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

[Warrior24_7]

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.

Well, I've been as "honest" as I could be. I just don't believe everything that I read..I'm a skeptic.

 

[Warrior24_7]

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?

The answer to your last question is the very first question that you asked. As far as Aiptasia X...I'm sold! Turn off your pumps, suck up some Aiptasia X in the syringe, place it on the mouth of the Aiptasia. If it doesn't work for you then try another product. But for "me" it does, and I can't be convinced otherwise because I've used it!

 

[beerfish]

If it doesn't work for you then try another product. But for "me" it does, and I can't be convinced otherwise because I've used it!

You just proved the point of the article.

You can't test under every condition, in every tank, so in this hobby almost nothing can be conclusive.

I'm not sure what your argument is.

 

[Warrior24_7]

You just proved the point of the article.

You can't test under every condition, in every tank, so in this hobby almost nothing can be conclusive.

I'm not sure what your argument is.

There is no argument. The point is I've used it! I've used it and then said whether it worked or not. Sure things can be conclusive, Aiptasi X works if used properly, for me it's conclusive.

 

[tentacles]

The the article was not intended to to make you feel as if you shouldn't try new products, but rather to encourage you to be aware that a lot of stuff out there is snake oil. Many people in this hobby feel that there is no reason to add chemicals besides raw Ca, Mg, Alk and sometimes carbon to a system. For example, if you have a death leading to an NH3 spike, you could use a product like Ammo-lock, but it's more productive to do a water change. Sure, the product keeps the NH3 at bay, but it's only a temporary fix. Does that mean people shouldn't try it? Absolutely not. If you notice one of your piscine friends belly up in the morning, but you have to go to work, it might be a useful product, but not an absolute necessity.

And for the record, I have tried products for myself. I currently dose special blend once every few weeks, and unlike beerfish, I see some positive results. Does that mean it's bunk, or that we just have different things going on in our respective systems? I've never dosed any supplement like "Purple Up," because I think keeping Ca/Mg/Alk levels in check is a better method to achieve coraline. Other people have dosed it and have found it to be effective, does that mean I should run out and buy a gallon of it?

I'm sorry, but I don't really see the point in incessantly nagging the article. The author has been more than diligent in trying to answer ALL of your questions (something most don't get the privilege of after reading an article,) but it seems you have to counter his every response. I'm not saying that you don't make any valid points, but it seems like you have an air of negativity.

 

[Warrior24_7]

What product are you talking about?

The new product and widely used products that you mentioned in the article. "Honestly, sometimes a new product does work. A lot of them don't. Even widely used products occasionally don?t do what they claim"-Thales

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 person could've drank the water and died, could've had a heart attack and died, or could've already been sick and died. So there is no way to blame it on the food unless you test it! If you don't do that then you have no proof.

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.

I can. "does work", "A lot of them don't.", and "don't do what they claim" are absolute.

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

This is why I said the article hamstrings the decision making process. "Remember, a recommendation from someone is not evidence, neither are anecdotal claims."-Thales. On one hand you say its not credible and now you say go do it. Its confusing.

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.

You stated whether the worked or not and how reliable they were. Like I said before, how do you know that when anecdotal claims, advice, recommendations, expert opinion, and manufactuer claims are all suspect?
"Honestly, sometimes a new product does work. A lot of them don't. Even widely used products occasionally don?t do what they claim"-Thales

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.

Just read the forums and you would know that other people's experiences are hit and miss. Many people use the same products and get different results.

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.

This is one of the questions that I asked in my initial post. Did you do that? I never got an answer.

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

This is why I said the article hamstrung the decision making process. "Remember, a recommendation from someone is not evidence, neither are anecdotal claims" and ?Just because someone said it, doesn't mean it?s true.?

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.

I'm asking why are "you" using a skimmer since according to the article and your statements "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 and "Skimmers work though it is unclear what they actually do and what they actually remove."-Thales
Flat worm exit is the same way with no ingredients on the bottle and they're not talking either. A responsible company will have some kind of documentation to back up their claims and they should share it with you."-Thales. These are two examples (there are many more) that according to the article we should move on to a different product.

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.

I don't have a "beef", I just simply asked some questions that I never got and answer to. You said "new product" and "widely used" products. Thats ALOT of products, so I was wondering how you came to those conclusions? "Honestly, sometimes a new product does work. A lot of them don't. Even widely used products occasionally don?t do what they claim"-Thales

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.

