OP
OP
So are you saying that metro kills them?
Possible solution to end RTN forever?!?
- Thread starter Reefahholic
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
So are you saying that metro kills them?
MnFish1
10K Club member
Then you should be contacting Dr. Sweet and determining why that is - because Metronidzole kills Philaster - or are you saying metronidazole has no effect on RTN - that I believe.
So ... although the testing of these and other antibiotics and chemotherapeutics would prove, in vitro, a good result in the control of the Philaster lucinda (and unless we were trying to find an alternative route), this would not prove the efficacy and suitability of the @Prime Coral approach, or whether, in fact, under the actual conditions of an RTN attack, the drug would be suitable for use in aquaria and what para-effects might present, or whether such para-effects would make it a drug little more than useless, for use in marine aquariums.I do not know yet. We have a lot of people testing the Prime Coral products, but also many other antibiotics as well. We’re also testing other things outside of antibiotic therapy.
I will report back here as we learn more details.
One thing I do want to mention, is that they survived on a dry frag that was in a plastic bag for 20+ hours. LOL.
Other antibiotics tested:
Some medications used have either slowed down or even killed them, but not all are affected. 1 or 2 make it through.
We’re looking for the 100% kill rate!
Given the non-delivery of data by the product's designer, and if I wanted to test if there is indeed any active principle of known effects in the product, I would begin with a High Efficiency Liquid Chromatography (HELC) test, available in good laboratories of clinical toxicology, and perhaps began to test, in addition to the presence of antibiotics and chemotherapeutics already reported in these previous trials, also some antimalarials, especially chloroquine.
Once identified all or part of the active principles of the product, it would be easier to predict which results and para-effects to wait and evaluate if, the broad spectrum that the product seems to present, when reaching, also, as stated, Cryptocaryon sp, bristle worms, vermetid snails, nematodes and the gills of fish, besides Philaster lucinda, would not bring more damage to the system than the RTN itself.
Regards
I do not know yet. We have a lot of people testing the Prime Coral products, but also many other antibiotics as well. We’re also testing other things outside of antibiotic therapy.
I will report back here as we learn more details.
One thing I do want to mention, is that they survived on a dry frag that was in a plastic bag for 20+ hours. LOL.
Other antibiotics tested:
Some medications used have either slowed down or even killed them, but not all are affected. 1 or 2 make it through.
We’re looking for the 100% kill rate!
Now - I´m joking - take it with a laught - but I think you miss to test the final solution
Sincerely Lasse
Last edited:
Yes, there is research in development.
Something about it: https://web.northeastern.edu/vollmerlab/projects-2/
Regards
Talking about probiotics, and before experimenting with products that bear this name on the label, it is important to know the concept; probiotics are not the panacea and are not without risk if there is exaggeration in their handling.
The research being developed, with the intent of bioremediation in threatened coral fields, has several levels of approximation and none is complete. There are lines of research that invest in identifying for example strains of endosymbionts more resistant to heat or acidity in the oceans in order to increase the resilience of coral reefs to the effects of global warming and the increase of CO2 concentration in surface waters of the oceans. Others try to identify useful bacterial strains in the usual resident flora of the corals surface in an attempt to increase the bacterial complex that makes up the holobiont to improve their resistance to opportunistic infections that can lead to diseases such as WBD, for example .
Nature has, over many millions of years, established so many species-specific relationships in this very special biome of the oligotrophic ocean environment, which is the coral reef (which many compare to an oasis in the desert), that when one thinks or if you try to interfere with the natural environment, even with good intentions, the result can be a complete disaster.
Considering only the hermatypic coral in this complex environment, we find that it is a sessile organism that has evolved for millions of years in this environment and that has developed the ability to produce chemically complex substances, from pigments to enzymes, many with antibiotic activity, that carries in their tissues or expel it in your mucus and allow you to not only select your resident flora, but also control its number, make it thinner or thicker, absorb it, expel it or combat it without interference.
An organism exposed to competition from the natural environment is sessile because it can. It is not for anyone to face, stopped, the fury of nature.
The research being developed, with the intent of bioremediation in threatened coral fields, has several levels of approximation and none is complete. There are lines of research that invest in identifying for example strains of endosymbionts more resistant to heat or acidity in the oceans in order to increase the resilience of coral reefs to the effects of global warming and the increase of CO2 concentration in surface waters of the oceans. Others try to identify useful bacterial strains in the usual resident flora of the corals surface in an attempt to increase the bacterial complex that makes up the holobiont to improve their resistance to opportunistic infections that can lead to diseases such as WBD, for example .
Nature has, over many millions of years, established so many species-specific relationships in this very special biome of the oligotrophic ocean environment, which is the coral reef (which many compare to an oasis in the desert), that when one thinks or if you try to interfere with the natural environment, even with good intentions, the result can be a complete disaster.
