No Sick Fish, No QT, No water change

[Anthony Calfo]

understood... the claims here are a very far stretch, the defined support to back the claims weak at best, and the marketing can be perceived as misleading.

But... the response by Tyler and their presence at IMAC was very considerate and professional. Very different from what we have seen in years past from dubious product manufacturers.

I appreciate and respect Tyler's intent and attempt.

Always optimistic... let's see how it develops in time. If some significant part of the product turns out to be useful/effective as claimed... it will/may well be worth a look. I'm not sold yet though.

 

[Nagel]

Just kind of disheartening to see ReefCentral sell access to the members here on a product of "dubious" content.

I can speak a little on this issue, but I am afraid that I am limited in what I can say (for obvious legal reasons). RC has in the past removed sponsors whose products proved to be, well, lets just say not completely truthful. The sponsorships do pay the bills, and we cannot test every sponsors product, but a quick search of RC would show that Mods and Staffers are often outspoken about snake oils and such, and we are in favor of better husbandry practices. We like to give products a chance to prove themselves, when they cannot, or they fall drastically short of their claims, it is possible for RC to remove a sponsor, and it has been done in the past...

 

[Hobster]

In all fairness, it should be noted that there are many products out there for aquarium/reef use that do not list the active ingredients. Some are from well known respected companies and some are well known and perhaps not so respected. There are several of these products that do in fact work. I guess only time and a track record will tell.

 

[Randall_James]

In all fairness, it should be noted that there are many products out there for aquarium/reef use that do not list the active ingredients. Some are from well known respected companies and some are well known and perhaps not so respected. There are several of these products that do in fact work. I guess only time and a track record will tell.

And there is not a one of them I will put in a tank that has thousands of dollars of livestock in it. I suppose it is a matter of personal preference but my investment is not subjected to "unknown" compounds that may be quoted as "Reef Safe" It is just such a fragile environment and the potential for problems so high (is enough trouble keeping a happy place without adding unknown chemicals)


I am not sure what chemical additives from "Well known respected companies" you would be referring to. Could you enlighten me on a few of these additives that do not have the ingredient list and are also known to work?

I personally would LOVE to have an additive for ich that is both effective and reef safe. It would save countless hours and dollars in copper, hyposalinity, qt tank time etc. If I had a steady supply of ich infested fish, I would gladly create half dozen tanks and start experimenting. I just have no way to control or even diagnose with certainty the cruddy parasite to start with.

 

[NSF]

In response to mhltcob about what he said I said at IMAC. "It works instantly 85% of the time". That is incorrect, and he has miss spoken. My customers have told me that 70-80% of the time the ich is no longer visible with in 24hours. This does not mean that the ich is gone, and it is important to continue treatment to get rid of all of the ich still remaining in the tank in different stages of there life cycle.

This does not imply that every user will have the same success with such a speedy treatment. For example, I had a customer call in a couple weeks ago that was treating for ich. He was on his 5th day of treatment and the ich was still present, He said that he was going to continue treating after the seven days was up. He did get back to me, and told me that everything worked out. 10-11 days of treatment. Every tank and fish is different, and will have different response times. For most cases treatment will be successful within the first week of treatment.


Mhltcob also misspoke about our claim on tumors. I donââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t think he read things very close on our website or listened very closely to me at IMAC. On the website it was stated very clearly that results are not in favor of the fish healing itself from a tumor. Using our medicine we found that we did have a positive effect on some fish that had problems with tumors. Some successful, and many others unsuccessful. Our intentions by placing the tumor medicine on the market were not to cash in. We listed the tumor medicine, to let consumers know that there was hope if they were fighting a tumor on the fish. We have never said that it works great, or that there is even a 35% chance that it will work on their fish. For the consumers that were looking for a product to help, we decided to list the product. We never meant to trick any customers. I thought it was stated very clearly. Since then we have decided to take it off to eliminate the possibility of confusing consumers.


We all know that you can set up a QT and treat your fish with copper. It works, and is a proven method. The biggest problem for some users is that you have to be able to catch your fish in order to transfer them to a separate tank. If and when you do finally catch the fish, it is probably completely stressed out. In this stressful state the chances of survival have gone down a considerable amount, and even more after you transfer it to a new tank.