I totally understand that.

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.

"Remember, a recommendation from someone is not evidence, neither are anecdotal claims."-Thales. There seems to be a contradiction here. We know that two people or many people can use the same product and have different results, all you have to do is read the forums. The only way the that "you" will know that the product works for "you" is to use it yourself!

Thats not what I said.

Well I'm at a loss, I thought that you said that you didn't lose anything?

 

[Warrior24_7]

The the article was not intended to to make you feel as if you shouldn't try new products, but rather to encourage you to be aware that a lot of stuff out there is snake oil. Many people in this hobby feel that there is no reason to add chemicals besides raw Ca, Mg, Alk and sometimes carbon to a system. For example, if you have a death leading to an NH3 spike, you could use a product like Ammo-lock, but it's more productive to do a water change. Sure, the product keeps the NH3 at bay, but it's only a temporary fix. Does that mean people shouldn't try it? Absolutely not. If you notice one of your piscine friends belly up in the morning, but you have to go to work, it might be a useful product, but not an absolute necessity.

And for the record, I have tried products for myself. I currently dose special blend once every few weeks, and unlike beerfish, I see some positive results. Does that mean it's bunk, or that we just have different things going on in our respective systems? I've never dosed any supplement like "Purple Up," because I think keeping Ca/Mg/Alk levels in check is a better method to achieve coraline. Other people have dosed it and have found it to be effective, does that mean I should run out and buy a gallon of it?

I'm sorry, but I don't really see the point in incessantly nagging the article. The author has been more than diligent in trying to answer ALL of your questions (something most don't get the privilege of after reading an article,) but it seems you have to counter his every response. I'm not saying that you don't make any valid points, but it seems like you have an air of negativity.

That is my whole point, Whats snake oil? How do you know if the stuff is snake oil if you haven't used it? Did somebody tell you that? Exactly! You have no proof. Because something didn't work for me its snake oil? What if it worked for somebody else? That happens all of the time. I asked very simple questions in the beginning and got no answer. I've already stated my position on the article and why I felt it underserved. People use the same products and have differnent results. People do what works for them. This is nothing more than a debate to me. I try answer everything that he answerd for me. The only thing that I could recommend is the stuff I've used. If the advice is taken, it's taken if not its not, its not my tank. I'm not in agreement so it sounds negative.I have nothing agianst him, I just don't agree.

 

[beerfish]

There is no argument. The point is I've used it! I've used it and then said whether it worked or not. Sure things can be conclusive, Aiptasi X works if used properly, for me it's conclusive.

Do high Nitrates effect how it works?

Does it work equally well at lower salinity?

How does pH effect it's use?

Unless you've tested this product under all possible conditions, you can't conclusively say that it works. You can only say that it worked for you.

When the author says a recommendation, he means just that. If you were the only person that I knew that used Aptasia X, I would seek out more information to see if it was likely to work in my tank. If ten people said that it worked, I may try it. (Unless of course, while researching, I turned up something that 30 people said worked.)

The point is simply to be skeptical of claims from any one source and to do some research before jumping to put something in your tank.

 

[Warrior24_7]

Do high Nitrates effect how it works?

Does it work equally well at lower salinity?

How does pH effect it's use?

Unless you've tested this product under all possible conditions, you can't conclusively say that it works. You can only say that it worked for you.

When the author says a recommendation, he means just that. If you were the only person that I knew that used Aptasia X, I would seek out more information to see if it was likely to work in my tank. If ten people said that it worked, I may try it. (Unless of course, while researching, I turned up something that 30 people said worked.)

The point is simply to be skeptical of claims from any one source and to do some research before jumping to put something in your tank.

I can conclusively say that it works, it kills Aiptasia just like it was designed to do. Now if you don't believe me, then you can test the product for yourself. It doesn't matter if 1 person or 900 peolple told you that it worked, and you can "believe" whatever you want, but the article said a recommendn is not evidence and advice should be taken with a grain (bucket) of salt, you won't "know" until you use it...correctly!

 

[beerfish]

I can conclusively say that it works

You can say that it works under a single set of conditions.

You're not understanding the fact that tanks are diverse and that different products can work or not work under different circumstances. This is why one person saying that something works is not the be all and end all.

