No Sick Fish, No QT, No water change

[Anthony Calfo]

Parshmar - are you saying that a free content website promoting success in the hobby at all levels should be censored to protect advertising dollars? If so, you may want to reconsider what it is that makes this site great.

The advertiser has made public claims and in doing so invites consumers to ponder them.

Moreover... everyone/thing needs to stand on its own merit alone.

For better or for worse.

If there is any concern about truthful statements, I have saved a copy of the mfg site and wwm site that they have quoted. I would be very willing to help clarify this issue for the manufacturer or anyone else, if I can.

Perhaps the mfg could advise us when they got permission to use wet web media's copywritten name in a for-profit advertisement of testimonials?

How did they come to use Bob F's name when the post was really made my a chap named Marshall?

How exactly did the word "successfully" appear in the mfg advertisement for an endorsement that does not appear to be an actual endorsement and had it been cut and pasted excatly would not have included the word "successfully?"

Shall I go on?

Moreover... parshmar, can you (seriously) advise me on where it is you think any of us have gone wrong specifically here in sharing information on a reef "discussion" message board discussing a reef product?

Please.

[Randall_James]

Originally posted by parshmar
I can't believe that some of these comments are allowed here. Isn't NSF a sponsor here? Isn't it their sponsorship and the sponsorship of many others that funds this great site, pays salaries to the "experts" on this site.

I have no idea if it works or not, if it doesn't, it will be exposed. If it does work, then great, there is another option for all of us.

I would be willing to bet that the little icon below my Avatar "I support RC" and those like me provide at least as much if not more of the operating funds for this site than any 10 of the "Business" sponsors.

I would just LOVE to see the pay checks the "Pros" get here while I laugh all the way to the bank......

I am really greatful that the "Experts" are skeptical of claims made by "paying" sponsors.

Otherwise I would find it of extreme finacial benefit to create my own "Voodoo" magic in a bottle and sell it as a reef safe (easy enough to do) Ich curing (harder to prove me wrong) compound with dozens of "Glowing" testimonials (one time poster? Hey I can do that myself).. Hmmm gives me a great idea for a new product... (had no idea this was going to be so easy)
Stay tuned for further announcements on this late breaking story on a cure for Fish Herpes!!...............(ich was taken)

Incidentally, if you can not spell the names of your testimonial givers correctly, you expect me to trust your ability to make drugs for my reef tank??

[NicoleC]

I can't believe that some of these comments are allowed here. Isn't NSF a sponsor here? Isn't it their sponsorship and the sponsorship of many others that funds this great site, pays salaries to the "experts" on this site.

I have no idea if it works or not, if it doesn't, it will be exposed. If it does work, then great, there is another option for all of us.

I have seen no flames on this thread, or any kind of abuse toward the manufacturer. Certainly there is a lot of healthy skepticism, and the recent comments are very unflattering -- but they are also entirely factual and documented.

It is entirely within the scope of this site to discuss and critique aquarium products, even those of the sponsors -- many of whom have their own forums for feedback and discussion.

You are quite right -- if it doesn't work they will be exposed. This forum is exactly the kind of place the exposure happens!

I think the preponderance of evidence leans toward this sponsor being untruthful -- if only for the fact that they will not even respond to requests for evidence or the source of their claims. It would be great if the products DO work as claimed -- but the burden of evidence is on the manufacturer, not the other way around.

[GTR]

Yet if a user finds the product to work as claimed it's called shilling. And when a member makes accusations that a testimonial which in fact is from RC is not it's twisted into another what's in it", "I don't trust them" comment and not Oh, I made a mistake. Ryan was easy to find as was the other. Simple search procedure for any I Support RC logo holder.

I don't think this public display of distrust for the product will accomplish anything more than having the sponsor leave the site. It might surprise some that a hobby business can in fact survive without an RC sponsorship agreement in place.

IMO even well respected vendor's have nothing to gain by participating in these discussions. How many of these "outed" products are still in business, my guess is most, just not in "our" house.

SteveU

[puter]

Steve, I think it is entirely appropriate to question the veracity of a manufacturer's product claims. Particularly so when the only "evidence" offered as to the efficacy of the product is testimonials, including ones that were manipulated in a misleading or downright disingenous way to appear favorable.

[Randall_James]

gtrestoration
Paying for a spot on a sponsor list does not buy one a free pass on a product or claims that a product may or may not work.

Misspelling the names of people that have made claims for or against your product shows a certain lack of thoroughness.

The careful omission of a number of lines preceding a persons name (albeit in the same post) in such a manner as to indicate an endorsement is at the very least questionable, and at the worst fraudulent. It is also an invite to open criticism as to any and or all claims made. (Would be up to Bob F. to determine if the use of his name was in any way appropriate I suppose). But frankly I think it casts a heavy cloak of doubt on the entire rest of the site IMO.

