Possible solution to end RTN forever?!?
- Thread starter Reefahholic
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
@PSXerholic @Reefahholic
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892877/
Click to expand...
I havn't finished your article yet, but i will soon. Do you have an audio file I could fast forward.
It is also suggested that the zoos. May have a chemical suppressant so they don't get eaten. Which is what got me to thinking awhile back when I ran across a few articles (i will try and find later). That is the zooxanthellae were to be infected and released the suppressant, they wouldn't get expelled
therefore letting the disease build on the inside till it was too late.
I also ran across an article that went through the effect of zooxanthellae expulsion under different temps.... When the temps got to almost 90 the zooxanthellae in Xenia were released so fast that it didn't follow the expulsion channels and made lesions in the skin which could potentially leave an access point for futher damage by the bacteria.
Any thought or am I a complete dummy and just making stuff up!?!
@Jose Mayo or anyone else that can help me out?
http://www.scielo.sa.cr/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-77442006000600013
Just thought these article might help.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892877/
Click to expand...
I havn't finished your article yet, but i will soon. Do you have an audio file I could fast forward.
It is also suggested that the zoos. May have a chemical suppressant so they don't get eaten. Which is what got me to thinking awhile back when I ran across a few articles (i will try and find later). That is the zooxanthellae were to be infected and released the suppressant, they wouldn't get expelled
therefore letting the disease build on the inside till it was too late.
I also ran across an article that went through the effect of zooxanthellae expulsion under different temps.... When the temps got to almost 90 the zooxanthellae in Xenia were released so fast that it didn't follow the expulsion channels and made lesions in the skin which could potentially leave an access point for futher damage by the bacteria.
Any thought or am I a complete dummy and just making stuff up!?!
@Jose Mayo or anyone else that can help me out?
http://www.scielo.sa.cr/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-77442006000600013
Just thought these article might help.
Hi, @chris85, as already quoted in previous posts, although the true and legitimate concern with the WD of corals goes back almost to the beginnings of the our hobby (beginning soon after mastering the techniques and technologies that allowed to keep SPS in captivity), in the scientific environment this interest, more direct and more intense, occurs in a more recent period, in the wake of the events related to the anthropogenic influence in the natural environment of these beings, especially by the effects produced there by the phenomena related to global warming.
Since then, many field works have been produced and many observations and conclusions have been published in peer reviewed journals and specialized magazines, being the most competently performed, and most reproducible, elevated to the condition of reference and cited by many other authors, in this area of knowledge, thus becoming more widely known, accepted and disseminated in the scientific medium.
Is this the absolute truth? Not! Only represents the best evidence for a given event in a given time scale, and even if a particular result can be consistently reproduced, by a given process, in given experiment, still can not scientist claim nothing but strong evidence for or against particular hypothesis, which will have to be tested also by the sieve of time and new knowledge in that area, before it becomes theory. This is what is called FALSIFIABILITY of Science and this is how the best Science is produced.
From this mozaic, elaborated from the various hypotheses about certain facts observed in well-conducted experiments, even if apparently antagonistic in their results, often due to differences in their execution projects, is that the scientific mind seeks to extract the applications and practices that better enable us to know or resolve the issues that distress us.
Regrettably, there to this moment, and on the subject of this topic, no many definite conclusions already published or known ... but we are progressing.
Best Regards
Thanks @Jose Mayo
Just got me curious after I saw the pictures above of the ruptured zooxanthellae, and the video of the phyilaster full of bacteria. Maybe they have a symbiotic relationship and feed on zooxanthellae to feed the bacteria. I don't know just a thought!! Thanks again bud!!
Last edited:
OP
OP
I couldn't help but to go to his Sponsored Section where he started this thread:
FACT: RTN, STN and Coral Bleaching are caused by an infection due to microscopic parasites.
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/f...roscopic-parasites.569768/page-8#post-5838237
I defended the Doc....but like I said...when the latest studies and facts suggest otherwise...I must follow reality and logic.
A fact is something that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true “with evidence.” I have not seen definitive evidence for any of your claims. Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination.
