Skeptical about: "Skeptical Reefkeeping Part 2 - Magic in a Bottle By Richard Ross"

[Thales]

Warrior24_7,

I didn't directly answer the 6 questions in your first post. In an effort to try to help us understand each other I'll give them a go.

1. How many products did the author use to make such claims?

Over 25 years worth at home, working at LFS, wholesalers and where I work now. Couldn't tell you an actual number though.

2. Does he use any products now? If so which ones?

Depends on what you mean by products. I dose Mg, Ca, run a Ca reactor and a Kalk reactor, use salt mix (currently ESV) and feed several reef nutrition products, cyclops, PE mysis and various pellet foods. I often run GFO to reduce PO4 and GAC to export 'nasties'. At work I dose alcohol on two of the systems I am responsible for.

3. Did he do any independent testing and reviewing of anything?!!

Specifically for this article, no. I am not really sure what you mean by testing and reviewing, and I am missing why it would be important to this particular article which is more about navigating product claims.

4. Did he contact any companies to find out how they verified such claims?

I have. I did not for this article because it doesn't talk about specific products.

5. What "does" work?!!

Raw Mg and Ca raise Mg and Ca. Many light bulbs grow coral. Kalk raises Ca, raises pH and can precipitate PO4. Skimmers work though it is unclear what they actually do and what they actually remove. Amquel breaks the chloramine bond and detoxifies ammonia. Carbon dosing will lower nitrates. A Ca reactor will raise alk and Ca.

6. Does Manhattan Reefs carry any of these non-working products?

I do have a bunch of things I don't use anymore because I don't think they do anything helpful. I have some Lugols I don't dose anymore, some Tech M I worked with for bryopsis, some ammino's someone gave me that I used up but never replaced, some Marc Weiss products in a box somewhere.

 

[Thales]

ruby reef ich medication DOES work if the directions are followed, but prolly not any better than raising the temp a few degrees and slightly lowering salinity. Garlic goes a long way in preventing it and have a cleaner shrimp or neon goby to eat any parasites that do manage to appear works well too. At the end of the day if your system is balanced and the fish is other wise in good shape it should be able to fight off ich and not really ever have it return.

I think this paragraph is filled with reefing common wisdom that in reality doesn't have much, if any support, and these persistent kinds of beliefs are what initially inspired me to write this series of articles. Sometimes it is suggested that people that are skeptical of the above 'treatments' need to prove that they don't actually work, but I think that is a little backwards. Its up to the people making the claims to support them before you risk your animals lives and your money. I would be happy to turn on a dime and support the above treatments given good evidence that they do in fact work, and this was much of the thrust of part 1 of the Skeptical Reefkeeper series.

Here is some stuff we do know about saltwater ich. The links below are either the direct documentation or have the direct documentation listed in their references.

Raising the temp is not effective for Cryptocarrion irritans, but it has been shown to be partially effective on freshwater ich, Ichthyophthirius multifiliis. Even though the lifecycle of the parasite is temperature dependent, the optimal temp for Crypto reproduction is 86F, so the higher temps may actually stress the fish and help the parasite.

Slightly lowering the salinity has no effect because Crypto will go dormant if not killed - to kill the Crypto the salinity needs to go to 14ppt for at least 30 days and corals will not tolerate salinity that low. Biological controls don't seem to be effective on the parasite because its actually in the skin, not on it, though cleaner shrimp may be helpful in removing the cycts.

There is no support besides anecdote for Garlic being beneficial to treating Crypto. It was once suggested that it might be, and the hobby ran with that. I can find no studies that show Ruby Reef Ich or similar products actually effect Crypto, just anecdote, and why that particular anecdote doesn't hold up was covered in part one. Because of the lifecycle of ich, almost anything, including changing lightbulbs (really, I have seen this suggested as a cure for ich) can be given credit for the appearance of mitigating the parasite.

I do agree wit the last sentence - healthy fish in a low stress environment seem to be able to develop an immunity, or partial immunity. Very cool!

http://atj.net.au/marineaquaria/cryptoandhypo.html
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/6/fish
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-10/sp/feature/index.php
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-08/sp/index.php
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/feb2004/mini4.htm

This is a great discussion! Thanks!

 

[cjdevito]

I think this paragraph is filled with reefing common wisdom that in reality doesn't have much, if any support, and these persistent kinds of beliefs are what initially inspired me to write this series of articles
....
Slightly lowering the salinity has no effect because Crypto will go dormant if not killed - to kill the Crypto the salinity needs to go to 14ppt for at least 30 days and corals will not tolerate salinity that low.

