In case you were bored :P

[weez1959]

I was surfing around (4:30am, can't sleep ) and found a thread on some other site, can't remember which and I found this:

Polyp Lab

I checked around and found this:

New Ich Medication - .::AquariumPros.ca::.

What's your take on this?
I currently don't have ich in my tank and nothing in QT requires ich meds so I don't plan on running out and buying any at this time.

Everyone who had anything to say on it's effectiveness said positive things about it as were the reviews on Polyp Labs, (of course I don't think they would print the bad reviews on thier own site if there were any).

I do think the world is overdue on a new medicine for ich and there are companies out there trying almost anything (garlic, cayenne pepper) but something has to come out sooner or later that won't harm the fish as much as copper

Has anyone tried this stuff?

[leebca]

There is much more effort being put towards a new diet pill that will allow everyone to lose weight and still eat what they want, than there is an effort to find a new treatment/medication for Marine Ich. So I think the analogy has some merit.

What if a new diet pill came along? The advertising of the diet pill said the same things about its effectiveness about loosing weight as the Polyplab site did about the effectiveness of that medication to cure Marine Ich. "Eat all you want, and still loose weight," were the words stated in the ad. Would an overweight person struggling to loose weight buy it?

There were no headlines about a new 'cure' for obesity. There were no headlines or news reports of this diet pill, there were no independent studies, objective case reports, nor comments from the medical community -- just a website with the claim.

----------

Let's set aside the above scenario for the time being.

A website shows up with a new human disease cure. But you, the person reading it, is an 'expert' on this disease. The wording of the site says things that aren't true about the disease and/or the current medications. The site also tells you the medication promoted will cure the disease. Would you buy it?

There were no headlines about a new cure for this disease. There were no headlines or news reports of this miracle new cure, no objective studies, no responsible comments from the medical -- just a website.

=========

I look at the links you provided and see similarities to the above two scenarios. I don't want to belabor the point, let me take only one example. At the site, this is a quote from it:

Most available treatments do not target the free-swimming stage of the parasite which is one of the primary difficulties in dealing with these infections.

The only successful treatments of Marine Ich are in fact those which target the free-swimming stage of the parasite. Even the unsuccessful ones usually target the free-swimming stage. Why? Because as I mentioned in my list of myths and facts (Marine Ich - Myths and Facts) the parasite, once embedded into the fish, is protected by the fish skin and mucous coating. The free-swimming stage is the most vulnerable to chemical attack.

As a scientist and one in the know, I take offense to this marketing ploy. What more am I to believe of those who twist the truth?

Does anyone know what it costs to perform a blind study to verify the effectiveness of this new cure? The study could be done at less than $300., confirmed and repeated at different places in the world, each at $300. a trial.

So why don't the miracle cure manufacturers do this?

-------

Back to the top scenario. . .It was well before home computers appeared, but such a diet pill was sold and it worked as described! It was encapsulated tapeworm eggs. Ingested, the tapeworm would live in the human intestine and consume nutrients the person was eating, so that in effect, the person lost weight while eating all they wanted. After infecting hundreds of people, the company went out of business, and (being at a time of pre-litigious society we have now) took their money and ran away.

I have never used this product (I don't yet refer to it as a medication). Should I? What fish to risk on it? You see. . .this situation is not where a cure is unknown. In fact, there are three known cures.

Those who say they got good results: Going back to the Myth and Facts post, you'll find the answer as to why people think such products work. After the disease killed the fishes unable to resist the parasite, the rest developed an immunity and resistance to survive the outbreak.

I am truly still hoping and hopeful there will be a faster, better medication. But I will need to see all the test data, all results and all multiple blind test results repeated around the world -- probably right after reading about it in the newspaper.

[weez1959]

Thanks for all your input Lee.

I decided to write to Polyp Lab and asked a bunch of questions, At some points I pretty much repeated word for word some of the responses in your post.
Basically I'm sort of doing what you did in your "should I write" thread and most probably will get the same reaction from them that you did. My Husband even went on to say that "they'll probably send some big guy over to break my knees"

Here's the email incase you're interested:

I'm very interested in your Marine Ich treatment, *Medic*. It's not often that a new medication comes on the market that says they are reef safe and kills Ich at the same time. How safe is this for the fish itself as I don't remember it being mentioned on your site.

