Possible ICH Cure!!

[seahorsedreams]

After that I did some research and found that Dr. Burgess stated that hyposalinity actually does not kill ich on the spot, but rather "stresses" it into succumbing and dying.

I'm addressing little pieces, so I haven't read down further yet.

Then Burgess needs to make up his mind or he changed his mind

"Tomonts can be lysed by hyposalinity.... other stuff.... Effectiveness is probably due to osmotic shock rather than salinity per se."

Colorni and Burgess, 1997.

It's also Burgess (with Colorni) in 1997 that said they've witnessed up to 72 days (from leaving fish to excystment) and that a theront can only live for 24 hours after excystment at 77 degress.


But hypo isn't a hit or miss treatment. Like copper, when the right stage comes into contact with either the 1.008 or the correct level of copper, they are both dead. No individual parasite walks away from the 1.008 either. It's a Noga recommendation and he's pretty King of the disease world.


This is a fun discussion. They all don't have to be bad or uncivil.

 

[MrTuskfish]

There was no chance of error in my instance, but I didn't use copper. I went with 1.008 hypo for over two months. I don't mean that in a cocky way. But to maintain a tank at 1.008 is really...... ummmmmm..... well you drop some water on your calibrated refractometer and look through it..... well, there's just zero chance of error.

To maintain a stable environment as to not stress the fish further.... there's the harder part that takes practice.

I think your post above ("There is record of tomonts releasing theronts 72 days after leaving the fish") has really changed the whole battle ground over the last few years. I can remember when 4 weeks fallow (or QT) was enough. I then thought 6 weeks, then 8, now 10 weeks QT. Treat for 4 weeks+ and carefully observe for 2+ weeks before (assuming fish's health isn't effected) & after treatment.

 

[seahorsedreams]

It's kind of dealing with odds. There is a small number that will be released at 72 hours, but the majority are at 11-15 days at 70-75 degrees F. Are you feeling lucky today? I never have any luck but bad.

But just lately everyone has been talking about a resistant strain. People PhD'd in research (not our sector, just trying to say a Smarty Pants) have had trouble getting rid of it the traditional ways. Could it have been a 72 day old strain? *shrugs*

I'm afraid if people say "you have to remove your fish from your tank for 3 months", there are going to be some that are overwhellmed by that idea, and will wind up not doing it at all. A treatment plan is only as good as it's compliance. It's like the route that will yield the best results is almost unattainable.

You know what.... I think they should do the study again, but this time have a student count them as they leave until there is no action for a week. That way we can figure out overall odds. There's always a research student starving for extra credit.

 

[jimmyj7090]

Ok, I'm not going to get into a debate about whether or not my skills are reliable enough. Calibrating, testing, interpreting and reacting is what I do for a living and I lead about 70 people to do it. Only difference is it's human lives, not fish lives.

If I was presenting new data, that would be one thing. But my experiences falls within the range of what has been seen in studies. It's existence has already been proven, I don't need to.

Colorni and Burgess 1997. Cryptocaryon irritans. Brown 1951, the cause of :white spot disease" in marine fish: An update. Aquarium Sciences and Conservation 1:217-238.

Now if this were copper. It would be a different thing. Those test results are open to interpretation and those test kits themselves may not be the most accurate thing around. Those results I would have questioned as there is no quality control with them.

With my question/comment I did not indent to start a debate or question the stringency of your methods.

It sounds like you have a background in the medical field, so I would assume you can appreciate how extremely difficult it is to truely acheive "zero chance of error". I was distracted by that statement, and pointed it out because it seemed to undermine the rest of what you were saying....

Perhaps elaborating on your methods and answering my qestion might ADD credibility to what you are saying? No?

 

[seahorsedreams]

You are SO missing my intentions AND tone, hence the difficulty of these discussions. Debate? If you are having one, you are having it by yourself. To me this is a nice discussion about Ich. I don't need credibility, that's why I posted numbers that already HAD credibility. There is no need for me to have any at all as you can bypass me and read it for yourself in the articles I presented. The articles definitely have academic credibility.

But all the same, let me see if I can't answer you question. What was it again?

 

[jimmyj7090]

You seem to want me to be creating an argument. From my perspective my last post largely made the same points as your post following it.

My only point in this discussion is the the statement "Zero chance of error", seems to take away from what otherwise appears to be solid credibility on your part.

I agree that this is not about absolutes, it's about odds. To say zero chance of error, you are talking in absolutes. If you said "extremely low chance of error" I never would have questioned it.

If you care to answer, I simply asked if you could explain your technique for calibrating the refractometer, and what standard was used?

(I chose that question because it's one where it's very common for people to state that they used a "calibrated refractometer", but on follow up questions it becomes apparent that they are calibrating incorrectly, ie RO water to calibrate for testing NSW water. I asked not to suggest that you were doing it wrong, but rather to illiustate how many variables often get missed)

 

[seahorsedreams]

Oh my, I have NO idea why you are getting upset. I have ZERO interest in an argument, hence why I have been polite. I'm in three Ich threads here on RC. I'm having trouble with my mac mouse scrolling up and down. If you ever used a cordless crazy shaped Mac mouse you would understand why. If you think I remember your question from your avatar you are wrong. This is not the arena I start fights in, but I do love a good discussion. "But let's see if I can't answer your question, what was it again?". How much more sunshiney do you want me to get!

