MondoBongo
Obligate Feeder Obsessed
if you are attempting to refute specific studies, then yes, you need to prove it. you can't just spout of vague generalizations then when asked for clarity dodge them.
Please explain "Immunity" in regards to ich
- Thread starter Savant
- Start date
if you are attempting to refute specific studies, then yes, you need to prove it. you can't just spout of vague generalizations then when asked for clarity dodge them.
shermanator
New member
If the pro-"immunity but not real immunity" crowd would just rephrase their arguments, I don't think there would need to be much discussion. I think everyone would agree that ich can reside in a tank for a LONG time without causing problems. This is due to a combination of excellent fish health and keeping them stress-free. But they are not immune.
I've lost fish to QT and I've even considered just letting my tank have ich because there are many cases of tanks flourishing with ich in the system (see Paul B's tank).
Paul sent me a PM with his article. It's excellent and I agree with everything in it except calling his observations "immunity". He is clearly a master of keeping fish happy and healthy (and keeping them asymptomatic from ich). What he has posted regularly makes me question if what I am doing is ideal (long QTs with pre-emptive medication). But all that said, there is no evidence his fish are immune to ich.
I will try to make this my last post. However, I make no promises I won't correct the on-going slaughter of basic immunology.
I've lost fish to QT and I've even considered just letting my tank have ich because there are many cases of tanks flourishing with ich in the system (see Paul B's tank).
Paul sent me a PM with his article. It's excellent and I agree with everything in it except calling his observations "immunity". He is clearly a master of keeping fish happy and healthy (and keeping them asymptomatic from ich). What he has posted regularly makes me question if what I am doing is ideal (long QTs with pre-emptive medication). But all that said, there is no evidence his fish are immune to ich.
I will try to make this my last post. However, I make no promises I won't correct the on-going slaughter of basic immunology.
3FordFamily
In Memoriam
Here is some literature explaining research designs, the difference between quasi, pre, and true experiments.
http://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/datamethods/experimentsquasi.jsp
http://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/datamethods/preexperimental.jsp
True experiments are often poorly controlled, biased in funding and implementation, incorrectly named "experiments" when in fact they are quasi or pre-experiments, and are narrowly-focused.
http://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/datamethods/experimentsquasi.jsp
http://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/datamethods/preexperimental.jsp
True experiments are often poorly controlled, biased in funding and implementation, incorrectly named "experiments" when in fact they are quasi or pre-experiments, and are narrowly-focused.
3FordFamily
In Memoriam
Studies, Experiments, and Research (scienific in nature) are INHERENTLY theoretical. May be correct, but theoretical.
We are not in court, I have no burden of proof. I am not going to expel hours of my time discrediting research, particularly when the information needed to do so is not readily available. I've already spent a copious amount of time discussing this with you.
I am also certain that if research WAS done that discredited said research you cite, you would have a problem with it. I also have a bias, so anything I found would probably be moot anyway.
We are stating opinions. Neither of us are proposing fact. What IS a fact is that my fish do not die or show signs of parasites despite not QT'ing anything and have for years. Even when a fish infested with ich is thrown in my systems my fish prevail. That's a fact. If you would like proof, you can come witness this for yourself. You'd have to stay for 72 days though. I have a spare bedroom.
MondoBongo
Obligate Feeder Obsessed
if you could produce any useful information about how the specific studies that i have cited are flawed i would love to debate it with you, however as it is you can't. you again fall back to shifting sand and presenting broad accusations about how studies are conducted in general? come on now, this is just absurd.
until such a time as you have that information, i would put my money on the scientific studies being the truth.
on a personal note, i actually quite rather enjoy new information. as long as it is factual, evidence based, and can be verified. sometimes assimilating new information in to your world view isn't a comfortable process, but you end up being better off for it.
3FordFamily
In Memoriam
The hypocrisy of your repetition is amusing. We can agree to disagree. I am not suggesting that all of the research is wrong. I am saying it can be reliable but not valid (or verifiable as you claim). It's very difficult to verify anything from those studies. That's the point. You may have the last word since it's evident that you must have it.