Have there been documented studies/test performed for this product? If so were they performed in your labs only or were they duplicated in other labs around the country or elsewhere? Were there any blind study to verify the effectiveness of this new cure?
If so have any of the of the results/findings been published anywhere? Journals, websites, newspapers etc.

You mention the following:
Most available treatments do not target the free-swimming stage of the parasite which is one of the primary difficulties in dealing with these infections.

The only successful treatments of Marine Ich are in fact those which target the free-swimming stage of the parasite. Even the unsuccessful ones usually target the free-swimming stage. The parasite, once embedded into the fish, is protected by the fish skin and mucous coating. The free-swimming stage is the most vulnerable to chemical attack. So the above statement leads me to believe that this is/could be a marketing ploy or just a write-up that was made for marketing the product by someone who doesn't understand ich as well as he/she should.

Please do not take offense to anything being mentioned in this email as this is absolutely not my intention. I am only trying to know all the facts as this world is definitely ready for a new and effective cure for Marine ich and Velvet and yours would be very welcome!!

I'm sorry for all the questions but before going out to buy this product, which by the way I'm very interested in, I would like to know more.

Thank-you for your time,
Louise Gagnon

So there it is, can't wait to hear back from them, I'll let you know if I get any response to this. More than likely it will be defensive with nothing to back up the info but it's nice to dream while I can...

[weez1959]

Well I got an answer, not what I was hoping for but hey! It's what I was expecting, no links to proof or studies etc. He also says it's NOT a guaranteed cure so that says it all, I guess I'll spend my $37.00 on a coral!!

Here's the reply:

Hello Louise!

Thank you for your interested in our product line. Don't worry! We do not
take offence to your email at all. It shows that you are passionate and very
knowledgeable about the hobby. And that is what drives us as well =)

To answer your question - Yes, we have documented our research on the
product. Was it a blind study? No. (I'm not sure why anyone would perform
blind or double blind studies on non-human subjects). We collected data
using skin scrapes and gill biopsies. That is the de-facto standard for
research in this field. (So that empirical data can be submitted to
journals)

We originally started our research in early 2003 at the Zoology department
at University of Toronto. The initial research was not intended to be
submitted for publication, but was a part of a joint pilot study with
various Universities in North America. Our data was shared with several
researchers at the University of Guelph in the Marine Biology program. They
expanded the scope of the study and are gearing their research for a journal
submission.

In regards to the product itself:
Our product is NOT a miracle breakthrough cure against ich (and we don't
claim it to be). It is not a guaranteed cure for cryptocaryon in teleost
fish.

That being said, our product is extremely effective at what it is supposed
to do. Medic does disrupt the life cycle of certain external parasites.
Captive fish infected with any of the targeted external parasites will have
a significant increase in survival rates when treated with the product.

In regards to the literature on our website.
You are right. The free swimming stage is the most but vulnerable to
chemical treatment. But there are in fact many reef medications for external
parasites (including ich) do not target the free swimming form. There are
various nitro-based imidazole medications our on the market that come in
forms that need to be mixed with foods. (Or even come pre-mixed into flake
food). While imidzole medications can be effective against certain external
parasites, it is not often that fish have a strong enough appetite to go
after medicated foods. In addition, there are a large number of non-reef
safe treatment of ich, do not target the free swimming form, they target
cysts.

Oh.. and one last tidbit of information. In light of extremely strict
labeling of "medications" in Canada, we have had to change our product label
and the Medic product in a dehydrated crystalline form (instead of a liquid.
The information on the website will be updated shortly.

We sincerely appreciate the time you spent in enquiring about on our
products Louise. It is refreshing and pleasant to hear from hobbyists who
truly appreciate these animals for what they are. =)


Regards,

Kevin Benner
- Polyp Lab -

[wozza]

well it least they were honist and freindly!

[weez1959]

In regards to the product itself:
Our product is NOT a miracle breakthrough cure against ich (and we don't
claim it to be). It is not a guaranteed cure for cryptocaryon in teleost
fish.

They don't claim it to be but here's the description:

Medic is a highly effective treatment for external fish parasites present in both marine and freshwater environments. It contains an antibiotic component and a reef-safe oxidizing agent that work together to help eliminate parasites. It is particularly effective against:
Marine Ich - Crytpocaryon irritans Freshwater Ich - Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Marine Velvet - Amyloodinium ocellatum

They make it sound like it's gonna do the trick until you get to the word "HELP".
and then the bubble bursts!
They didn't underline the word help, I did...