With all due respect Dr....I think your imagination has taken control. You see a huge return if you can get us to bite. Despite all your “fact” claims...you failed to back them up. You attacked those who challenged your position and asked questions. Then you belittled them. You fled from the truth on the other thread when we linked the latest studies, but yet you continued to promote your product on YouTube, Facebook, and now here.
I’m sorry sir. I don’t buy it anymore. The in-tank treatment is a failure and kills fish. RTN hasn’t been stopped. Will you at least admit that?
https://www.youtube.com/c/Reefahholic
Reef Junkie T.V.
bblumberg, Jose Mayo, Thales and 1 other person like this
FACT: RTN, STN and Coral Bleaching are caused by an infection due to microscopic parasites.
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/f...roscopic-parasites.569768/page-8#post-5838237
I defended the Doc....but like I said...when the latest studies and facts suggest otherwise...I must follow reality and logic.
A fact is something that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true “with evidence.” I have not seen definitive evidence for any of your claims. Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination.
With all due respect Dr....I think your imagination has taken control. You see a huge return if you can get us to bite. Despite all your “fact” claims...you failed to back them up. You attacked those who challenged your position and asked questions. Then you belittled them. You fled from the truth on the other thread when we linked the latest studies, but yet you continued to promote your product on YouTube, Facebook, and now here.
I’m sorry sir. I don’t buy it anymore. The in-tank treatment is a failure and kills fish. RTN hasn’t been stopped. Will you at least admit that?
https://www.youtube.com/c/Reefahholic
Reef Junkie T.V.
bblumberg, Jose Mayo, Thales and 1 other person like this
Btw, I was live when a microorganism intruded an intact ZooX and ate it from the inside.
This was under 2500x and this organism was very quick and active.
Our thinking about that a bacteria is very small is totally outdated.
We need better microscopes :-(
Fantastic!
It was extremely odd. The brown nut looking thing @1 o’clock swam towards the ZooX and then these microbes were seen all over short after, maybe a minute later.
The lil guy at 11‘o clock was very fast and I observed him intruding the ZooX and eating this area up.
I barely could see it, had to use the cell phone and zooming in to see this.
BTW, from what I do see, this has nothing to do with the STN in my tank. However I’m afraid lil microbes like this may be the reason behind STN and taking the mucus layer apart, which won’t see under normal microscopes.
If anyone has a Electron microscope laying around and no use for it ..... here please ;-)
Last edited:
Maybe you're seeing something new there, something like a cytophagous bacterium invading the Symbiodinium cell in an absolutely destructive way; I did a quick search here, and I did not find any reports on that.
Congratulations!
Really fantastic!
OP
OP
They definitely look destructive and seem to have enough speed to get it done. I can tell you’re maxed on magnification because that zoox looks like a basketball.
We may need to start painting the base of acropora with white paint.
Andre Cody just sent me this PM:
Have y'all just tried a good old fashioned Lugols dip to treat the Vibrio? Iodine dip can be an antiseptic. This project (linked below) ran the experiment and took pictures of the results of amphicilin, and treating the bacteria stopped the skin loss. Like I said before, they treated the cilites and the skin loss continued. They treated the Vibrio and the skin loss stopped. I've read about half of the pages on the r2r thread and saw no mention of the iodine dip. Good to hear about the hydrogen peroxide dip as well.
Experimental antibiotic treatment identifies potential pathogens of white band disease in the endangered Caribbean coral Acropora cervicornis
We may need to start painting the base of acropora with white paint.
Andre Cody just sent me this PM:
Have y'all just tried a good old fashioned Lugols dip to treat the Vibrio? Iodine dip can be an antiseptic. This project (linked below) ran the experiment and took pictures of the results of amphicilin, and treating the bacteria stopped the skin loss. Like I said before, they treated the cilites and the skin loss continued. They treated the Vibrio and the skin loss stopped. I've read about half of the pages on the r2r thread and saw no mention of the iodine dip. Good to hear about the hydrogen peroxide dip as well.
Experimental antibiotic treatment identifies potential pathogens of white band disease in the endangered Caribbean coral Acropora cervicornis
OP
OP
Just wondering if anybody else has observed a 99% success rate with the Prime Coral “in-tank” treatment- Prevent RTN. Please let us know below.