Our medicine is also used by customers that have a QT tank set up and can catch there fish more easily, but donââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t want to wait 4-6 weeks while they treat there fish in a separate tank in the basement.

So when ever your tired of chasing your fish around your tank, knocking down coral or even taking apart your tank and waiting 4-6 weeks during treatment and maintaining two tanks, you can use our medicine and be done with the mess most likely in one week.
The following is one of the emails that I received today. Emails like this come in every day from new customers that have used our medication. Our company is growing because of satisfied customers who are spreading the word.


-----Original Message-----
From: Billy B [mailto: @RiptidesReef.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:14 AM
To: sales@nosickfish.com; Sales
Subject: Contact Request
Name: Billy B.

Customer Type: Retail Customer

Email: @RiptidesReef.com

Phone: 2148944

How they heard about us: Other - @charter.net

Hi, It\'s Billy from Riptide\'s Reef. We just received your product and I wanted to thank you for the expidited shipping. I was under the impression it would take a couple of weeks to recieve the items if we did\'nt choose express shipping. We have\'nt had the opportunity to use the transit yet. We are also a small company trying to grow but I\'ll let you know after we use it. We had a whipfin fairy wrasse with ich and used the ich treatment you included in our order and it cleared up in 24 hours. The fish system is connected to 300 gallons of coral tanks and harmed nothing! Thank you for your professionalism and please give credit to the gentleman who suggested your products. His name is Randy and I included his email address. Sincerely, Billy B www.RiptidesReef.com

 

[Anthony Calfo]

FWIW... catching fish in a reef is a non-issue. Here at RC, over at WWM, etc there are fast and easy tips and tricks for catching fishes gently and easily.

Spotting at night is one way (like night fishing... I literally dumbstruck Daniel Knop while visiting his home in Germany. He was complaining he had been trying to catch two rabbitfishes out of his 1500 gallon reef tank for weeks tro no avail. We had some beers, stayed up chatting late... and then I caught both fish with a single swoop of the net in the wee hours of the night. The first one was caught before he could walk over to the sink for a bucket ). Good aquarists have caught their fishes sensibly like this for years.

If the fish needs to be caught by day in smaller home aquaria, then a clean garbage can or two ($8 at the local Wal-mart, etc) and one of the tanks powerheads/water pumps can pump a tank dry in mere minutes. The targeted fish can literally be scooped up in a moment from the shallow water barely covering their backs... and the aquarium pump can fill the tank back up again in mere minutes. All this for the cost of a new garbage can (still useful later ) and a pump that you already have in your aquarium.

Fishes stressed by capture occur with misinformed folks mercilessly trying to run down wake and frisky fishes with a single net in the 3-D environment of their tank. Its simply misinformed.

 

[dcoufal]

I am not sure what chemical additives from "Well known respected companies" you would be referring to. Could you enlighten me on a few of these additives that do not have the ingredient list and are also known to work?

I can think of one that is "well known and respected" by many.... though, not everyone holds that same opinion of them.

I fear that mentioning that product here may cause this thread to spiral into a dark abyss leading to the demise of an otherwise intelligent and useful conversation. At least.... that's what typically happens.

Dwain

 

[Hobster]

I can think of one that is "well known and respected" by many.... though, not everyone holds that same opinion of them.

I fear that mentioning that product here may cause this thread to spiral into a dark abyss leading to the demise of an otherwise intelligent and useful conversation. At least.... that's what typically happens.

Dwain

Thank you Took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to just leave it, but you said it perfectly!

 

[Anthony Calfo]

And I have yet to have to close a single thread in my forum (ever)... I would like to keep it that way

Thanks Dwain

 

[mhltcob]

In response to mhltcob about what he said I said at IMAC. "It works instantly 85% of the time". That is incorrect, and he has miss spoken. My customers have told me that 70-80% of the time the ich is no longer visible with in 24hours. This does not mean that the ich is gone, and it is important to continue treatment to get rid of all of the ich still remaining in the tank in different stages of there life cycle.