I'd love to see one of those studies... must be pretty interesting, probably goes something like this:
dead, dead, dead, alive, dead, oh no wait, give him a shake... alive, dead, dead.
Ok now we try it again using mice!

[leebca]

Performing tests is an art. Determining something meaningful from test data is one part art, one part science, one part luck. Nowadays, there is so much money behind research that, to justify getting the money, the 'results' can sometimes be a stretch.

What is frustrating is that few people are trained to understand the slight of hand that is going on with the choice of words. The

We collected data using skin scrapes and gill biopsies.

is another way of saying the study was done in vitro. In other words, the study wasn't done on living fish, but done with fish cells, outside of the fish body. It's a 'test tube' study.

Let me take an unfair extreme example -- let's say I have human cells, living outside of the human body, infected with the common cold virus. I add salt crystals (sodium chloride -- non-iodized tabel salt) to those cells. The virus (and cells) die. I conclude from my in vitro study that 'salt kills the common cold virus.' This isn't a lie. Now I continue the in vitro study and determine that a 55% salt solution kills the virus and cells, but a 50% salt solution has no effect. My new conclusion is that 'a 55% salt solution will kill the common cold virus.'

The test (though stupid) isn't bad. It is the first step in determining if salt is a cure for the common cold. Next steps is to try it on animals, then people. As you can guess, the results won't show that salt kills the common cold in a living human being. Did it kill the virus in the in vitro studies? Yes. Could I write that on a box of table salt? Yes. But would I be very responsible if I did this? Would a government agency, Consumer Reports or some consumer advocate group raise heck and point fingers at me? You bet.

When you look closely at the literature and label information on the so-called reef-safe Marine Ich cures, you may sometimes see the phrase, 'contains the same chemical known to kill Marine Ich parasites' or something along those lines. It is not a lie, but the reader needs to understand how that can be interpreted.

It could mean that there is a chemical in the product which, in the in vitro studies did in fact kill Marine Ich parasites. Will it kill the parasites attacking the fish? No claim to that is being made. It could mean that there is a chemical in the product which was used long ago to kill Marine Ich parasites, but it was found to not be 100% effective. (An example of this is Methylene Green). No claim is being made about how effective that chemical is in killing the parasite. A lot of hidden facts goes along with such wording.

A college course could be given on how to twist the English language and the ability to say nothing with a whole lot of words. Using words the public really doesn't understand or which the public doesn't appreciate the entire depth of, is just the surface of 'promising nothing' using words. This is why and how anecdotal information gets spread around and somehow turns into 'fact.'

It is the hobby areas that such people can 'get away' using such language. No one is there to call them to task. There is no Ralph Nader, FDA or other agency to protect the public from herbs and pet remedy claims. It is, however, a battle that I and many other experienced aquarists fight on a day-to-day basis on the Internet.

My high school math teacher summed it up. Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

Want to know one of the biggest hoaxes pulled on the American public? If you're old enough you remember those old Crest commercials -- "This group had 24% fewer cavities using Crest toothpaste." The test results were true. You know what wasn't mentioned? There were 1xx tests performed to get that one result. Some tests showed those not using Crest had fewer cavities -- but this one group, for whatever reason wasn't clear, that was using Crest, in fact had 24% fewer cavities. Crest could and did legally use that in their advertising. What should the public think about the study? Did Crest have the documented study results? Sure. Did Crest share their study results? provide others their data? You bet. Could the results be duplicated? Only if more than 1xx tests were performed! The test result was an unknown 'fluke.' Still, it was a fact.

[weez1959]

Thanks Lee,
That's pretty much what I thought too when I read the Polyp-Lab email, nothing more than well thought out twisted words.
I am very grateful for the time you spent with these replies, it shows how very dedicated you are with this hobby.
When I first saw it I thought it might be a good addition to the meds drawer but was skeptical when I saw the price tag, now I'm happy I wasn't compulsive!

[leebca]

A last 'parting shot. . .'

What's wrong with using such products? What happens is while the hobbyist is trying to save the fish, time is wasted and more fish are lost, trying a product that is founded upon such ads. It's our fish that pay for it.

[weez1959]

no argument there!