How can you say that something works conclusively if you haven't tested it in every environment? You're chiding the author for not answering your questions, but you haven't answered mine. How do nitrates, pH, temp, salinity, etc effect the product in question? I'd like something conclusive.

 

[Thales]

The new product and widely used products that you mentioned in the article. "Honestly, sometimes a new product does work. A lot of them don't. Even widely used products occasionally don?t do what they claim"-Thales

One example - EcoAqualizer.

The person could've drank the water and died, could've had a heart attack and died, or could've already been sick and died. So there is no way to blame it on the food unless you test it! If you don't do that then you have no proof.

But you are saying that the only way to test it, the only way to know is to eat the food. If the person died after eating the food, then eating the food would be a dumb way to test the food.
I think you are confusing proof and evidence. Proof was never mentioned in the articles.

I can. "does work", "A lot of them don't.", and "don't do what they claim" are absolute.

That doesn't make any sense. 'A lot' is simply not absolute. Also, please stop quoting fragments of sentences from the article - its misleading to leave off the qualifiers.

This is why I said the article hamstrings the decision making process. "Remember, a recommendation from someone is not evidence, neither are anecdotal claims."-Thales. On one hand you say its not credible and now you say go do it. Its confusing.

You keep putting words in my mouth. I never used the word credible - on purpose. No wonder you are getting confused - you are adding stuff I didn't say.

You stated whether the worked or not and how reliable they were. Like I said before, how do you know that when anecdotal claims, advice, recommendations, expert opinion, and manufactuer claims are all suspect?
"Honestly, sometimes a new product does work. A lot of them don't. Even widely used products occasionally don?t do what they claim"-Thales

You are missing the point by trying to get specific when the article was general on purpose. Some products work. Some don't. Thats the way it is. LED were once marketed as a way to cure ich - they don't cure ich.
The articles are exactly about ways to make decisions about products with the mass of contradictory information.

Just read the forums and you would know that other people's experiences are hit and miss. Many people use the same products and get different results.

Yes...thats kinda one of the points of the articles.

This is one of the questions that I asked in my initial post. Did you do that? I never got an answer.

You did get an answer, its on page 5.

This is why I said the article hamstrung the decision making process. "Remember, a recommendation from someone is not evidence, neither are anecdotal claims" and ?Just because someone said it, doesn't mean it?s true.?

You are getting tied up in the parts without understanding the whole. The articles specifically say that anecdotal claims can be useful and that often in this hobby they are all we get.

I'm asking why are "you" using a skimmer since according to the article and your statements "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 and "Skimmers work though it is unclear what they actually do and what they actually remove."-Thales

Prolly has something to do with the 'Skimmers work' part of the second quote. The first quote you keep using and try to force it onto any product, but you seem to be ignoring the first part of the sentence which is about weasel words.

Flat worm exit is the same way with no ingredients on the bottle and they're not talking either. A responsible company will have some kind of documentation to back up their claims and they should share it with you."-Thales. These are two examples (there are many more) that according to the article we should move on to a different product.

Nope. You keep adding absolute words like 'should' that I didn't use. I wrote at the end of the paragraph the above quote is from "it might be better to move on to a different product" not should, or must, or have to or even I recommend.

I don't have a "beef", I just simply asked some questions that I never got and answer to.

I answered your questions.

You said "new product" and "widely used" products. Thats ALOT of products, so I was wondering how you came to those conclusions? "Honestly, sometimes a new product does work. A lot of them don't. Even widely used products occasionally don?t do what they claim"-Thales

I already answered that. If you aren't going to read my responses, I am not sure how to proceed.

"Remember, a recommendation from someone is not evidence, neither are anecdotal claims."-Thales. There seems to be a contradiction here. We know that two people or many people can use the same product and have different results, all you have to do is read the forums. The only way the that "you" will know that the product works for "you" is to use it yourself!

Thats covered pretty well in the articles.

Well I'm at a loss, I thought that you said that you didn't lose anything?

I said no fish or corals died. You took that to mean I didn't lose anything which is not at all what I said. I later added that there could have been other stuff that died that I didn't notice.

I think the problem here is that you are looking for absolute answers, even going so far as to insist my open ended suggestions are absolute, when the concepts are more flexible than that.

 

[Thales]

That is my whole point, Whats snake oil? How do you know if the stuff is snake oil if you haven't used it? Did somebody tell you that? Exactly! You have no proof. Because something didn't work for me its snake oil? What if it worked for somebody else? That happens all of the time.

