pathogen Philaster lucinda.

Starting from wrong premises leads us to null results.

Regards

 

[CJS80]

I am no scientists, so here are my questions. If killing Philaster slows down RTN does that now make it STN? What is the rate of tissue loss to describe RTN/STN?

 

[MnFish1]

I am not trying to persuade you in the areas of documents just the concept of how to treat each other in the discussion. I gave an example of two known researchers who were ignored by their professional associates until they were "discovered" to have something of value. They had something of value to offer all along but many discounted them for various reasons.

So from what I am learning in this discussion. I see the possibility that the causitive agent is unknown but the greatest amount of destruction is caused by the ciliates. What I mean by that is we may not know the triggering event that pushes the first domino over but the ciliates seem to take opportunity to finish off the host. This is similar to my experience with Tricodina in marine fish.

This still presents the aquarist the opportunity to limit the destruction caused by ciliates and perhaps prevent the total collapse of the colony and or aquarium. So while intervention may be late in the game it still might be the game changer for many at this time. If that is the case then the doctor has still given us an important tool to prevent total wipe outs when used properly. He has still demonstrated an advancement that merits further study and understanding. So as you mentioned he has advanced our fight against the disease and increased our awareness of possible solutions. He may have even found the cure for aquarist but I agree that us to early to be determimed.

I have many friends in the field of medicine and two if them are Nero surgeons. If you understood their training and what their jobs required of them you might cut the good doctor here some slack. I will say this, surgeons in general must be large and in charge to do what they do every day. You would not want them any other way because they save countless lives due to their mind set and training. A word to the wise is sufficient.

My son is a surgery resident, I know many neurosurgeons and other physicians. I'm well aware of the grueling nature of medicine and science. So out of professional courtesy I have cut him some slack. I was a bit 'short' with @reefaholic last night (sorry for that). I have defended Dr. D despite my skepticism - that there is some scientific basis behind his idea that ciliates have a role in RTN.

My problem for the last 7 pages (or so) is that there are still no answers to very simple questions (which must also have been studied) - What is the success rate of the product in curing RTN and does he have any before or after pictures of 'what the product does'. That is not a personal insult and its not even a criticism - its a question?

My take home is that if you want to stop RTN you need set of antibiotics and metronidazole.

Here is one idea that no one has considered - perhaps the ingredients in @Prime Coral 's product kills both the bacteria and ciliates present. That would mean it could be successful against RTN.

A second point - it is POSSIBLE (and that's mentioned in the papers) that ciliates in some cases are a primary pathogen. Its just that up to now it hasn't been seen.

In my opinion @Lowell Lemon the benefit of these threads for me is when someone says something I don't know about - I try to go look it up - to get evidence so I personally have learned a lot from this discussion and am hopeful that this product is successful If not I've learned of some other possibilities to try from my reading - and the suggestions here.

EDIT - @Jose Mayo mentioned a similar comment.

 

[Jose Mayo]

Here is one idea that no one has considered - perhaps the ingredients in @Prime Coral 's product kills both the bacteria and ciliates present. That would mean it could be successful against RTN.

Yes, it was considered here:

It has been proven in well-conducted (and already mentioned) experiments that simply eliminating the pathogen Philaster lucinda is not able to halt the progression of RTN, so if the treatment we are discussing is capable of stopping the progression of RTN, the probable, from this statement, is that it is also capable of eliminating other factors involved, in addition to eliminating the pathogen Philaster lucinda.

Regards

 

[Reefahholic]

I am no scientists, so here are my questions. If killing Philaster slows down RTN does that now make it STN? What is the rate of tissue loss to describe RTN/STN?

Whatever he's using appears to be stopping both RTN and STN in the videos. So for FWIW...I will still be using and testing the products if anybody is interested in seeing my findings. I'll be observing the fish for any adverse reactions and will document the entire process. Things like water volume, time, dosage, fish observations, coral observations, etc.