OP
OP
This deserves a repost here:
Yesterday at 3:25 PM
bblumbergActive MemberR2R Supporter Expert Contributor
↑
Publishing in a peer reviewed journal is not the standard.
Publishing in a peer reviewed journal has only ONE requirement: the editor in chief decides to publish or not. Has NOTHING to do with peer comments, statistics, study design, or any of your assertions above. I have published my own peer reviewed papers and I am currently a peer reviewer for several scientific journals. There is far too much personal bias in the publication process and it ultimately has nothing to do with the actual science, whether it is good science or not.
You are 100% incorrect. As a research scientist, published author, peer reviewer, NIH funded principal investigator, neuroscientist, biochemist, cell biologist and chemist I can definitively tell you the peer review process is mostly a "boys club". I have no interest in participating in at this time.
Click to expand...
This is something that I cannot let pass without comment. What you say is almost 100% incorrect based on my experience as a working university scientist with many publications in the peer-reviewed literature (have a look at my site http://blumberg-lab.bio.uci.edu/ or search me on PubMed if you doubt this).
While there is a bit of a clubby nature to getting your papers reviewed in the most high impact journals in the field of biomedical sciences (Nature, Science, Cell Press journals). peer-review is the best way to ensure that the work published is of high quality. Your statement that publishing in a peer-reviewed journal "Has NOTHING to do with peer comments, statistics, study design, or any of your assertions above." is completely false and demonstrates that you have little idea about what the publication process entails.
Whether or not a paper is published in the peer-reviewed literature depends largely on the quality of the science. This includes study design, statistical analysis, peer reviewer comments and, ultimately, the approval of the editorial board of the journal (typically an Associate Editor). High quality science will always be published in some reputable journal, irrespective of how controversial the topic may be. Which peer-reviewed journal it is published in depends on the overall interest and impact of the research. Work of high impact and widespread interest to multiple fields gets published in high-impact journals. High quality work of more limited interest gets published in specialist journals.
Having said that, the peer-review process is not perfect. Sometimes peer-reviewers are lazy and allow sloppy science to slip through. This most often happens at low-impact journals, but it happens. Sometimes reviewers are biased and inappropriately reject good work but this will get published in an other journal if it is scientifically sound. Sometimes authors fake or misrepresent results allowing bad science to get published. This is largely discovered eventually and the perpetrators punished.
Sometimes there are so-called peer-reviewed journals that are not. Rather they pretend to be so, but are basically pay the fee and you will be published. You can read about this problem here, among other places"
https://retractionwatch.com/2013/10...poofs-hundreds-of-journals-with-a-fake-paper/
The bottom line is that peer-review largely works, both for publications and for research grants. It could be improved. What couldn't?
I can easily imagine why you do not want to publish your putative RTN/STN cure in the peer-reviewed literature. This is because you would need to disclose what actual chemicals it contains so that other interested scientists could duplicate your work. This is at the heart of science - it must be reproducible in order to be believed. This is not the same thing as me buying your treatment and testing it in my tanks at home.
Lastly, since you have described yourself as "a research scientist, published author, peer reviewer, NIH funded principal investigator, neuroscientist, biochemist, cell biologist and chemist" I thought that I'd give that a quick fact check. According to your Facebook https://www.facebook.com/deuk.spine
and LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ara-deukmedjian-md-faans-931910167/
pages, Dr. Ara J. Deukmedjian graduated from UCSD with a degree in Cell Biology and Biochemistry in 1993, received an MD from USC in 1997 and has been a working neurosurgeon since that time.
I found 4 publications for Ara Deukmedjian in the peer-reviewed literature, 3 on surgical techniques and 1 on cortical injury (presumably from your postdoctoral studies). If there are others, they are not in journals indexed on PubMed.
As for your being an NIH funded principal investigator, a quick search of NIH Reporter https://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm for your last name (to avoid missing any) turn up only an F32 award in 2000-2002 on "Interactions between heterotopic and dysplastic cortex". For those who do not know, an F32 award is an individual postdoctoral fellowship (i.e., a mentored training award). Most researchers would only use the term "NIH-funded principal investigator" for recipients of NIH R- U, or P-series awards https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/funding_program.htm
F, K and T-series awards are mentored training awards and the awardees are not properly called NIH-funded principal investigators so your classification of the F32 award in this way is a stretch.