RIP Terry Bartlme's article writing career.

Hi Rich. You're on my half of the country.

 

[Spracklcat]

Cool thread. Ok, two things from the perspective of someone actually schooled in marine animal medicine (that would be me )

1. It is pretty much impossible for any product to kill flatworms and nothing else with the technology available on the market currently. It may kill the flatworms faster than it kills other things, but nothing is that selective short of a genetic-based drug which we don't have.

2. Rich is correct regarding ich. People confuse "cure", "kill", and "make it so I can't see ich any more". When you mess with salinity and temp, you are merely slwoing down or speeding up the life cycle. that is only useful if you are trying to get to a particular stage in the cycle which is susceptible to a drug. If it's in your tank, you aren't using drugs, and therefore the most you are doing is sending the parasite into a latent phase. Trust me, it's still there. Better yet, don't trust me, and test for yourselves.

 

[James]

6. Does Manhattan Reefs carry any of these non-working products?

You are new here so I will try to answer this one. No. manhattan reefs is a community based forum where people share info, trade/sell all types of stuff and just lounge around talking about lord knows what in the chatroom. MR is not a store, the only things they sell (to my knowledge) are IC-Gel, MR logo coolers and bone cutters (all at the swap only, and cheaper than any vendor). The vendors on MR sell all types of aquarium related products but I am not sure what "non-working" products you are referring too.

 

[Warrior24_7]

Depends on what you mean by products. I dose Mg, Ca, run a Ca reactor and a Kalk reactor, use salt mix (currently ESV) and feed several reef nutrition products, cyclops, PE mysis and various pellet foods. I often run GFO to reduce PO4 and GAC to export 'nasties'. At work I dose alcohol on two of the systems I am responsible for.

Do these products have a name? Do they work, and how do you know?

Specifically for this article, no. I am not really sure what you mean by testing and reviewing, and I am missing why it would be important to this particular article which is more about navigating product claims.

How do you navigate a product claim? Afterall, a product like FWE (which I've never used) seems to work (according to the people who've used it), but has no ingredients listed! But per the article it should be avoided for no "visible means of support".

I have. I did not for this article because it doesn't talk about specific products.

It's not about "specific" products, but about saying something doesn't work without any proof! Just because a bottle says "Coral Grow" and has a nice picture of a reef on it doesn't mean its bunk, since other things must be in place as well for the corals to grow. So a product making several claims isn't always bunk either since one thing effects another, that effects another, an another, like in your statement below. Purple Up is a product that makes several claims, but it doesn't tell you to make sure that you have the proper lighting! It assumes that you do. So automatically saying its BS...is BS!

Raw Mg and Ca raise Mg and Ca. Many light bulbs grow coral. Kalk raises Ca, raises pH and can precipitate PO4. Skimmers work though it is unclear what they actually do and what they actually remove. Amquel breaks the chloramine bond and detoxifies ammonia. Carbon dosing will lower nitrates. A Ca reactor will raise alk and Ca.

Really? How do you know any of this? Do you use a "skimmer"? Why?!! Since you're unclear of what they actually do and what they actually remove. Why are you not following your own advice?

I do have a bunch of things I don't use anymore because I don't think they do anything helpful. I have some Lugols I don't dose anymore, some Tech M I worked with for bryopsis, some ammino's someone gave me that I used up but never replaced, some Marc Weiss products in a box somewhere.

That is my point! You cried BS on these products after you used them! Like the mythbusters example you gave.


Oh, one more thing:

"I have used FWE in the past with good results - no dead corals and dead FW's"-Thales

"It is pretty much impossible for any product to kill flatworms and nothing else with the technology available on the market currently."-Spracklcat

WTF?!!-Warrior24_7

 

[prattreef]

Warrior,

I'm curious which products you use and why?

 

[Thales]

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Do these products have a name? Do they work, and how do you know?

Yes. Yes. Research.

How do you navigate a product claim? Afterall, a product like FWE (which I've never used) seems to work (according to the people who've used it), but has no ingredients listed! But per the article it should be avoided for no "visible means of support".

No - you are adding the idea that they should be avoided for no visible means of support. I am not saying reject, I am saying be skeptical.

It's not about "specific" products, but about saying something doesn't work without any proof! Just because a bottle says "Coral Grow" and has a nice picture of a reef on it doesn't mean its bunk, since other things must be in place as well for the corals to grow. So a product making several claims isn't always bunk either since one thing effects another, that effects another, an another, like in your statement below. Purple Up is a product that makes several claims, but it doesn't tell you to make sure that you have the proper lighting! It assumes that you do. So automatically saying its BS...is BS!