And I agree I like to read things that challenge my beliefs. It's a necessary part of personal growth. Many don't do this, however.
Paul B
Premium Member
This is why I am writing a book. I don't have to care if anyone reads it or agrees with it. I am writing it for myself. I also don't need credentials as I have the longest running tank on here with probably the oldest (ich free) fish . I am also to old to get involved in stupid arguments.
Referrals:
Me. :smokin:
rwb500
Active member
fish have acquired immune systems very similar to ours, and the whole premise of that article is that acquired immunity to parasites IS possible, just more difficult. Your whole post seems to be based on misreading the article you cited. Did you read it? It is simply identifying some factors that make parasites slightly more challenging. I could find you hundreds of papers about how it is challenging to kill staph aureus. That doesn't mean we can't do it.
There is no reason that a fish with an ich infection couldn't develop antibodies and keep those B cells for next time. It is a bit harder to fight parasites then single-cell pathogens, but still very possible, especially with repeated exposure to the exact same pathogen in a tiny glass box.
rwb500
Active member
it shouldn't take further proof, but here is another example of acquired immunity against a parasite. schistosomiasis is the closest thing I could think of to ich in a system that has been well-studied (humans):
PMID: 25142505
"It is also becoming apparent that protective immunity against schistosomula as they develop into adult worms develops slowly and is hastened by the dying of adult worms, either naturally or when they are killed by praziquantel."
"a wide variety of immune markers, both cellular and humoral, can be used to demonstrate exposure to schistosomes"
humoral immune markers = acquired antibodies
PMID: 25142505
"It is also becoming apparent that protective immunity against schistosomula as they develop into adult worms develops slowly and is hastened by the dying of adult worms, either naturally or when they are killed by praziquantel."
"a wide variety of immune markers, both cellular and humoral, can be used to demonstrate exposure to schistosomes"
humoral immune markers = acquired antibodies
MondoBongo
Obligate Feeder Obsessed
you know what, you're absolutely right.
OP asked a question and it got way out of hand.
so i want to offer my apologies to the OP and 3FordFamily. regardless of the opposing views, it doesn't justify being rude.
cheers.
3FordFamily
In Memoriam
3FordFamily
In Memoriam
Didn't believe me, did you?
Oh I did. Not my first rodeo I should have known better
Just to make things interesting. I've got 30 years experience as a professional aquarist and Marine Biologist. At times with hundreds of tanks, thousands of fish, multiple thousands of gallons, and upwards of a million dollars or so worth fish at a time. In all those years, my experience happens to back the science that you so readily dismiss.
There is side to this debate that prefers to dismiss the peer reviewed science
Obviously you haven't bothered to actually look at the mentioned research and the researchers.
Now what is with trying to bring science into the discussion
BTW, if you have a link or specific citation handy, that would be apreciated.
And far more that don't have issues. With this forum also being usable to cite that claim...
If your going to call specific research flawed, you need to actually be specific. Claiming specific research to be flawed based on generalities that some research can sometimes be flawed is just as illogical as assuming your red door was responsible for an increase in sales.
Coming soon. Spent most of the day running boat trips. Always sleep good after a day on the water
shermanator
New member
Of course I read it. It's so short that I just read it again. Nothing in that article is consistent with the idea that a tank full of fish could possibly all get immunity to ich over any reasonable period of time (say 10 years).
reefgeezer
Active member
Is there a study on "Acquired Immunity to Dinoflagellate (or Protozoan) Parasites in Closed Marine Environments"? Something authored in the last 10 years would be great. Peer reviewed would be better. Anyone?
rwb500
Active member
well of course not. that's not what it's about, at all. there's also nothing about dinosaurs ever existing in there. that doesn't mean they never existed. the bottom line is this - fish have acquired immune systems essentially just like ours, and humans can develop immunity to parasites, so there is no logical reason to believe that fish cannot develop humoral resistance to parasitic antigens.
that paper only says that developing resistance to parasites can be difficult. that means difficult relative to the hundreds of organisms you breathe in and immediately develop resistance to every day.
if a tang can beat ich once, there is no reason to believe that it did not develop some B cell memory, and will better fight that same strain of ich in the future.
