No Sick Fish, No QT, No water change

[Anthony Calfo]

just about three weeks now since it was pointed out that Bob F from WetWebMedia is falsely cited as giving a testimonial when it really was another chap not even giving a testimonial about a NSF product...

...and the bogus Bob F testimonial is still on the NSF page. I wonder if Bob needs to threaten NSF with a lawsuit before they'll change it.

Interesting.

 

[Randall_James]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6297136#post6297136 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gtrestoration
Just like everyone else here I have no idea what's in this stuff. But just because it's in a bottle that's being used by an employee does not mean it must have a MSDS supplied. That is only required for products that fall into the catagory of being hazardous.

SteveU

Yes but you of all people owning a business in CA would know that all a employee has to do is sneeze foul and defending yourself will easily cost you his years wages. Even in AZ in my auto shops, we had to keep MSDS on every compound in the shop by the requirements of my insurance carrier.

 

[puter]

Anthony -

I'm disappointed (but, as you might imagine, not at all surprised) that Tyler hasn't responded to the legitimate questions raised here. According to the Federal Trade Commission (here), advertisers are required to have a reasonable basis for their claims and testimonials are not sufficient:

What kind of evidence must a company have to support the claims in its ads?
Before a company runs an ad, it has to have a "reasonable basis" for the claims. A "reasonable basis" means objective evidence that supports the claim. The kind of evidence depends on the claim. At a minimum, an advertiser must have the level of evidence that it says it has. For example, the statement "Two out of three doctors recommend ABC Pain Reliever" must be supported by a reliable survey to that effect. If the ad isn't specific, the FTC looks at several factors to determine what level of proof is necessary, including what experts in the field think is needed to support the claim. In most cases, ads that make health or safety claims must be supported by "competent and reliable scientific evidence" - tests, studies, or other scientific evidence that has been evaluated by people qualified to review it. In addition, any tests or studies must be conducted using methods that experts in the field accept as accurate.

Are letters from satisfied customers sufficient to substantiate a claim?
No. Statements from satisfied customers usually are not sufficient to support a health or safety claim or any other claim that requires objective evaluation.

Therefore, customers who feel they've been misled do have recourse.

I'm also disappointed, given this exchange, that Reef Central continues to list No Sick Fish as a sponser given the endorsement one might infer.

 

[GTR]

I'd be more concerned if Reef Central had cancelled the sponsorship!!! We don't need the powers that run RC to decide what it is we see and don't see. Were would you suggest the line be drawn?

There are many products here that RC, it's general membership or it's list of "experts" would not endorse.

That's what this discussion is for.

SteveU

 

[puter]

Steve -

If you investigate the "real world" of publishing (newspapers, magazines, journals, etc.) you'll find nearly all of them have acceptable advertising policies that limit the types of advertising they accept for their publications. You'll also find the requirements for "sponsors" are typically quite a bit higher because of the implied association.

You may not agree that NSF's actions warrant RC ending the sponsorship relationship. If so, we've identified the point of our disagreement and can leave it there.

Best,

- Mark

 

[Anthony Calfo]

I see your point and understand (even largely agree with) your sentiment, Mark... but I agree with Steve strongly here.

it would be concerning to me if RC or any benevolent overseer (seriously... RC acting as a free content provider only here) passed judgement on merchants as well. It's not their place, duty or "speciality", if you will. Instead, the very machine that is RC is the means by which educated hobbyists get the information they need to be educated consumers. This thread is but one example. And its not an example of what to buy or not buy, but rather a consensus of experiences and (mostly) opinions by which each potential customer forms their OWN individual consensus.

Free will... free market... and NO censorship please

I'm a big boy... have a few smarts, and can make my own decisions without yet another entity excessively shaping what I see, hear or read. I trust that others are competant to do the same... though I realize not all are: hence my personal efforts on (hobbyist) consumer advocacy and education.

That all said, if a sponsor was deemed in fact to be fraudulent, somehow a risk to RC members and/or (of course) in violation of some aspect of the RC User Agreement, then they are gone. Period. But its a serious decision that must be given thorough examination and consideration before action.

 

[puter]

Then, may I respectfully suggest that you and I, Anthony, have a different point of disagreement. For you've brought in the rather inflammatory word "censorship" and equated it to a publisher's decision to decide whom they choose to accept funding from. The newspaper publishers I work with, who weigh this issue heavily, would cringe at your associating the two. I am not at all for censorship.

NSF has the right to say whatever they wish, but they do not have the right to use RC's microphone to say it. RC is choosing to reap financial gain from an organization that is being blatently disingenuous. That does not reflect well on RC...

 

[Anthony Calfo]

Mark... you do realize that NSF has scarcely posted at all? In their forum or outside.

I'd hardly call it using RC as a microphone.

Instead... we (hobbyists) have gone offsite mostly in regards to the points raised here. And all as fodder for our discussion on a reef hobby topic. That is the way this machine called RC works. Public forum.

I also think you are way off base on the analogy between your/the newspaper business and RC as publishers of content.

Unless your newspapers are free... then the difference is that your publishers take pay for all of the content they dole out. It is required (payment for the newspaper) before one can read the new/today's news, etc. As such... they are answerable to their customers for the product offered. That is to say... they have obligations and responsibilities (by law even).

But here on RC... it is free content for any/all. Regular membership is free and the overwhelming majority of members choose not to contribute to the site operation by buying a premium membership.