Mhltcob also misspoke about our claim on tumors. I donââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t think he read things very close on our website or listened very closely to me at IMAC. On the website it was stated very clearly that results are not in favor of the fish healing itself from a tumor. Using our medicine we found that we did have a positive effect on some fish that had problems with tumors. Some successful, and many others unsuccessful. Our intentions by placing the tumor medicine on the market were not to cash in. We listed the tumor medicine, to let consumers know that there was hope if they were fighting a tumor on the fish. We have never said that it works great, or that there is even a 35% chance that it will work on their fish. For the consumers that were looking for a product to help, we decided to list the product. We never meant to trick any customers. I thought it was stated very clearly. Since then we have decided to take it off to eliminate the possibility of confusing consumers.

Tyler,

I did not misspeak, you said that quote directly. anyway you are yet to get back to me with the "studies" that you say were done. I am very curious as to where you base your claims on. Surely You must agree with me that if a medication is going to work in the reef tank, it would actually be EASIER for it to work in a lab/controlled setting than a reef tank setting. So you need BOTH lab and real world studies to back up your lab studies, not one or the other. How would you know your product works solely from customer claims, and how would you go about creating it, if no lab work was done. How did you know these products worked in the first place. The whole point of experiments are control, you have little of that in your "testimonials". You can't possibly make your claims solely from testimonials. How did you make your first claims.

I assume your studies you claimed were done show the following-

Show me a study that shows increased survival with fish effected by tumors using your medication over the control.

Would a 50$ medication be worth the money if it only improved the survival 10%, what about 5%

Show me a study that shows increased survival with fish effected by ich with your medication over that of the control. What about your medication versus copper sulfate?

This same medication must have also gone through a study to evaluate its "reef safe" claim.

Show me your studies to evaluate these claims-
What do you consider reef safe?
Does coral have equal or close to equal survival rates chemicals and without.
What about echinoderms?
what about the fauna?

Anyways i would love to look at your data and how the experiments are performed.

BTW, I still find it amazing that all these magical potions and cures for every disease came out at THE SAME TIME.

Thanks for your continued response.

 

[Anthony Calfo]

When reef systems cost many thousands of dollars (even tens of thousands for larger displays), it is important to address these concerns.

Proprietary ingredients/recipes can be protected by simply sharing the independent test results that led to the claims for success, reef-safeness, etc. and by what definitions.

Reef keepers are generally very savvy, well-read, intelligent folks. We can accept various degrees of reef-safeness. Just look at products used to kill aiptasia, flatworms, microcrustaceans ("red bugs", etc). These each have a range of tolerance whereby they are safe for a majority, but can be harmful to some desirable organisms. Armed with the definitions of the product, we (consumers) can choose the use the product safely (or not) or simply remove the items that are at undue risk.

But we need information beyond advertising and testimonials.

Without such information, what may be a good product is remitted to an unsavory category with other less esteemed products. And that does no good for the product or the waiting/willing consumers.

 

[melev]

Okay, here's my stance: I want to know what is in it. I don't care if it cost you .05 to make a bottle's worth and you are charging me $50.00 for it. That isn't an issue. If you can state what is in the bottle, but not the percentages of each component, I have to imagine that your product is still safe from home-cloning.

Not to mention, by now you must be looking into patenting your product just to protect your investment, right? I suppose once that has been accomplished, you'll be less fearful to share a least a part of the recipe.

As was pointed out, what surprises us most is not that you have a cure - but rather than you have 10 cures all at once. All bottles are the same size, for about the same price, and dose about the same (based on what I read on your website).

If it is the cure-all of many ailments, great! Heck, if it is simply liquid ginger and it works, I've no problem with that. However, to just give it away and then have feedback be the basis for others to purchase it seems beyond haphazard. What happens in six months when more and more people come forward with a suddenly discovered common problem? Over the years, I've discovered this hobby may be global, but the participants are a tight community. We usually find out what is going on pretty quickly, via daily online contact.