I have seen no flames on this thread, or any kind of abuse toward the manufacturer.........(next few lines removed)
SteveU

I hope you understand the point being made. Sure I had seen the name Atomic on this board at one time or another, not that I lend his name any sort of credence but it should be posted correctly if used as a quote.

But thank you for the healthy defense in the free enterprise system all the same

[Anthony Calfo]

SteveU... shilling is only when the post-maker has a vested interest. Usually by an agent of the company, employee, distributor, mfg themselves, etc. Thats a UA violation.

But RC members that otherwise compliment or criticize a product are merely doing that. It is wholly part of reef hobby discussion... and appropriate on a reef hobby discussion message board.

But common sense makes one wonder why a new(er) member that is seemingly unaffliliated chooses to make the first three out of their first four posts glowing testimonials strategically placed in seperate forums for a given product (just an example). Is that the gray area you are referring to as shilling?

As for the testimonial in question here... I'm sorry, I'm having trouble fnding any other explanation for why the word "successful" was added conveniently before "treated" and how the original posters name got deleted with everything up to "Bob_F" and then "enner" got deleted afterwards. Please. That's insulting.

[parshmar]

I'm not saying anyone deserves a free pass, quite the contrary. There are a few posts on the first page that seemed to compare or lump it into a category of "snake oil".

Scrutinize all you want but how many of you have actually tried this product? Seems to me if you haven't tried it, then there isn't a whole lot of room to talk.

If it is a sham, I hope it's brought out/proven so people don't waste their money. Since i have never tried the product, i'm not going to defend or debate it's merits.

[Anthony Calfo]

parshmar... do you actually own an aquarium that has live animals in it whose very lives depend on you?

I cannot fathom otherwise why you would suggest we just "try" a product on live animals (in systems worth many thousands of dollars, no less) otherwise we "[haven't got room to talk.]"

That's just ludicrous and gives me cause for concern about the kind of aquarist you are and how you regard the value of life beyond our present discussion of consumer advocacy here.

No... we will not just try it or shut up! Please.

It is sensible if not necessary(!) to ask what the ingredients are if not listed, or have the manufacturer provide trials from reliable sources that can verify (without giving up proprietary ingredients) the claims that is is safe, if not effective as claimed.

That is not unreasonable. Can you understand that much?

[aaron23]

I SMELL MUCHO BEEF ~~~ GOOD GAME. ANTHONY OWNS....
NSF = BAD ....+... SAD ......

I checked out that site a couple months ago thought that was MIRACLE MEDICINE that was WAY OVERPRICED and i had known it was a load of crap. HEY BOB FENNER / MARSHALL HOW BOUT YOU POST AND DEFEND YOURSELF .. . . . NSF - FAILURE!@~!~ hehe j/p no hating.

Lets get some updates on anybody who's actually used their products. I dont believe Billy from riptidesreef had said taht i'm going to go ask him i know him very well....

Aaron.

[Anthony Calfo]

aaron23 - I'll wait for the English translation of your post

Full sentences, or at least a glossary with definitions, would be helpful.

Thank you in the meantime

[GTR]

Anthony... I'm not saying that the product is good or bad one way or the other. I also see no need for the product since I really don't keep many fish now and certainly not those that would be called prone to disease and subsequent infections. My concern was only that attention be given to claims of creating fictitious quotes of RC posts. Many RC members will read the original post and never read that the post was in error. That reader then months from now quotes the false information again. That's why I think it important for everyone to have the facts correct before making their comments public.

Randall_James

Misspelling the names of people that have made claims for or against your product shows a certain lack of thoroughness.

Being a small business owner since 1982 I speak from experience when I say that I certainly can't do everything involved in running a business to perfection. If I misspelled dorr seal once in a while in error would that make my product any less likely to fit perfectly and function as an original part would for 15+ years?

SteveU

[Steven Pro]

The testimonials from Ryan and Atomik seem to be direct quotes, but the BobF from WetWebMedia passage appears to me to be a deliberate attempt to mislead.

[Randall_James]

Originally posted by gtrestoration


Being a small business owner since 1982 I speak from experience when I say that I certainly can't do everything involved in running a business to perfection. If I misspelled dorr seal once in a while in error would that make my product any less likely to fit perfectly and function as an original part would for 15+ years?

SteveU

The misspelled word "dorr" is a bit different than 3 or 4 posted testimonials, on the same page , where lines were omitted, names misspelled, and who knows what other errors might be present. (in the products favor coincidentally)

The fact is, testimonials should 100% error free and complete in their own context.
Copy and paste is not a hard function to master and if you are going to be quoting threads on a forum, hand typing them seems a bit "dubious" when certain items are omitted or changed by accident?

In the world of medicine whether animal or human, those types of errors are not permitted. If you are going to produce a medication, you are in fact held to a standard above that of a 8th grade term paper missing some references to quoted sources.