They just sign on for free... just like you, Mark (as of this date 12/26/05)

And RC as a privately owned free content provider technically owes you nothing.

You are, in fact, getting more than you paid for here at RC.

 

[puter]

The seventh logo up on this page respresents paid "sponsorship" does it not? I didn't ask that Tyler in any way be banned or prevented from posting.

Would you be interested in NSF sponsoring your posters? IMO, it doesn't reflect well on RC... I'll leave it there.

 

[Anthony Calfo]

I can't speak to whether the sponsorship has been paid or not. That is, in fact, a huge problem with many message boards as others with experience will attest.

As far as NSF sposoring my posters... I don't see how that would be possible. I don't take advertising monies from anyone... for anything.

Furthermore, my books any posters are produced for very little profit (others have hard/read this rant before). Yet, ignorant (as in not knowing) folks always presume that if you are a book author, it must be profitable. Ah... not so. Not even close

When you pay your layout folks/friends the same share as you (the author), print in the USA and keep your price points lower than industry average so that more content can reach more hobbyists more affordably... you have situations where it costs over $120K to make only $5K for floating the cash for several years... taking two years to write and several in promotion to follow, its hardly profitable by any definition. So again we are at a place where the "publisher" (me) really owes you little to nothing. If you don't want to buy a book, point me to your local library if it does not have one to lend. Go see any of the lectures I give... I've never once asked for a dollar of profit to give presentations and rarely been given an honorarium. Or... people can just reach me for free on RC, RF, WWM, SRC, SARC, etc.

I write books and make posters for several reasons including but not limited to information sharing, pride in accomplishment and vanity. But I do so at a significant profit risk for my efforts.

What exactly is your point here Mark? I think I'm missing it.

 

[puter]

What exactly is your point here Mark?

• That if I owned RC, I wouldn't accept advertising/sponsorship from firms shown to have acted as NSF has
• just as I doubt (if you ever did accept such an arrangement) that you would welcome an offer from NSF to, for instance, sponsor a booth at IMAC featuring your books/posters because of how it would reflect on you

But, I regret my participation in taking this thread off topic so I'll end it here.
FWIW, I did collaborate on a book, and I remember the cup of coffee it afforded me well.

 

[Anthony Calfo]

ah... understood then. As a hobbyist/consumer I share this sentiment largely. It would be nice to see (and we often expect) the organizations we support to in turn not support entities that do not seem to support us (not help, or hurt).

It certainly is not an unreasonable expectation either! And even as an RC mod, I am not wholly on one side of the argument or the other.

After things settle down (holidays, personal difficulties among some of the RC powers) I do expect this issue and others to be revisited. Spring cleaning perhaps

re: your book collab - I do hope that cup of coffee you earned was at least good coffee Amen

 

[NSF]

If anyone has questions email me. My email address is Tyler@nosickfish.com. I apologize to any users that were respectful and asked direct questions, and I didnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t respond to your question.

I am not participating in this thread! Everything I say is altered, attacked, ignored, etc. etcââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¦Ã¢â"šÂ¬Ã‚¦.I donââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t have the time for it.

Email me, and Iââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢ll do my best to respond. Feel free to forward my response on to the forum!

Tyler
No Sick Fish

 

[ReefDiver]

Tyler: Not for anything but if you are willing to rspond to emails then why aren't you also willing to answer posted questions on this site? I am also very curious as to the "How" & "Why" your product does what you profess it to do.

Reading this entire thread has taken some time (I'm a slow reader I guess) but has been a real eye opener. Much of the discussion appears to be focused on how your company can make such claims but not have the backup research to substantiate them. Not to take sides but to me your argument that it "works" just does not hold water. I am sure that someone on this site, i.e., Dr. Randy Holmes-Farley, would be more than willing to at least evaluate the effectiveness of your product, or lack of as may be the case.

I am also in the camp of not wanting or caring to place anything in my tank that does not list the ingredients and/or is not backed up by any research studies. Mere "testimonials" do not fit the bill either as has been planely noted in this thread.

I wish you well with your product but I believe that "buyer beware' in this case has a lot of merit. Nuff said!

BTW, IMO Anthony has been more than fair regarding the contents of many of post/comments herein.

 

[Steven Pro]

Does anyone have a free sample that they picked up at IMAC or MACNA that is still unopened? If so, please send me a PM or email.

 

[Steven Pro]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6565116#post6565116 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Steven Pro
Does anyone have a free sample that they picked up at IMAC or MACNA that is still unopened? If so, please send me a PM or email.

Anyone?

 

[billsreef]

Steven,

Just to let you know, I recently had oppertunity to test NSF against ich in a reef tank setting, mostly softies and LPS. No corals, sea cukes, snails or worms apeared to alter behavior or polyp extension. In addition the ich did not alter it's life cycle in the least either I found it just as ineffective against ich as Sano and other so called reef safe ich medications.

 

[Steven Pro]

Thanks for the heads up.

 

[billsreef]

No Problem I've been meaning to PM you, but a host of computer issues had me sidetracked. Excercised the gremlins from the PC and my laptop, and then they attacked my ozone unit :eek1:

 

[Steven Pro]

Just a heads up. I finally got a bottle of No Sick Fish Ich Treatment and I have 36 specimens of Xenia awaiting part two of my trials. It is still going to be a week or so until I start the experiment, a few weeks to conduct it, and then a while to compile my notes into an article, but I will keep you all posted.