The article is not about saying its BS, its about saying be careful and make the most informed decision you can. You are adding absolutes when the article specifically avoids them. In the article I explicitly say "It is important to note that not all advertising is trying to scam you. Some of it is simply trying to portray the product in the best light to get more people to buy it."

Really? How do you know any of this? Do you use a "skimmer"? Why?!! Since you're unclear of what they actually do and what they actually remove. Why are you not following your own advice?

Research. Yes I use a skimmer because it adds O2, it lowers DOC, and removes absorbed organic impurities - not knowing everything doesn't mean we don't know some things. Again, you are adding an absolute viewpoint. I am following my own advice, you seem to adding stuff to it.

Perhaps the last is my fault in the authorship. I don't think so, but maybe.

That is my point! You cried BS on these products after you used them! Like the mythbusters example you gave.

I don't get it. No where do I recommend not trying products if you want to - its about informed decisions. And a lot of them I cried BS on before I started using them but was trying them anyway.

Oh, one more thing:

"I have used FWE in the past with good results - no dead corals and dead FW's"-Thales

"It is pretty much impossible for any product to kill flatworms and nothing else with the technology available on the market currently."-Spracklcat

WTF?!!-Warrior24_7

Those two statements are not incompatible or contradictory. Chris does not define 'nothing else' as corals and I don't know if anything besides flatworms died in my tank when I treated with FWE.

 

[ellebelle]

Heh, Rich I was just going to reply the same thing to your last point. It is completely plausible that FWE killed other things that I just wasn't concerned about in my tank - other harmless worms, bacteria, etc. It does not kill coral or fish or large inverts( shrimp, coco worms).

 

[Josh]

Interesting thread.

 

[ellebelle]

Maybe a lot of this gets to the question of what is an informed decision. Is an informed decision one you make yourself after trying something or is an informed decision what you make after reading something? I think that answer is both or either depending on the situation. The RM article (to me) was simply suggesting a critical thinking path that could be trodden in considering testing something.

I must say that I never thought that garlic would help my fish but I still used it in the hope that I was wrong AND with the knowledge that it woudnt hurt the rest of my tank.

 

[beerfish]

My real purpose in these articles is to get us all thinking...

With over 50 posts in this thread, it looks like the article was a success in that way.

 

[Thales]

How do you navigate a product claim? Afterall, a product like FWE (which I've never used) seems to work (according to the people who've used it), but has no ingredients listed! But per the article it should be avoided for no "visible means of support".

No - you are adding the idea that they should be avoided for no visible means of support. I am not saying reject, I am saying be skeptical.

My decision to use FWE is a great example actually. The product came out and lots of people bought it. There were mixed initial reviews for early adopters - for some it worked great, for some there were losses of fish and coral. Discussion on the various forums went crazy, some held the product up as perfect, some as flawed. As more detailed reports came in, it seemed to me that there were two categories of users, the ones that dumped the product in, and the ones that removed as may FW as they could before treatment as well as doing water changes and running carbon actively after treatment. Some in the first group had problems, none in the second group had problems. It was thought that toxins in the bodies of the dying FW were killing aquarium inhabitants. When I finally used it, after months of looking into it, my FW population was low do to regular manual removal of FW, I had a 100% water change ready if needed, and I have a canister filter filled with carbon ready to go. I dosed, watched very carefully for FW to start to die, and then immediately did a 50% water change and ran carbon. No visible losses, no observed I'll effects. Now, years later, there are still people who don't look into the product, don't follow the directions carefully which ends up in losses. We still don't know whats in it, but with protection, it does do what it says it will do.

Being skeptical is not about saying no, or about avoiding products that have no visible means of support - like I have said, there are many products in the reefkeeping world that fit into that mold for a plethora of reasons (proprietary information, protecting sales, etc) careful research can help you decide what products you want to risk in your reef.

I suppose that story could have been in the article, but has already been mentioned I had decided to not mention any specific products for various reasons.

Fun thread!

 

[Warrior24_7]

Yes. Yes. Research.
What research? What did you do?

No - you are adding the idea that they should be avoided for no visible means of support. I am not saying reject, I am saying be skeptical.

