wasp said:I just wonder about the balance here.
Reefkeeping has published the Rebuttal, but in fact denied their readers the chance to read the actual study itself. Rather odd, when the rebuttal contains numerous references to the article.
wasp said:
I regard this article as an opinion rather than good science.
.
wasp said:I just wonder about the balance here.
Reefkeeping has published the Rebuttal, but in fact denied their readers the chance to read the actual study itself. Rather odd, when the rebuttal contains numerous references to the article.
from ReefKeeping Article
Upon finishing the results section of this article, and progressing to the discussion, barely a sentence existed which could be taken as correct. I would urge those so inclined to read this article to completely skip the discussion section. Virtually every statement concerning disease nutrient processes, and microbial ecology is conjecture and, in many cases, simply wrong. This is unfortunate, because if the authors had a better grasp of the processes occurring, had done adequate work to confirm their speculations, and focused diligently on a good experimental protocol, the effects noted in terms of such mismanaged aquaria that have high nitrogen and phosphorus levels (that admittedly are common enough) and their response to carbon inputs might lead to valuable developments (though I doubt a dosing schedule for vodka across all reef aquariums with such issues would be possible).
Skipping that section seems to be any easy task.I would urge those so inclined to read this article to completely skip the discussion section.
gtrestoration said:Kevin,
I just don't understand the need to print a rebuttal article when the original was declined. I think that's what most are saying now and why the thread was brought to the top again.