Quote:
Originally Posted by Rea17
I find the sarcasm demeaning, and suggesting that those of us that DO have ich free tanks don't understand the difference between symptomatic and asymptomatic (but still disease carrying) fish is equally so.
It is a proven myth that ich dwells in every tank. |
the only sarcasm i post, is the sarcasm you mistakenly read into.
and again-not one of you DOES seem to understand the difference between 'clinical', and 'subclinical', or the difference between asymptomatic and pathogen free. the mere citing of long tank histories w/out symptoms as proof of non-existence of an organism is ludicrous. has absolutely no value as a 'medical', scientific, or logical proof.
especially when ich can reproduce and be harbored on fish asymptomatically, w/out you ever being able to see it. (sub clinical infection).
so-every tank being claimed to be ich free COULD be undergoing an infection cycle every month or so, w/out ever showing the slightest visible sign. how then, can a 'not seeing' be any proof of anything whatsoever?
if one's tank is asymptomatic for ich, great! there's no reason to assert proudly that that's equivalent to total eradication, or to make that assertion as a personal 'thing'. i'm not insulting anyone here in this thread-merely pointing out the difference between opinion and actual proof. (and how difficult establishing the proof of eradication, not 'asymptomatic-ness', is.).