Nothing I said above confirms or refutes your acquired expertise in marine biology or the quality of Prime Coral's putative STN/RTN cure. Whether or not this stuff works will be tested over time as people buy it and test its effectiveness. However, I have found over the years that it is better to stick closely to the demonstrable facts if you want people to believe your statements. In my opinion, much of what you said in the above post is "stretching the facts" and that is viewing them in the most favorable light.
Yesterday at 3:25 PM
bblumbergActive MemberR2R Supporter Expert Contributor
↑
Publishing in a peer reviewed journal is not the standard.
Publishing in a peer reviewed journal has only ONE requirement: the editor in chief decides to publish or not. Has NOTHING to do with peer comments, statistics, study design, or any of your assertions above. I have published my own peer reviewed papers and I am currently a peer reviewer for several scientific journals. There is far too much personal bias in the publication process and it ultimately has nothing to do with the actual science, whether it is good science or not.
You are 100% incorrect. As a research scientist, published author, peer reviewer, NIH funded principal investigator, neuroscientist, biochemist, cell biologist and chemist I can definitively tell you the peer review process is mostly a "boys club". I have no interest in participating in at this time.
Click to expand...
This is something that I cannot let pass without comment. What you say is almost 100% incorrect based on my experience as a working university scientist with many publications in the peer-reviewed literature (have a look at my site http://blumberg-lab.bio.uci.edu/ or search me on PubMed if you doubt this).
While there is a bit of a clubby nature to getting your papers reviewed in the most high impact journals in the field of biomedical sciences (Nature, Science, Cell Press journals). peer-review is the best way to ensure that the work published is of high quality. Your statement that publishing in a peer-reviewed journal "Has NOTHING to do with peer comments, statistics, study design, or any of your assertions above." is completely false and demonstrates that you have little idea about what the publication process entails.
Whether or not a paper is published in the peer-reviewed literature depends largely on the quality of the science. This includes study design, statistical analysis, peer reviewer comments and, ultimately, the approval of the editorial board of the journal (typically an Associate Editor). High quality science will always be published in some reputable journal, irrespective of how controversial the topic may be. Which peer-reviewed journal it is published in depends on the overall interest and impact of the research. Work of high impact and widespread interest to multiple fields gets published in high-impact journals. High quality work of more limited interest gets published in specialist journals.
Having said that, the peer-review process is not perfect. Sometimes peer-reviewers are lazy and allow sloppy science to slip through. This most often happens at low-impact journals, but it happens. Sometimes reviewers are biased and inappropriately reject good work but this will get published in an other journal if it is scientifically sound. Sometimes authors fake or misrepresent results allowing bad science to get published. This is largely discovered eventually and the perpetrators punished.
Sometimes there are so-called peer-reviewed journals that are not. Rather they pretend to be so, but are basically pay the fee and you will be published. You can read about this problem here, among other places"
https://retractionwatch.com/2013/10...poofs-hundreds-of-journals-with-a-fake-paper/
The bottom line is that peer-review largely works, both for publications and for research grants. It could be improved. What couldn't?
I can easily imagine why you do not want to publish your putative RTN/STN cure in the peer-reviewed literature. This is because you would need to disclose what actual chemicals it contains so that other interested scientists could duplicate your work. This is at the heart of science - it must be reproducible in order to be believed. This is not the same thing as me buying your treatment and testing it in my tanks at home.
Lastly, since you have described yourself as "a research scientist, published author, peer reviewer, NIH funded principal investigator, neuroscientist, biochemist, cell biologist and chemist" I thought that I'd give that a quick fact check. According to your Facebook https://www.facebook.com/deuk.spine
and LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ara-deukmedjian-md-faans-931910167/
pages, Dr. Ara J. Deukmedjian graduated from UCSD with a degree in Cell Biology and Biochemistry in 1993, received an MD from USC in 1997 and has been a working neurosurgeon since that time.
I found 4 publications for Ara Deukmedjian in the peer-reviewed literature, 3 on surgical techniques and 1 on cortical injury (presumably from your postdoctoral studies). If there are others, they are not in journals indexed on PubMed.