That is the point of this series of articles.

I asked very simple questions in the beginning and got no answer.

You did get answers. You even replied to the post that gave you answers.

 

[Thales]

I can conclusively say that it works, it kills Aiptasia just like it was designed to do. Now if you don't believe me, then you can test the product for yourself. It doesn't matter if 1 person or 900 peolple told you that it worked, and you can "believe" whatever you want, but the article said a recommendn is not evidence and advice should be taken with a grain (bucket) of salt, you won't "know" until you use it...correctly!

But you used other solutions at the same time you used the product. There are plenty of reports of people using AptasiaX and having the aps return. You used a CBB as well - which isn't part of the product instructions. One of the thoughts is that the anti ap product knocks them back, and a biological control takes care of them as they recover.

The article never said anything about people not knowing if a product works unless you use it yourself.

 

[Thales]

The author has been more than diligent in trying to answer ALL of your questions (something most don't get the privilege of after reading an article,)

FWIW, I am happy to discuss anything I have written. Randy is good about letting me know if there is something I should look at on MR, so let him know if I should address something.

I love this stuff. Thinking and knowing about reef stuff is part of my job. I think this article is getting a little more of my attention because the topic holds a special place in my heart - my BA is in Philosophy.

BTW - lover your avatar and screen name!

 

[Warrior24_7]

But you used other solutions at the same time you used the product. There are plenty of reports of people using AptasiaX and having the aps return.

Aiptasia X is not something that you dump into the water, its "direct application"! You must put the stuff directly into the Aiptasia. So that means you must find every one of them and apply it. If you don't, or you can't reach them all, then you won't get rid of them. If you do it incorrectly, then they'll release their spores (not real name) into the water making more Aiptasia! The Aiptasia X seals the mouth so this can't happen. The Aiptasia sucks in the product and implodes.

You used a CBB as well - which isn't part of the product instructions. One of the thoughts is that the anti ap product knocks them back, and a biological control takes care of them as they recover.

The product instructions are for the product. It works, it kills Aiptasias in seconds. The CopperBand Butterfly Fish is risky. He is NOT guranteed to eat them. Mine immediately turned on my Fan Worms "first", and systematically destroyed every one of them. He swam by and ignored the Aiptasias. "I" was killing more Aiptasia than he was! Then something must've kicked in because they're all gone, and have not returned! But, I don't totally trust this fish either. I "know" he eats Fan Worms, and I'm sure he'll probably attack Xenia or other pulse type corals. So hobbyist with certain types of corals might want to think twice about a Butterfly Fish of any type.

The article never said anything about people not knowing if a product works unless you use it yourself.

Thats part of my problem with it. Thats why I asked you if you did any testing before you said "Honestly, sometimes a new product does work. A lot of them don't. Even widely used products occasionally don?t do what they claim"-Thales
Because you are relying on a group that you have no control over, conditions you have no control over, product that you have no control over, mixed accounts of effectiveness, you don't even know if these people are following the directions, and to top it all off, "you're" not doing any testing or verifying of anything! You're basically relying on nothing more than hearsay! So any accounts that you've made about a product working or not are just not credible because you just have no idea!

 

[prattreef]

For those late to the dance, these are the articles being referenced:

http://www.reefsmagazine.com/showthread.php?t=77954

http://www.reefsmagazine.com/showthread.php?t=82364

Oh and for those keeping score, I'm the magazine editor--Randy Donowitz, Thales is Rich Ross the article author. Warrior is, well warrior-- he hasn't uncloaked yet.

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

Side track a bit,
why is acupuncture alternative medicine? It's used in many certfied physician's office even in NY for pain and analgesia.... It does not cure everything but it's regularly used even in Western medicine nowadays. Of course, it's used a lot more in Asia including stop bleeding which I seen in person. It's just a study of the nerves in a sense-you cross the legs, the doctor tap below the knee cap with a hammer and you kick him out of the office-simple as that.