Lastly, as with most things in this hobby, there are many ways of accomplishing the same thing. And there are many options when it comes to treating our fish. Being upfront can garner huge support, but being elusive definitely sends up the warning flags.

 

[Trickman2]

Interesting thread, Its too bad no one really knows if this stuff works. Wish we had some studies.

 

[Anthony Calfo]

"wish we had some studies..."

Amen and pass the ammunition.

 

[wds21921]

After reading through this and having been in the hobby for so many years I can understand and sympathize with the reactions on here concerning the claims made.

I too have and still wonder about many of the products on the market that are introduced with varying claims and little more than testimonials to back up the efficacy of many of the products offered.

I think it would be easy to make such claims as is for this particular line and possibly harder to disprove than to prove it's effectiveness? Since we're talking about living things, the variabilities of how and why are endless and sometimes, may never be answered either correctly or enough to satisfy everyone? We can however quantify the overall results though and litmus test it by our own knowledge and experience when given the facts, not simply claims.


In the last few years though we've seen even government regulated testing scewed to offer benefits to the manufacturer at the cost of the consumer's health which was the very reason regulators such as the EPA were originally formed to protect the general population. Lately the validity of some there regulations and testing has come under deserved fire. Another factor to keep in mind.

I've had very good luck in being selective about what condition the animal is in before I purchase it over the last several years. Even with that though, there is always a possibility of some unwanted pest sacrificing my animals health. Preventative measures go a long way in this hobby.

It's funny in a way, as advanced as we get in both this arena as well as our own health some of the most basic of things cannot be eliminated but only managed until it's run it's course.

It may be a good product that does in fact eventually live up to many of it's claims. For myself though it's a little pricey.
When you consider the cost of your animals versus the "sometimes" small investment in there health and future, it confuses me as to why someone would offer such a product when there are already proven cures out here? Maybe they're not all inclusive as this manufacturer claims his is but there are already products and methods that do work for less money.

I hope the manufacturer understands our skepticism and realizes just how expensive the hobby already is and that many have gotten burned and dropped out of the hobby altogether over claims similar to or greater than this.
It's (IMO) not a personal attack on his company or there products so much as it is healthy and warranted skepticism over some of the claims presented.

 

[pecan2phat]

I've been in the hobby since '79 and I'll speak about why I decided to try the product and it's results for me.
Story starts out with this:
Back in July, I had an outbreak of ick in my SPS/clams dominated 120g reef tank. Of course it was due to insufficient quarantining methods with an Achilles that I introduced into the tank a few months prior. I don't treat with meds in quarantine if no symptoms appear and this guy was in my 55g for at least two months. He started showing the telltale signs of the white speaks but not in great numbers and they would fall off and not always reattach. There was no scratching or flashing observed so I left it until I introduced a Chevron. I'm assuming that the stress of the addition brought out the parasite in greater numbers but that's when I decided to treat with Ruby Reef's Kick-Ick. I know that there are a ton more failures than success with this product but it worked once or twice for me in the past 10 years and the small percentage was still better than not trying on my part.
Yes, I tried to catch the fish but had no luck and got lazy!
So I started my treatment and 2/3rds into the treatment, some acros and all my monti caps start to RTN from the base up. I stop the treatment, turned on my skimmer, added carbon and performed a decent size water change and kissed the Kick-Ick goodbye and eventually the two tangs also. No other fish were quite affected like the tangs and I just left it alone.

Fast forward to the end of September and I noticed that my 90g FOWLR is infected. This tank has been ick free of symtoms for 4 years and there were no new additions so it must be from my carelessness of transferring the parasite from the reef tank. (probably from not washing my hands from one tank to the other) I'll admit that I could've taken all the critters and the live rock out & hypo'd the tank but that was hindsight. So since I had a 2L bottle left of Kick-Ick left over, I started to treat. After the first 14 days, things got worse, so I do a 2nd treatment. Then I asked Randy on the chemistry forum whether I should turn off the UV sterilizer and he thinks yes and directs me to some manufacturer's TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM off of Premium Aquatic's website:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=693921
I read this data and apply the remedy of an 150% dosage with the UV turned off for treatment #3. By this time, I've invested another $100 in the product and start to supplement with their Rally product due to apparent secondary infections taking place. Each treatment is done for 12 days with a rest period of 2 days and a 17% water change to improve water conditions. So by the time I'm into treatment #4, I start to lose my Harlequin tusk, Imperator, Majestic, Annularis & Flame hawk.

