Please explain "Immunity" in regards to ich

[shermanator]

Anyone remember the "Study" that "proved" that vaccinations cause autism? When in reality, we have increased our knowledge of the spectrum over time so what seems like an increase in autism occurrence is actually an increase in the amount of diagnosis. The spectrum is much better understood now and things like Aspberger's syndrome were completely unknown to exist let alone be on the autism spectrum.

That study was falsified by the authors and their findings: a) were not ever accepted by mainstream science and b) cannot be explained by increased diagnoses.

But what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[3FordFamily]

I'm curious... are the arguments that this "immunity" is innate or acquired?

If it's acquired, how would that work? I mean, fish have immune systems like we do and they are not equipped to acquire immunity to parasites. If immunity to parasites was possible on a reasonable time scale, there would be no TB (or many other tropical diseases) -- or at the very least we would have vaccines against TB.

I would believe that some fish have innate immunity (not a species of fish, but individual fish and their off-spring). But the idea that animals can acquire immunity to parasites is not consistent with basic immunology.

In reading this thread, I am not sure whether the pro-immunity side wants to consider peer-reviewed science, but here is a good general review on immune systems and the difficulty in acquiring immunity to parasites: http://www.nature.com/nri/journal/v10/n2/full/nri2673.html (this isn't about Ich in general, but it does cover dinoflagellates and Ich is a dino).

Acquired immunity. Fish in the ocean are subjected to parasites. In our closed, smaller systems, they are much more likely to kill. Partially due to the increase of stress of making it to our systems, and partially due to the fact that the parasites can reproduce and locate hosts more efficiently.

I do not think it can be passed on to their offspring. If I get a vaccination annually for something, (or my dog or any other animal) I wouldn't expect their offspring to have the same immunity due both to the time constraint (annual vaccinations..) and because I don't believe my tetanus vaccine can be passed to my daughter through birth.

Again, think about the discussions surrounding bacterial infections, super strains of bacteria, and suppressed immune response to bacteria as a direct result of frequent antibacterial soap use.

So, being exposed to parasites frequently forces immune response and repeated "immunity". I would argue that TRUE 100% immunity is NEVER attained, rather a strong defense against parasites can be developed. We incorrectly through the term "immunity" around.

A fish that has built a very strong immune defense to marine parasites can succumb to them eventually, given high stress levels, poor environment, and poor health. Thus, a true immunity is not achieved.

 

[3FordFamily]

That study was falsified by the authors and their findings: a) were not ever accepted by mainstream science and b) cannot be explained by increased diagnoses.

But what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Mainstream science did not accept it but many people (not in mainstream science) did, and this provided much benefit to the cash behind the "study".

The claim that it cannot be explained by increased diagnoses can not be refuted nor confirmed. I would say that increased diagnoses is one of several factors contributing to gradually increasing autism diagnosis.

Again, perhaps you need a definition of an analogy? They're not directly related to the topic at hand. That's the very point of an analogy.

 

[shermanator]

I do not think it can be passed on to their offspring. If I get a vaccination annually for something, (or my dog or any other animal) I wouldn't expect their offspring to have the same immunity due both to the time constraint (annual vaccinations..) and because I don't believe my tetanus vaccine can be passed to my daughter through birth.

Acquired immunity is not the same as getting a vaccine. Not to sound condescending, but this isn't the place to teach you immunology. But just one thing: you get yearly vaccines due to viral mutation. That's not applicable here and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Furthermore, vaccines to bacteria like tetanus need boosters because you are not constantly challenged with the antigen. Also not applicable here. If you have a tank with Ich the fish are under constant selective pressure.

Again, think about the discussions surrounding bacterial infections, super strains of bacteria, and suppressed immune response to bacteria as a direct result of frequent antibacterial soap use.

No, it's due to misuse of prescription antibiotics. How would triclosan give rise to bata-lactam resistance? What does this have to do with this thread?

So, being exposed to parasites frequently forces immune response and repeated "immunity". I would argue that TRUE 100% immunity is NEVER attained, rather a strong defense against parasites can be developed. We incorrectly through the term "immunity" around.

A fish that has built a very strong immune defense to marine parasites can succumb to them eventually, given high stress levels, poor environment, and poor health. Thus, a true immunity is not achieved.

Yes, you do appear to be misusing the term "immunity". Can we settle on you using "asymptomatic"? That is what you are describing.

 

[Paul B]

Do you really mean immunity? Or do you mean asymptomatic?