Quote from
The role of acupuncture in pain management
Joseph F. Audette, MA, MDa,b,*,
Angela H. Ryan, MDa,b
aDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School,
Boston, MA, USA
bSpaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, 125 Nashua Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA
"Currently, physicians(of acupunturists) are able to satisfy the educational and clinical requirements demanded by most states by completing
the training offered by the Office of Continuing Medical Education
at the University of California Los Angeles. Harvard Medical School,through the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and the
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care at Beth Israel Deaconess
Medical Center, also now offers a 300-hour continuing medical education
course in medical acupuncture that satisfies the AAMA requirements and
most hospital and state requirements to practice acupuncture. The Harvard
course also gives graduates a detailed understanding of the methodologic
issues involved with scientific research in this field."

People do just that all the time. There is a huge trade in 'alternative medicine' from acupuncture to ionic bracelets to special colonics to coral calcium pills to psychic surgery and more.

I brought this "side track" up as a critical thinking technique too, so that we can be objective enough to preceive, see, absorb and then understand info from all directions.

 

[Thales]

Aiptasia X is not something that you dump into the water, its "direct application"! You must put the stuff directly into the Aiptasia. So that means you must find every one of them and apply it. If you don't, or you can't reach them all, then you won't get rid of them. If you do it incorrectly, then they'll release their spores (not real name) into the water making more Aiptasia! The Aiptasia X seals the mouth so this can't happen. The Aiptasia sucks in the product and implodes.

I am familiar with the product. I have used it. As I said, there are plenty of reports of using it, and the aps coming back from tissue left at the base after treatment. Again, the use of a biological control after such a treatment seems to make it more likely that the biological control will consume the left over/regenerating aps.

The product instructions are for the product. It works, it kills Aiptasias in seconds.

Here is where the problem with anecdotal accounts comes into play. It appears to kill the aps in seconds - but if there is any tissue left, the pest can 'grow back'.

He swam by and ignored the Aiptasias. "I" was killing more Aiptasia than he was! Then something must've kicked in because they're all gone, and have not returned!

So, which are you giving credit to for the aps going away in your tank - the product or the fish? Or both? If the product works, why bother with the biological control?

Thats part of my problem with it. Thats why I asked you if you did any testing before you said "Honestly, sometimes a new product does work. A lot of them don't. Even widely used products occasionally don?t do what they claim"-Thales

You must have missed my multiple responses to this.

Because you are relying on a group that you have no control over, conditions you have no control over, product that you have no control over, mixed accounts of effectiveness, you don't even know if these people are following the directions, and to top it all off, "you're" not doing any testing or verifying of anything!

That is not an accurate representation of my experience with 'products'.

You're basically relying on nothing more than hearsay!

That is not the case.

So any accounts that you've made about a product working or not are just not credible because you just have no idea!

That is not the case, and, again, I disagree that you need to have used a product to have, to use your word, 'credible' opinions on it.

 

[Thales]

Side track a bit,
why is acupuncture alternative medicine? It's used in many certfied physician's office even in NY for pain and analgesia.... It does not cure everything but it's regularly used even in Western medicine nowadays. Of course, it's used a lot more in Asia including stop bleeding which I seen in person. It's just a study of the nerves in a sense-you cross the legs, the doctor tap below the knee cap with a hammer and you kick him out of the office-simple as that.

Quote from
The role of acupuncture in pain management
Joseph F. Audette, MA, MDa,b,*,
Angela H. Ryan, MDa,b
aDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School,
Boston, MA, USA
bSpaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, 125 Nashua Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA
"Currently, physicians(of acupunturists) are able to satisfy the educational and clinical requirements demanded by most states by completing
the training offered by the Office of Continuing Medical Education
at the University of California Los Angeles. Harvard Medical School,through the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and the
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care at Beth Israel Deaconess
Medical Center, also now offers a 300-hour continuing medical education
course in medical acupuncture that satisfies the AAMA requirements and
most hospital and state requirements to practice acupuncture. The Harvard
course also gives graduates a detailed understanding of the methodologic
issues involved with scientific research in this field."






I brought this "side track" up as a critical thinking technique too, so that we can be objective enough to preceive, see, absorb and then understand info from all directions.

Thanks! Discussions of acupuncture can be tricky because it has been around so long and is so widely used in some non western cultures - it is very easy for the discussion to move quickly into emotional realms.

Basically, acupuncture is 'alternative medicine' because its effectiveness remains controversial among researchers, and because its hard to hide the treatment from patients in studies so using solid controls for placebo is difficult. There seems to be a general consensus that the treatment is not harmful, but whether it works or not (and it has been claimed to work for such a wide variety of maladies) that its effectiveness is still up in the air for now.

 

[cjdevito]