This is about the time I came across the NSF banner when I was browsing the Fish Disease forum. I figure what the heck, I'll try it since it looks like the tank would need to broken down soon because the remaining 4 fish did not look good at all.
I started to post on one of the threads on the Fish Disease forum that I was going to try this but right from the beginning, I was labeled a "marketer", a "#1 salesman for NSF" and I haven't even started the treatment or said if there were any positive or negative results.
One of the results that I have experienced is that it is "reef safe" in my application. The reason why I say this is because whatever I was thinking at the time (and it probably wasn't much!), I wanted to try it in the reef tank at the same time. The only other thing that I did was to email NSF and ask again if this product was truely "reef safe" and if it has been tested in tanks with SPS corals. I did not want to lose any additional SPS corals. The reply was absolutely & that it has been tested in SPS tanks with no negative effect.
I've dosed this product into both my tanks twice a day consecutively for 3.5 weeks and have had no RTN'ing on any acros, no negative effects on 7 clams, no negative effects on any shrimps or snails. After the first two weeks, maybe half way into the 3rd week, I did notice that a yellow leather did not expand as much and some of my Candycanes also did not have great expansion.

As for what the product was intended for, here are my results so far:
After the first 7 days, the reef tank appeared good. I base this on a few spots on a True Perc and a Yellow Coris and Bartlett scratching with no spots.
After day 7, I noticed that the spots on the Perc were gone and the Coris & Bartlett were not scratching but I continued to dose as a precaution.
As for the 90g FOWLR, nothing improved but the remaining 4 fish were still alive. Continued to dose.

Around day 9, I receive an email from NSF asking how the meds were working, so I relate my results. I got a call from Tyler at NSF to attempt to troubleshoot my conditions and we come to a conlusion that the residual heavy doses of Kick-Ick & Rally might be affecting the active ingredient in NSF. At this time, I also told him that the reef tank looked good so far & that I will stop dosing that tank in another day or two to conserve the remaining meds for the FOWLR tank. Also ordered more cause I felt treatment #1 was wasted and ineffective.
I turned on the skimmer, added carbon & performed a 45% water change over the next two days. I restart the NSF on the FOWLR and continue.
Day 15 on the reef tank, (I stopped dosing on day 12 I think) and the scratching & flashing is back.
So all this time, I'm talking back and forth with Tyler from NSF via email and out of one of my replies, I mentioned that through out this ick ordeal, I left my Phosban reactors running on both tanks because Ruby Reef's instructions stated that phosphate removal or binding media can be left running. Didn't think to mention this to NSF in the beginning and forgot about it. When Tyler found out, he told me to stop running the Phosban and that Phosban will take some of the active ingredients out of the meds.
It's been a full treatment week (3rd treatment) for both tanks with no skimming, carbon, UV or Phosban.
Reef tank visible symptoms are gone and the FOWLR tank has cleared up of visible symptoms also. I did have to fresh water dip a Naso in the beginning of week 3 because he looked so covered with the parasite and his secondary infection (body patches & sores) looked so bad, I thought he was a goner. He still has some marks from the body sores but it looks like it's almost healed.
I'm into week 4 as a precaution once again, but I have turned on the skimmers for both tank at the start of the 4th treatment due to concern that the reef tank has not had a water change since 10/16/05 and the algae film on the glass is almost every other day. I'll finish up the 4th treatment and stop to see if the symptoms return.

So to me, I do see some positive results in such that I was able to treat my reef tank with something other than Kick-Ick, the FOWLR was well on it's way to a total crash and most likely would've been broken down to start up from scratch.

Whether or not this has "eradicated" the parasite, I'll know in about two weeks.

I don't know if this is the type of feedback that people were looking for but this is what I've experienced so far.