Considering only the hermatypic coral in this complex environment, we find that it is a sessile organism that has evolved for millions of years in this environment and that has developed the ability to produce chemically complex substances, from pigments to enzymes, many with antibiotic activity, that carries in their tissues or expel it in your mucus and allow you to not only select your resident flora, but also control its number, make it thinner or thicker, absorb it, expel it or combat it without interference.
An organism exposed to competition from the natural environment is sessile because it can. It is not for anyone to face, stopped, the fury of nature.
OP
OP
We’re not getting the same results as Dr. Sweet. I wish we were.
OP
OP
Yes..Yes...I wish I knew what was in that product too. Many of us do! Unfortunately, he has not shared the ingredients with us. With a product like this- it will likely need some tweaking. If we could all test and tweak the ingredients then it would become a much better and safer product for the hobby as a whole. The problem is that this all comes down to business. Everybody wants to receive a return. Especially if the ingredients are costly.
OP
OP
Now - I´m joking - take it with a laught - but I think you miss to test the final solution
Sincerely Lasse
Yes, we may resort to flame throwers and dynamite soon. These things can survive anything!
I wonder how they will fare with 1 cc of 99.9% LaCI? ;Spiderman
MnFish1
10K Club member
How are your results differing from Dr. Sweet? What are you doing differently than Dr. Sweet. How do you know that you have Philaster? @reefaholic
OP
OP
We wouldn’t. If we knew the ingredients...we could buy our own.
Frogger
Active Member
Front line testing by the hobbyist is not a bad thing, because in the end that is where it will be used.
Yes it is not scientific but it is a good start.
MnFish1
10K Club member
@reefaholic How are you dosing metronidazole - the study dosed it twice daily at 100 mg/liter at 10 AM and 6PM - with a water change to prevent too much antibiotic from being present. By the 6th day - the levels were 'undetectable'. You can't just add xxx metronidazole to a Petri dish and watch the ciliates. What I dont understand (since the start of this thread) - is why you are insisting that Philaster is the 'pathogen' when the science says it's wrong. I will grant you that 'Prime' studies say its the 'pathogen' - but at best there are 2 different studies (one that is controlled, reviewed - and another that is not) saying 2 different things - but you keep insisting that its 'Philaster' thats the problem. The rest of us are saying 'maybe its the problem, maybe it isn't'.
For the perhaps 10th time - where are pictures of the Prime product reversing RTN (before and after pictures - and what is the success failure rate of the product?
OP
OP
We’re all aware of the studies. Nobody knows 100% what the answer is. If we did we would not be testing.
You are correct that from the beginning I think the Philaster is most responsible for the tissue necrosis. Even if it’s a secondary cause. That’s just my opinion.
As far as the testing that PC has done you will need to speak with him. I told you already that I do not know him personally.
MnFish1
10K Club member
There are 2 questions here: 1. Is Philaster lucinda the 'pathogen' in RTN (as suggested by the OP over and over). Hobbyist testing of this hypothesis to me is impossible.
2. Does Prime Corals product stop RTN? (for whatever reason)? This might be anecdotally tested by using the product - but its somewhat expensive.
The way I would see a hobbyist 'test' being helpful is taking a coral with RTN, placing it in a tank with 100 mg/l ampicillin dosed 2x/day for 6 days - with daily water change - and reporting. If enough people reported positive results we would have at least some anecdotal evidence that ampicillin works.
Taking another RTN coral from the display -and trying the Prime method per instructions and comparing before and after pictures from each group. Again this would give some anecdotal evidence whether Prime products work.
Much of the discussion here started with the claim that Philaster lucinda 'is' the pathogen.
There is already research out there suggesting that RTN is halted with 2 different antibiotics in a well designed well controlled study - with before and after pictures and measurements. What is the reason the average hobbyist wouldn't just try one of these antibiotics in a similar manner as that used in the study?
MnFish1
10K Club member
What I was asking - is you seem to have looked at all of the videos - have you seen any with pictures of this product reversing RTN? I looked at several - and I may have missed them - but I haven't seen them.
Im curious -given the studies - why aren't you suggesting that people just use ampicillin (which has been shown to stop RTN) in favor of this other product? The goal in the end is to stop RTN - not prove that Philaster is the cause - and ampicillin stops it....
OP
OP
I’ve seen his before and after videos, but they aren’t very well done IMO. You would need better quality video over several days or weeks to be sure it’s working 100%.
We’re testing ampicillin too.
Just curious...do you believe every study you read with 100% certainty?
- Status
Similar threads
New Posts
-
-
Large Build TL’s big boy peninsula 385 gal Sps build!- Latest: Daniel@R2R