Okay, be skeptical, so what! You still have no "proof" of anything! Just an unsustantiated, "pre-conceived" notion about the product. But you STILL have a problem, and that problem is not going away and is probably getting worse. How many times were you "skepitcal" before putting a piece of food in your mouth? But it was offered, you're hungry, you've never eaten that before, it smells and looks..."different", others are eating it, and the chef said its good. The ONLY way you'll know if that food is good is if you eat it. But if you don't, you have no right to say that it isn't. And even then its just an opinion.

The article is not about saying its BS, its about saying be careful and make the most informed decision you can. You are adding absolutes when the article specifically avoids them.

The article didn't avoid them. You added absolutes. "Honestly, sometimes a new product does work. "A lot of them don't." "Even widely used products occasionally don?t do what they claim" but in spite of this, somehow they?ve caught on.-Thales. Thats an "absolute". They don't work, and occasionally don't do what they claim. My question for you is how do you know that?!! By skepticism? Thats why I asked those questions of you in my initial response. Those questions are not all encompassing either.

I think right here is the problem I have with the article. You are running away from the "absolutes" that "you've" stated...and you can't. Because the ONLY way to know for sure is to use the product! You say to make an "informed" decision, but the article hamstings the process.
Ask the manufacturer? Nope! "Being a skeptical reefer essentially boils down to taking advice/products/new ideas with a bucket of salt."-Thales
Ask the LFS store owner, friends, forum? Nope! "Remember, a recommendation from someone is not evidence"-Thales
What about advertisments and "expert opinion"? Nope! neither are anecdotal claims."-Thales
So whats left? Where is the noob supposed to go? Can't go to the manufacturer. Afterall, what do you expect them to say? Can't ask the LFS, they're just trying to sell me something, and can't ask anybody else because, well...they're just not credible. "Expert" opinion? They're already bought & sold! The ONLY thing left is to try the product yourself to come to a conclusion. Its something I said you had to do, and this is exactly what you did. "a lot of them I cried BS on before I started using them but was trying them anyway."-Thales

In the article I explicitly say "It is important to note that not all advertising is trying to scam you. Some of it is simply trying to portray the product in the best light to get more people to buy it."

There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't matter anyway, because as a noob you won't know otherwise. But as an "experienced" hobbyist you're concerned about whats "in" the bottle instead of whats on the outside.

Research. Yes I use a skimmer because it adds O2, it lowers DOC, and removes absorbed organic impurities - not knowing everything doesn't mean we don't know some things. Again, you are adding an absolute viewpoint. I am following my own advice, you seem to adding stuff to it.

An airstone and a Biowheel filter will do that too. I'm just going by what you said! "Skimmers work though it is unclear what they actually do and what they actually remove."-Thales

I don't get it. No where do I recommend not trying products if you want to - its about informed decisions. And a lot of them I cried BS on before I started using them but was trying them anyway.

"If the claims are weasely, or there is no verification of the claims, it might be better to move on to a different product."-Thales
Sounds like Skimmers and FWE to me. Look, I'm all about trying products at least before you say something works, or doesn't work. Thats all. Skeptisim, is nothing more than pre-conceived notions built off of what? You've never used the product or in some cases you don't even know what it does! So if someone asked you "does this work?", the ONLY credible answer you could give them is "I dunno, I never used it" no matter how you personally feel about the product. Skepticism just doesn't give you an answer. So if you're a skeptic, than you have no choice but to try the product for yourself because all other means aren't credible.

Those two statements are not incompatible or contradictory. Chris does not define 'nothing else' as corals and I don't know if anything besides flatworms died in my tank when I treated with FWE.

So all of your fish, corals, and inverts, are alive. "That", you know. You should be able to tell that. You said nothing died. But for the sake of making sure everything is compatible, some bacteria died. But then again you can't prove... aaawww lets' move on!

 

[Thales]

Yes. Yes. Research.
What research? What did you do?

What I talked about in the article.

Okay, be skeptical, so what! You still have no "proof" of anything!

]

But I am not trying to prove anything. Some people aren't skeptical.

Just an unsustantiated, "pre-conceived" notion about the product.

What product are you talking about?

But you STILL have a problem, and that problem is not going away and is probably getting worse. How many times were you "skepitcal" before putting a piece of food in your mouth? But it was offered, you're hungry, you've never eaten that before, it smells and looks..."different", others are eating it, and the chef said its good. The ONLY way you'll know if that food is good is if you eat it. But if you don't, you have no right to say that it isn't. And even then its just an opinion.

Or, you could wait and see if the people who are eating the food die or get sick. The subjective words in that analogy make it difficult to be on the same page with you.