 

[Anthony Calfo]

"... [I asked] again if this product was truely "reef safe" and if it has been tested in tanks with SPS corals... The reply was absolutely & that it has been tested in SPS tanks with no negative effect. "

And despite repeated requests from various people... the mfg has not offered a single piece of data to show their scientific trials to back up their claims. All we have is marketing and repeated directs to testimonials... some concerns to about shilling, etc.

I ask again to the mfg or anybody: where is the evidence to back up the claims?

I don't have a problem with the lack of evidence so much as the repeated offering of unsubstantiated claims. Without the latter, we have less concern about the former and relegate it to "try at your own risk," which I am frankly OK with... hoping simply that educated consumers will do it sensibly (ie - QT tanks with small risks and limited variables).

 

[puter]

Anthony -

The third from last testimonial on the mfg's site is listed as being from "Bob F" on Wet Web Media.... curious if it is "the" Bob F. and if so, that he'd try a product, ingredients unknown.

 

[Anthony Calfo]

wow... interesting! And I would be floored if it was the Bob Fenner. Bob does not take samples, do testomials, etc. In fact... he doesn't even have any marine aquariums presently (or for some time now) because of his heavy travel schedule.

I will check it out, let Bob know, and perhaps Bob will ask this chap to answer for the use of the testimonial. Odd to say the least.

 

[Anthony Calfo]

Ughhh... found it. And adding to the growing lift of concerns about the intent of this manufacturer... I found the following:

what the mfg claims is the testimonial on his site is:

----------------------------------
Posted on WET WEB MEDIA

My Fish were getting along just fine, even the blennies. The only issues I had was a case of Popeye on one of my yellow tangs, which I treated successfully with No Sick Fishââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s Popeye treatment.
Bob F.
------------------------------

But what is actually said on the wetwebmedia.com is:

-------------------
We have a large cleaner crew but as for fish we have (many),
1) Queen Angel (Juvenile)
2) Emperor Angel (Juvenile)
3) 2 Yellow Tangs
4) 1 Purple Tang
5) Tassel Fish
6) Orange Shoulder Tang (Juvenile)
7) 2 Blackcap Jawfish
8) Purple Firefish (the guy in question)
9) 5 Cleaner Shrimp
10) 2 Bicolor Blenny
11) Coral Beauty
12) Sixline Wrasse
13) Ruby Head Fairy Wrasse
14) and the big daddy a Zebra Moray
I know this seems like a lot of fish but so far everyone is getting along just fine (even the blennies). The only issues I have had was a case of Popeye on one of the Yellow Tangs (which I treated with NoSickFish.com's Popeye treatment)

- BF: I do wonder what is in these products.

and a case of Lymphocystis on the other Yellow Tang and the Queen Angel which went away on their own. I noticed tonight that my Firefish has what appears to be several blisters forming along his sides. I don't recall seeing them before today but now he has about 5 of them mainly on his right side and 1 or 2 on his left side. He isn't lethargic and eats just fine. I'm not sure what these are and as a result I don't know what to do. I hoping that you can help me because I really don't want to lose him.
Thanks,
Marshall

- BF: I wish I could... the microdesmid may have a subcutaneous "worm" or protozoan pathogenic disease... but, w/o removing it (I would not add medicines to the main system...) and trying a few (e.g. Praziquantel, Metronidazole) targeted therapeutics... and the added stress... I would leave it as it is, and "hope for the best", a spontaneous recovery. Bob Fenner

----------------

As you can see... the mfg has... er, "strategically" edited Bob Fenner's name to Bob F when it really is some chap named Marshall that wrote in. It's not even a testimonial. Well... not the way the mfg portrays it

Marshall also does NOT state the fish were treated "successfully" with the NSF product... the mfg site added that word.

Very, very sad to see.

Read for yourself on the post named "Sick Purple Firefish 9/4/05
"
here:
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/dartfshfaq2.htm

and compare it to the mfg site (before they wisely delete that post):

http://www.nosickfish.com/testimonials.jsp

I have made a copy of their web page as well as a backup of our WWM page.

Good consumer advocacy, folks.