As for your being an NIH funded principal investigator, a quick search of NIH Reporter https://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm for your last name (to avoid missing any) turn up only an F32 award in 2000-2002 on "Interactions between heterotopic and dysplastic cortex". For those who do not know, an F32 award is an individual postdoctoral fellowship (i.e., a mentored training award). Most researchers would only use the term "NIH-funded principal investigator" for recipients of NIH R- U, or P-series awards https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/funding_program.htm
F, K and T-series awards are mentored training awards and the awardees are not properly called NIH-funded principal investigators so your classification of the F32 award in this way is a stretch.
Nothing I said above confirms or refutes your acquired expertise in marine biology or the quality of Prime Coral's putative STN/RTN cure. Whether or not this stuff works will be tested over time as people buy it and test its effectiveness. However, I have found over the years that it is better to stick closely to the demonstrable facts if you want people to believe your statements. In my opinion, much of what you said in the above post is "stretching the facts" and that is viewing them in the most favorable light.
They definitely look destructive and seem to have enough speed to get it done. I can tell you’re maxed on magnification because that zoox looks like a basketball.
We may need to start painting the base of acropora with white paint.
Andre Cody just sent me this PM:
Have y'all just tried a good old fashioned Lugols dip to treat the Vibrio? Iodine dip can be an antiseptic. This project (linked below) ran the experiment and took pictures of the results of amphicilin, and treating the bacteria stopped the skin loss. Like I said before, they treated the cilites and the skin loss continued. They treated the Vibrio and the skin loss stopped. I've read about half of the pages on the r2r thread and saw no mention of the iodine dip. Good to hear about the hydrogen peroxide dip as well.
Experimental antibiotic treatment identifies potential pathogens of white band disease in the endangered Caribbean coral Acropora cervicornis
I know these articles and treatments done at a pretty high concentration of antibiotics at 100mg/L
I tried already Metro in acceptable doses at 1mg/L 4 times per day and now try Ampicillin at 1mg\L twice per day.
Lugol I haven’t tried actually to see if it kills these microbes!!! Will try that shortly.
It would be helpful to know this microbe in order to defend it.
Couple of pictures from yesterday of a frag that TNed within 6 hours very rapidly. The amount of the stained microbes is pretty high :-(
OP
OP
I found it odd that the Doc went back and did videos on Ampicillin, Metro, etc. saying they didn't work. Why would you waste your time and effort pointing that out twice?
Yes, knowing the microorganism responsible would be a game changer. Then we could culture that specific organism and find its sensitivity.
OP
OP
Those almost look like Philaster Lucinda's before they eat and get fat.
Ohh, look what I just found! wink wink
https://www.kwipped.com/rentals/laboratory/electron-microscopes/707
Ohh, look what I just found! wink wink
https://www.kwipped.com/rentals/laboratory/electron-microscopes/707
Couple of pictures from yesterday of a frag that TNed within 6 hours very rapidly. The amount of the stained microbes is pretty high :-(
9k per month.....
If I could I would have one ... :-(
OP
OP
Waiting for a lab quote in Nort Houston nowYou already got a quote from them. :-(
9K...that’s insane!
Just as a curiosity, but related to the subject, I have read in some papers, directed to the medical parasitology, on the effects of new drugs, previously used for another purpose, in the control of trypanosomiasis and other diseases produced by flagellated microorganisms, especially Trypanosoma sp. and Leishmania sp, causing human disease such as Chagas disease and Leishmaniasis, produced by the mentioned microorganisms.
One of these drugs is Amiodarone, an inexpensive and easily available drug in any drugstore, that has been shown to be effective against these ciliates in recent studies and whose mechanism of action is based on the blockade of sterol synthesis by oxidosqualene pathway and also on the blockade of channels of calcium, disrupting motility and, subsequently, provocking the cell lysis, by alteration of the integrity of the membranes.
Oxidoesqualene and calcium channel blockers have potential for toxicity in to higher animals above certain concentrations, but considering the therapeutic window of Amiodarone in humans, and their effectiveness at low doses against these organisms, I wonder if, perhaps , it would be interesting to experience its effects against marine flagellates in a controlled environment [flagellated algae (dino) and protozoa (Philaster)], for probable application in emergency situations in our aquariums.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16451055
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30386379
Best regards
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