The article didn't avoid them. You added absolutes. "Honestly, sometimes a new product does work. "A lot of them don't." "Even widely used products occasionally don?t do what they claim" but in spite of this, somehow they?ve caught on.-Thales. Thats an "absolute".

None of the the quotes you just used are absolute - 'sometimes', 'a lot', 'occasionally' are all words that are just about 180 degrees from absolute. I don't really know another way to explain it.

They don't work, and occasionally don't do what they claim. My question for you is how do you know that?!! By skepticism?

No, by clinical trials, by studies, and by a preponderance of anecdote. Skepticism is defined as 'a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment'

I think right here is the problem I have with the article. You are running away from the "absolutes" that "you've" stated...and you can't.

I didn't state absolutes and I am not running away. If you can show me how the word 'sometimes' connotes an absolute, I'll paypal you 100 bucks.

Because the ONLY way to know for sure is to use the product!

No! You can know by other peoples experiences and studies. Sometimes with reefing products, even if you add it and something changes, you can't nessiarily conclude it was the product you added. Its post hoc, ergo proctor hoc and was covered in the first installment. Placebos are a great example.

You say to make an "informed" decision, but the article hamstings the process.Ask the manufacturer? Nope! "Being a skeptical reefer essentially boils down to taking advice/products/new ideas with a bucket of salt."-Thales

I specifically say to ask the manufacturer. If the manufacturer can point you to any kind of study or trial, you are well on your way to making an informed decision.

Ask the LFS store owner, friends, forum? Nope! "Remember, a recommendation from someone is not evidence"-Thales

I specifically say to ask people for their input and experiences.

What about advertisments and "expert opinion"? Nope! neither are anecdotal claims."-Thales

I don't follow that - what is the quote that I said?

So whats left? Where is the noob supposed to go? Can't go to the manufacturer. Afterall, what do you expect them to say? Can't ask the LFS, they're just trying to sell me something, and can't ask anybody else because, well...they're just not credible. "Expert" opinion? They're already bought & sold!

Hmmm. See above.

An airstone and a Biowheel filter will do that too. I'm just going by what you said! "Skimmers work though it is unclear what they actually do and what they actually remove."-Thales

I don't get it. I don't say you have to use a skimmer. It is unlclear what skimmers are actually removing, but the do remove stuff. We have no idea what 90% of DOC actually is.

Look, I'm all about trying products at least before you say something works, or doesn't work. Thats all.

There are other ways to make decisions about what to use besides personal use. In the article I didn't say anything about any specific product, so I am not sure what your beef is.

Skeptisim, is nothing more than pre-conceived notions built off of what?

Nope. Both installments cover that.

You've never used the product or in some cases you don't even know what it does!

Yes. That is the case with many reefkeeping products. We really don't know what they do, but they seem to work. More info and study is slowly filling in those holes.

So if someone asked you "does this work?", the ONLY credible answer you could give them is "I dunno, I never used it" no matter how you personally feel about the product.

Nope. You could say 'someone I trust says it works', or 'here is a study that shows it works', or '10 people online added that it they lost some coral'. You don't need to have had a triple bypass to know they work.

Skepticism just doesn't give you an answer.

Correct! Its a method to help you develop an answer.

So if you're a skeptic, than you have no choice but to try the product for yourself because all other means aren't credible.

Nope. You don't need to have a triple bypass to know they work.

So all of your fish, corals, and inverts, are alive. "That", you know. You should be able to tell that. You said nothing died. But for the sake of making sure everything is compatible, some bacteria died. But then again you can't prove... aaawww lets' move on!

Thats not what I said.

 

[NYreefNoob]

ok so i am not completely at loss, Thales i am taking it you are the author of the book ?

warrior do you know thales personally ? asking cause no matter what he says it's like your out to discredit him or how i am reading into it.

i've been in the hobby about 6 yr's now, no expert just your common reefer with a passion for the hobby, ive spent enough hour's glued to my computer reading different stuff { i like to know stuff or have an idea } ive seen claims made and backed i guess backed, seen claims discredited also. one of the things for me ive learnt in the hobby is what works for some wont work for others as well all have the glass box but do things different so all products wont work the same for all.
besides the point people dont listen and dont follow instructions very well, figure oh a little more might make it work faster or ill do have dosage to be safe, then wonder what went wrong or why it didnt work.
and arent most of us on our own to a degree when it comes to using products ? i mean how many have a lab to really check stuff ?