I mean immunity. I wrote an article on this but I am not allowed to link it here.
Just remember, fish are not people. Totally different immune system specifically designed to protect the fish from parasites.

 

[shermanator]

I mean immunity. I wrote an article on this but I am not allowed to link it here.
Just remember, fish are not people. Totally different immune system specifically designed to protect the fish from parasites.

Can you PM it to me?

Here is another way to think about things... if you have a tank full of immune fish, why does ich persist without a host? We know the lifecycle of ich and it will not survive without a host.

 

[3FordFamily]

Acquired immunity is not the same as getting a vaccine. Not to sound condescending, but this isn't the place to teach you immunology. But just one thing: you get yearly vaccines due to viral mutation. That's not applicable here and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Furthermore, vaccines to bacteria like tetanus need boosters because you are not constantly challenged with the antigen. Also not applicable here. If you have a tank with Ich the fish are under constant selective pressure.



No, it's due to misuse of prescription antibiotics. How would triclosan give rise to bata-lactam resistance? What does this have to do with this thread?



Yes, you do appear to be misusing the term "immunity". Can we settle on you using "asymptomatic"? That is what you are describing.

I have a working knowledge (albeit elementary in some facets) of the differences you describe. The wife has a doctorate of pharmacy, we chat about this stuff all the time unfortunately.

You are correct that prescription antibiotics are probably a stronger contributor than is antibacterial soap but both "achieve" the same results. And yes, I understand that in practice antibacterial soap takes several minutes in very warm water to be done correctly and virtually no one does this, but even reducing exposure slightly over time can make big differences. Any small change over time can make a notable difference (ANALOGY ALERT) evolution as an example.

The way you're operating, you will successfully find a difference between every conceivable analogy and the topic at hand - this because unless we are talking about marine parasites in closed systems, they're inherently different. So rather than pointing out the differences, why not focus on the similarities? I am trying to make connections for those of us that are not educated sufficiently on the topic matter. Hence, analogies.

So yes, they're not the same. Boosters and vaccines are different. Rather than focusing on that difference, why not focus on the other plethora of vaccines that are not boosters that many people/animals receive regularly?

The point of ALL of this discussion is to illustrate simply that vaccinations (exposure to dead cells of said disease) create a stronger immune defense against that disease. The similarity is that repeated exposure to parasites, particularly of different strains, can lead to the same result.

I am also immensely tired of hearing this poor attempt at negating the "immunity" (Again, we are fully aware this is not a true immunity) conversation:

"Oh but different strains are different so a fish cannot develop a strong immune protection from parasites. The end"

Sure, but the immune response to one parasite may aid in protecting it from others. The low lying fruit easy for the picking here is the example of slime coat. A fish with thicker slime coat will be better equipped to battle nearly all parasites. Period. Regardless of strain.

 

[CHSUB]

there is a study that suggests that it is not the fish developing "immunity" but the ich becoming "weak" after 20+ cycles with the same host!!! discuss...

 

[3FordFamily]

Can you PM it to me?

Here is another way to think about things... if you have a tank full of immune fish, why does ich persist without a host? We know the lifecycle of ich and it will not survive without a host.

There is a tank full of hosts that do not succumb. A very small percentage of the parasites DO indeed attach to the hosts in the tank, despite the fish and their "immunity".

I think it is safe to say that all of us can agree that because we do not see the parasite on the fish, and they appear healthy does NOT mean that it is not present. If I have a tick on me somewhere every once in awhile, I am not likely to die. If I have 20,000 ticks, we may have an issue.

As such, the life cycle continues, just with far less success.

 

[3FordFamily]

I mean immunity. I wrote an article on this but I am not allowed to link it here.
Just remember, fish are not people. Totally different immune system specifically designed to protect the fish from parasites.

I am now even more interested. Paul, let me know when I can purchase your book.

 

[MondoBongo]

Mondo, you must have missed the negation of references that are often cited and the rudimentary explanation of how one should not draw inferences based on them, for the most part. I will reiterate, correlation does not equate causality.



You misused the term "dichotomy" as none was presented by any stretch of the imagination.

The very nature of analogies are that they're not generally directly relevant to the discussion at hand, hence the term "analogy".

And the purpose of my post you read poorly, apparently, was to point out the inherent fallacies of logic, scientific method, statistical significance, and experiment processes. I was suggesting that perhaps my (admittedly) anecdotal evidence was just as useless as many "research" studies due to the aforementioned issues.