I calibrated the refractometer with the solution it came with. The salinity monitor with the solution it came with. Was that the specifics you were looking for? The procedure was by the directions. The refractometer has a screw driver thingy and is temperature compensated.

The salinity monitor has since ceased working because I evidently did not read the instructions well enough... it said do not use in the presence of water... O.O

 

[jimmyj7090]

I don't know how you are taking my words as I also have no interest in an argument, I haven't been the lest bit upset, and I've never intended to be anything but polite either.

"If you think I remember your question from your avatar you are wrong"

^ I have no idea what you mean about an avatar? I asked you the question in THIS thread, post #15, and restated it in post #26

As for the refractometer calibration solution, was it for calibrating to NSW levels, 0, or something else? Was slope considered?

I use a mac as well, so I'll guess we can agree on something

 

[seahorsedreams]

Slope... is this really a noted variable? If slope affected the numbers enough, this equipment would not be the reliable piece of equipment it is due to user variability. To keep this tank stable, there are multiple tests being performed throughout the day... how many times would that be over a three month period. If there was a convern of slope variability don't you think I would have seen a difference other than 1.008 or 1.009 when it was measured, say 5 times as day... every day... over 3 months. You're stretching and it is totally taking away from this thread.

I was not making any claims that anyone else here should disagree with. There has been Ich documented to have been released from encystment 72 days after leaving the fish. I'm suspecting that my fish had one of these "late bloomer" situations. There has been a lot of rumblings that people have been having trouble with "resistant Ich". People who do this for a living. I believe it to be a case of an elongated encystment stage. The reason I jump to that, is it's been proven to exist and resistant Ich has not.

I've done hypo successfully many times over the years. You learn as the years go by, you don't loose skills with practice. Why would I be successful so many times before and not now? 1.008 is not even needed, even if it was off by a little, it wouldn't be enough to make a difference.

I didn't see your question immediately above my post. I don't know what you want me to say. I didn't know the question... so I asked... very politely.

Anyway this is beyond productive.....

 

[hvacman250]

If you went 12 weeks of a fallow tank (84 days) didnt you defeat the 72 day super cyst?

Or are you saying the hypo didnt cure the Ich on the infected fish?

And all the talk about hypo makes me glad I chose Cupramine. What if the 35 ppt calibration solution I bought was off? Then I have compromised hypo.

This disease really blows...

 

[DanK13]

I personally make my own copper sulfate solution for quarantine and its effective. Its always killed the very few infections I have encountered. I have also never run into this 72 day strain of crypt people talk about, and i hope i never do but 8 weeks should be fine unless your fish have been exposed to a pet shop where this longer strain may occur. The quarantine is a PITA but it beats the alternative of replacing your stock.

 

[jimmyj7090]

If you calibrate a refractometer with accurate 1.025 standard, and the slope isn't linear then it may not be so accurate at 1.008.

How much slope would it take to determine that it was a factor needing consideration? My point in mentioning it is that it COULD be another variable to account for, could be... that's all.

 

[fsbbn@hotmail]

For what its worth, I have had trouble reading accurately using a refractrometer. It has to do with me angling the device properly. I own three of them and always try to take a couple of readings. Sometimes if there isn't enough water on the lens it can also cause an error.

 

[MrTuskfish]

If you went 12 weeks of a fallow tank (84 days) didnt you defeat the 72 day super cyst?

Or are you saying the hypo didnt cure the Ich on the infected fish?

And all the talk about hypo makes me glad I chose Cupramine. What if the 35 ppt calibration solution I bought was off? Then I have compromised hypo.

This disease really blows...

Just to be picky: Feeding ich is not ON the fish, its IN the fish; well under the skin, where nothing will kill it (that won't also kill the fish). I think waiting out the arrival of all the new theronts is what really creates confusion; and treatment failures. Of course, assuming all the mechanics of the treatment process have been preformed flawlessly.

 

[hvacman250]

Just to be picky: Feeding ich is not ON the fish, its IN the fish; well under the skin, where nothing will kill it (that won't also kill the fish). I think waiting out the arrival of all the new theronts is what really creates confusion; and treatment failures. Of course, assuming all the mechanics of the treatment process have been preformed flawlessly.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...you know what I meant

My question was (when people claim the fish get re-infested):

Did the tank not stay fallow long enough (freak tomont), did the copper/hypo not work (trophonts still embedded into fish), or both?

 

[hvacman250]

After reading the stickies again for the 40 bilionth time, I need confirmation:

Cupramine will NOT kill the trophont (under the skin) or the tomont (because its encysted).

We have to wait the 3-7 days until the trophont falls off and becomes a protomont, then in the 2-18 hrs its crawling around the copper kills it.

Or wait the 3-72 days until the tomont hatches and we kill the tomite/theront before it finds a host and comes a trophont.

Is this correct?

 

[MrTuskfish]

After reading the stickies again for the 40 bilionth time, I need confirmation:

Cupramine will NOT kill the trophont (under the skin) or the tomont (because its encysted).

We have to wait the 3-7 days until the trophont falls off and becomes a protomont, then in the 2-18 hrs its crawling around the copper kills it.

Or wait the 3-72 days until the tomont hatches and we kill the tomite/theront before it finds a host and comes a trophont.

Is this correct?

True, but there could be tomonts introduced with the fish) already n the system and I would never assume that 100% of the trophants leave the fish in just 7 days.

 

[andyrm66]

IMO I would calibrate with RODI water as 1.00 is closer to 1.008 than 1.026