 

[GreshamH]

ok so i am not completely at loss, Thales i am taking it you are the author of the book ?

warrior do you know thales personally ? asking cause no matter what he says it's like your out to discredit him or how i am reading into it.

i've been in the hobby about 6 yr's now, no expert just your common reefer with a passion for the hobby, ive spent enough hour's glued to my computer reading different stuff { i like to know stuff or have an idea } ive seen claims made and backed i guess backed, seen claims discredited also. one of the things for me ive learnt in the hobby is what works for some wont work for others as well all have the glass box but do things different so all products wont work the same for all.
besides the point people dont listen and dont follow instructions very well, figure oh a little more might make it work faster or ill do have dosage to be safe, then wonder what went wrong or why it didnt work.
and arent most of us on our own to a degree when it comes to using products ? i mean how many have a lab to really check stuff ?

Yeah, Thales is the author of the Reefs Magazine article I found it to be a refreshing article given it is something I have been preaching for a while now.

 

[Warrior24_7]

ok so i am not completely at loss, Thales i am taking it you are the author of the book ?

warrior do you know thales personally ? asking cause no matter what he says it's like your out to discredit him or how i am reading into it.

I don't know him at all. Nor do I have the ability to discredit him. I disagree with him. We are in agreement on somethings. Everyone is in agreement that the hobby needs some sort of product review process. But as it stands, we don't have it. So we rely on "experiences" and "tribal knowledge". But not how to come to a conclusion without "proof" that something works or not. You're free to believe what you want, as am I. I've already pointed out that the article wasn't for me.

i've been in the hobby about 6 yr's now, no expert just your common reefer with a passion for the hobby, ive spent enough hour's glued to my computer reading different stuff { i like to know stuff or have an idea } ive seen claims made and backed i guess backed, seen claims discredited also. one of the things for me ive learnt in the hobby is what works for some wont work for others as well all have the glass box but do things different so all products wont work the same for all.
besides the point people dont listen and dont follow instructions very well, figure oh a little more might make it work faster or ill do have dosage to be safe, then wonder what went wrong or why it didnt work.
and arent most of us on our own to a degree when it comes to using products ? i mean how many have a lab to really check stuff ?

This is all I'm saying and have been saying. You don't "know" anything until you use a product! There is a thread right now going on about Aiptasia and how to kill them. I know for a fact that Aiptasia X kills them if used properly because I was overrun with the stuff! The original poster said he used it and it's not working?!! How? One thing about Aiptasai X is that it is only as good as your arm! Because you have to place the stuff directly on the mouth of the Aiptasia! Do do it gently or it will contract! It sucks it in, and implodes! It literally gets fun to watch! I killed ALL of the aiptasia that I could reach!! thats the key word there..."reach"! I then purchased a Copperband Butterfly Fish. If he is in that position then he still has a problem and thinks the stuff doesn't work! Two different people, two different experiences, same product. Does that "discredit" that poster? Not at all.

 

[Josh]

Okay, be skeptical, so what! You still have no "proof" of anything! Just an unsustantiated, "pre-conceived" notion about the product. But you STILL have a problem, and that problem is not going away and is probably getting worse.

Clearly this goes beyond an honest review of the article with you. I can only guess why you are taking this so personally, either way it doesn't look good.

 

[beerfish]

This is all I'm saying and have been saying. You don't "know" anything until you use a product! There is a thread right now going on about Aiptasia and how to kill them. I know for a fact that Aiptasia X kills them if used properly because I was overrun with the stuff! The original poster said he used it and it's not working?!! How? One thing about Aiptasai X is that it is only as good as your arm! Because you have to place the stuff directly on the mouth of the Aiptasia! Do do it gently or it will contract! It sucks it in, and implodes! It literally gets fun to watch! I killed ALL of the aiptasia that I could reach!! thats the key word there..."reach"! I then purchased a Copperband Butterfly Fish. If he is in that position then he still has a problem and thinks the stuff doesn't work! Two different people, two different experiences, same product. Does that "discredit" that poster? Not at all.

I have a simple question...

Have you tested this product under all possible conditions?

I think the point of this whole thing is that you should seek out as much information as possible before using a product. What may work in one tank may not work in another. If 90% of the information you find is positive, there's a good chance something will work. If 90% is negative, it doesn't mean conclusively that it won't work, but you may want to look for a product that is more likely to do what you want.

I've heard great things about special blend and finally decided to try it. It did nothing for me. Does that mean that it's useless, or does it mean that it didn't work in my tank? It didn't seem to hurt anything, but it didn't seem to help either. So what does that mean?