I painted the door of my business red. In march, sales were 120k. I repainted the door in april. In may, sales were 180k. The red door must have increased sales.

Unfortunately, because we know so little of marine biology, this ANALOGY (again, not directly relevant to the discussion point) explains how drawing inferences on so many research experiment outcomes is often a fallacy. There are an exorbitant amount of extraneous factors that could have affected the dependent variable being tested.

all you do is talk in circles, and offer dubious propositions.

false analogy, conflation, disinformation, and outright nonsense.

if you have any FACTS of actual information to support your assumptions, i would absolutely love to see it, but it appears you're just making this all up as you go along based on some cockamamie anecdotes and your personal beliefs.

this is not productive, nor is it helpful to the discussion. when confronted with solid studies and facts you fall back to obfuscation and shifting arguments.

science is a mechanism to route out subjective bias, and codify in real terms how things work. science denialism, especially when supplanting by unsubstantiated beliefs in wildly cobbled together subjective theories is dangerous.

 

[3FordFamily]

all you do is talk in circles, and offer dubious propositions.

false analogy (unapproved analogy), conflation, disinformation (in this case don't you mean MISinformation?), and outright nonsense (subjective).

if you have any FACTS of actual information to support your assumptions, i would absolutely love to see it, but it appears you're just making this all up as you go along based on some cockamamie anecdotes and your personal beliefs. (reading comprehension not strong with this one?)

this is not productive, nor is it helpful to the discussion. when confronted with solid studies and facts you fall back to obfuscation (attempting to make things easier to interpret is antonymous to this claim) and shifting arguments (I am relatively certain we're talking about the same argument. Inherent in the discussion is the scientific method, experiment design, marine biology, statistical significance, etc.).

science is a mechanism to route out subjective bias, and codify in real terms how things work. science denialism, especially when supplanting by unsubstantiated beliefs in wildly cobbled together subjective theories is dangerous.

I love your rebuttals they really say nothing much like you feel my "assertions" do not.

What do you constitute as facts? Research and my observations -- none of it is factual by the true definition of the term. I am not denying science, remotely. Anyone that denies science will fail in this hobby, among other things. I am saying that devoid of knowing every aspect of "research" you can not safely draw inferences about it's validity and application to the "population" (or the real world). Studies exist on both sides of nearly every argument. Sometimes equally on each side. I am saying that relying solely on science, OR solely on anecdotal evidence (what I provide) is foolish.

For a number of reasons, not QT'ing EVER works swimmingly (pun intended) for me. My fish thrive and I keep several fish others cannot despite them stringently following conventional wisdom provided by said studies. Several others have the same experience. Yet many who follow said QT and treatment guidelines have issues, eventually. This forum is the only evidence necessary to cite for THAT claim.

You can continue to dismiss logic as mindless banter if that is your perrogative, but ignoring evidence and relying on scientific method (often poorly-performed research/experiments if they are true experiments at all) is not logical. Correlation. Causality. They do not equivocate. People only control for (often poorly) KNOWN variables. There are many UNKNOWN variables or those that resources will not permit them to be controlled for the purpose of a study or research.

Marine biology is so wildly alien to us yet. This adds to my skepticism of any research cited (even if it affirms my own beliefs), because of the multitude of variables we do not yet understand. That's what I am saying. You're deflecting the message and getting lost.

 

[Paul B]

This is why I try very hard to never contribute to ich threads.

 

[MondoBongo]

it's pretty bad when you're getting to the level of parsing responses and alleging faulty grammar and context. that's good trolling, but not much else.

also, no, i meant "false analogy" and also very much meant "disinformation".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation

Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.

that is exactly what i mean. you are attempting to win an argument, again mind you, by deliberately attempting to undermine controlled scientific studies with outright nonsense, objectively nonsensical at that.

so you can keep extolling pseudo-science and unsubstantiated anecdotes. that's fine. the information i cited and posted speaks for itself.

Marine biology is so wildly alien to us yet. This adds to my skepticism of any research cited (even if the affirm my own belief), because of the multitude of variables we do not yet understand.

if you take issue with any of the research papers, then i would encourage you to challenge them with good science, not wildly subjective and uncontrolled postulates.

 

[3FordFamily]

This is why I try very hard to never contribute to ich threads.

LOL, I know what I am getting in to. I too often avoid them. People on that side of the aisle are extremely set in their ways and attempt to ridicule anyone with a differing belief.