Like @Jose Mayo stated above....the only thing that matters in the end is if the product is working. Even without a causative agent identified- if the treatment is working....well....the treatment is working.

It certainly appears that what he's using in the videos is working pretty well and stopping both RTN and STN. The only thing that should matter to us is if we can control it. We do not necessarily need to eradicate it from the system.

 

[shred5]

Now this is back on track.
I am not a scientist or marine biologist. I have been good friends with some marine biologist and and have had some marine biology classes.
I have been in the hobby a very long time and have seen this a few times so here is a few thoughts.
I believe is not the cause of RTN but the effect.
I think the example someone used where you come upon a body and it is full of maggots so the maggots had to kill it is a great example.
I have seen RTN every acro wiped out in a tank and also one or two corals only. I have also seen a coral fraged and survive although rarely..
Personally I have had several corals over the years RTN but never wipe out a tank.. I also know in one of my tanks is was stress by a bad bucket of salt.

I think it is something else or more than one thing doing this. If it were just one thing causing RTN to me all acros would be wiped but that is not always the case.
Maybe this product treats the after affect and allows the coral to recover easier.

It kind of like treating cyno with Erythromycin. You are killing the bacteria but not treating what caused it in the first place so you have the chance of getting it back again once introduced and it will be again.


Maybe I am wrong and it would be nice to have a cure. The problem is it happens so fast you need to have this on hand. How long is the shelf life of this product?

 

[MnFish1]

Yes, it was considered here:


Regards

Hah yes I edited my post to say you said it first

 

[MnFish1]

Whatever he's using appears to be stopping both RTN and STN in the videos. So for FWIW...I will still be using and testing the products if anybody is interested in seeing my findings. I'll be observing the fish for any adverse reactions and will document the entire process. Things like water volume, time, dosage, fish observations, coral observations, etc.

Like @Jose Mayo stated above....the only thing that matters in the end is if the product is working. Even without a causative agent identified- if the treatment is working....well....the treatment is working.

It certainly appears that what he's using in the videos is working pretty well and stopping both RTN and STN. The only thing that should matter to us is if we can control it. We do not necessarily need to eradicate it from the system.

Yes this is true. If nothing else it’s given me a lot of information about ciliates that I never knew before. I if I had a coral with known RTN I would take 1 piece leave it alone as a control one piece with ampicillin one piece with metronidazole one piece with ampicillin and metronidazole together and one with the new product. But this would be nearly impossible for a local hobbyist to do

 

[Reefahholic]

Now this is back on track.
I am not a scientist or marine biologist. I have been good friends with some marine biologist and and have had some marine biology classes.
I have been in the hobby a very long time and have seen this a few times so here is a few thoughts.
I believe is not the cause of RTN but the effect.
I think the example someone used where you come upon a body and it is full of maggots so the maggots had to kill it is a great example.
I have seen every acro wiped out in a tank and also one or two corals only. I have also seen a coral fraged and survive although rarely..
Personally I have had several corals over the years RTN but never wipe out a tank.. I also know in one of my tanks is was stress by a bad bucket of salt.

I think it is something else or more than one thing doing this. If it were just one thing causing RTN to me all acros would be wiped but that is not always the case.
Maybe this product treats the after affect and allows the coral to recover easier.

It kind of like treating cyno with Erythromycin. You are killing the bacteria but not treating what caused it in the first place so you have the chance of getting it back again once introduced and it will be again.


Maybe I am wrong and it would be nice to have a cure. The problem is it happens so fast you need to have this on hand. How long is the shelf life of this product?

I think he said once mixed...it's like 6 weeks.? Somebody help me with this.

 

[MnFish1]

I think he said once mixed...it's like 6 weeks.? Somebody help me with this.

That was the dip. I think.

 

[CJS80]

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

 

[Reefahholic]

A friend of mine just dosed his tank "10% under the recommended dosage." I'll report back as I learn any new information.

 

[Jose Mayo]

Hah yes I edited my post to say you said it first

I would not expect another attitude, at all times you were absolutely ethical.

My regards!