It saddens me though reading through where people suggest knee-jerk reactions to what may be a relatively minor problem. Many of these only increase stress with harsh chemicals, stressful QT's that are not established, and even the stress of capturing the fish. Then, they're suggested to let their DT run fallow (annihilating any existing beneficial bacteria and bioload capacity) and proposing to re-introduce these fish back to this environment after the chemicals. These people will get burnt out on this hobby very quickly, and more fish than necessary may succumb.

I believe hospital tanks have their place. If they wish to do things that way they can. They shouldn't propose it as the ONLY solution to the issues discussed, however.

I think most of these people are well-intentioned, honestly. But many are inexperienced and rely heavily solely on poorly conducted research that supports their positions.

 

[shermanator]

I have a working knowledge (albeit elementary in some facets) of the differences you describe. The wife has a doctorate of pharmacy, we chat about this stuff all the time unfortunately.

I don't want to engage in comparing credentials, but I teach PharmD students immunology. I also run a well-funded lab that studies the intersection of oncology and immunology. I know what I'm talking about. If you don't believe me, PM me and I'd be happy to discuss over my work email.

Rather than focusing on that difference, why not focus on the other plethora of vaccines that are not boosters that many people/animals receive regularly?

I already did. to recap: Yearly vaccines are given due to mutation. Vaccines given every x years are needed because you are not typically exposed to the antigen. Neither has anything to do with the discussion about ich.

Again, we are fully aware this is not a true immunity)

Then stop calling it immunity. Immunity means something vastly different than asymptomatic carrier status. And a healthy fish that is resistant to ich due to slime coat, etc is also not immune to ich. Immunity has a specific meaning and you are not using it properly.

The low lying fruit easy for the picking here is the example of slime coat. A fish with thicker slime coat will be better equipped to battle nearly all parasites. Period. Regardless of strain.

I don't disagree that slime coat is important (see: mandarins). But that is NOT immunity.

 

[MondoBongo]

I think most of these people are well-intentioned, honestly. But many are inexperienced and rely heavily solely on poorly conducted research that supports their positions.

please cite and explain in which way(s) the noted research is faulty. don't just make more vague and ridiculous accusations.

please, enlighten us all to how these well accepted studies, methods, and practices are poorly conducted.

 

[3FordFamily]

it's pretty bad when you're getting to the level of parsing responses and alleging faulty grammar and context. that's good trolling, but not much else. (this is much different from picking apart analogies and making sweeping statements about one's intentions and positions - IE science denial-ism)

also, no, i meant "false analogy" and also very much meant "disinformation".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation

(I know what disinformation is. I have no agenda, nothing to gain by intentionally spreading incorrect information, thus disinformation is incorrectly utilized in your rebuttal)



that is exactly what i mean. you are attempting to win an argument, again mind you, by deliberately attempting to undermine controlled scientific studies with outright nonsense, objectively nonsensical at that.

so you can keep extolling pseudo-science and unsubstantiated anecdotes. that's fine. the information i cited and posted speaks for itself.



if you take issue with any of the research papers, then i would encourage you to challenge them with good science, not wildly subjective and uncontrolled postulates.

I would challenge you to research the research. I care not whether you agree or disagree with what I have proposed.

What you're suggesting is that I utilize something to support my attestations that I have attempted to largely discredit (for several valid reasons you overlook).

Please continue to live in the realm of theory. I will continue to utilize logic. I will supplement logic with science, rather than relying solely on it.

 

[3FordFamily]

please cite and explain in which way(s) the noted research is faulty. don't just make more vague and ridiculous accusations.

please, enlighten us all to how these well accepted studies, methods, and practices are poorly conducted.

Rather than knee-jerk replies, go back and read what I have already asserted.

Again, no research is needed to claim that research is often incorrectly conducted. Absolutely nothing is needed to state that causation does not equal correlation.

To conform to your method, here is an elementary explanation:
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/pr.../types-of-studies/v/correlation-and-causality

 

[MondoBongo]

I would challenge you to research the research. I care not whether you agree or disagree with what I have proposed.

What you're suggesting is that I utilize something to support my attestations that I have attempted to largely discredit (for several valid reasons you overlook).

Please continue to live in the realm of theory. I will continue to utilize logic. I will supplement logic with science, rather than relying solely on it.

the burden of proof falls on the party that makes the claim.

please explain the faults with the cited research, the community will be better off for it. none of the papers linked were theoretical.

you have offered no valid reasons, just conjectures and weak observational/anecdotal evidence.