I can appreciate your defending the errors, why I am not sure however.
By the same reasoning, I read the Bob Fenner endorsed the product, I never saw the post on RC that debunked the post as outright fraudulent. Instead they modify the name posted, and left it in the fraudulent context that it was originally posted without link to the original posting. (Explain the reason or was this a simple error as related to the word "dorr")

[Sicklid]

Can't someone just take a couple of the bottles to a lab for an ingredient analysis?

[parshmar]

Anthony, I don't know the ingredients of a lot of stuff I put in my tank. I use resources like this and testimony from people like yourself to find out if something is appropriate for my tank. I never told you or anyone to try the product. Don't act like I did and don't put words in my mouth. There is no need to be condenscending.

Why don't you use your resources to test the product, learn more about the product, find out ingredients, whatever you are capable of. I don't see one positive thing you've done here. You stating that we don't know what's in it, it may be unethical to sell something like this, is just as bad as what manufacturer has done.

Just answer me this. Do you know if the product works, do you know if it doesn't work, do you know if it's safe or unsafe. Or did you know any of this before the thread was started.

Again, all I am saying is that there is a very negative tone to this thread (from the begining) that if I was a sponsor, I would think twice about continuing to do so.

I would be willing to bet that the little icon below my Avatar "I support RC" and those like me provide at least as much if not more of the operating funds for this site than any 10 of the "Business" sponsors.

I would just LOVE to see the pay checks the "Pros" get here while I laugh all the way to the bank......

I don't know how many people "support RC" and I don't know what it costs for a vendor to sponsor this site but i'd guess about $400-$600 per month. I think it costs $25 per year to "support". Again, I don't know the numbers but judging from the number of sponsors here I think it's safe to assume that a big part of the monies collected by RC and the resources RC is able to provide for us come from our sponsors.

I'll say it again. If this product is a scam, then I hope everyone learns about it. i don't have any idea if it works or not but when I first started reading this thread I got the impression that this company had been torturing puppies or something.

[Steven Pro]

parshmar,

The burden should not be on us consumers/hobbyists to discover what is in a product, whether or not it works, or whether or not it is safe. That is the job of the manufacturer.

[Anthony Calfo]

What you do not realize is that to get a thorough chemical analysis from an independant lab, it can cost $10K-ish. Actually... I have reviewed several of them in the last year and not one was less than $12K to run the study.

That financial burden is not on me or you parshmar to do, although it chides me a bit to read you naively suggesting to me to "use [my] resources to test the product" as part of your defense.

It's the obligation of the mfg instead to run such trials if they want to make claims that they can back up when educated consumers ask intelligent questions like, "Is this safe for my tank" and "how do you know it works"

You are very naive IMO. I'm saying that in plainspeak... not with the intent to insult you. You have no concept of what is costs to run a website (paying authors to run the free magazine you love to read, pay for images, servers, begging advertisers to pay up when so many don't, etc)... you have no concept of what is required financially to run a reliable and verifiable analysis of a product... and you have no idea, clearly, what my perspective is here.

I do know what is costs to run a large website (if you did you'd thank the RC administration, volunteers and owners IMO).

I do know what good consumer advocacy is.

I'm pretty sure I don't know, too often, when to stop trying to educate someone that is unwilling to learn or listen.

I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Hopefully others will benefit by pondering our exchange here.

[Randall_James]

Originally posted by parshmar
Anthony, I don't know the ingredients of a lot of stuff I put in my tank.

This speaks volumes... and also where we are completely different. I have maybe 10K invested in my tanks. I would no sooner put an unknown chemical in my tank as try electro shock therapy on Tang with Ich.. I know that the EST will cure the Tang however... Try it you will see
( I had a light fixture fall into a tank once, not a single fish in the tank has suffered a disease, parasite or ailment since that time 3 years ago)

[Sicklid]

$10,000? WOW, I had no idea that it costs that much for a lab analysis. Have you heard back from the company about the Bob F. misquote yet Anthony? I would like to hear his explanation.

[parshmar]

Anthony, I don't think you got my point at all.

you have no concept of what is required financially to run a reliable and verifiable analysis of a product... and you have no idea, clearly, what my perspective is here.

You have no idea what I did before I was a teacher. I know exactly what it costs to do that kind of analysis. It was much more expensive than that, not that long ago. Yet, that is not what I was suggesting so maybe i'm not the naive one here. Read between the lines.

[dcoufal]

My general opinon - directed towards any product or service that might match fit this list:

A few typo's on a website => either a bad proofreader or someone that doesn't want to portray their best image

A few typo's in a testimonial => anything from a bad proofreader to someone trying to hide/disguise something

Several typo's in testimonial's - all creating a more "positive" image => Bad proofeaders need not apply. This has the potential to get the company in some "hot water".

Stating that you have "proof" and "test results" while never posting said results => If the "proof" and "test results" are as the company claims them to be, they can lose nothing by disclosing the information. Without disclosure of those results they trigger an inate response in most people to distrust the company for "hiding something" or "being dishonest".

Multiple "glowing" reviews started by new or nearly new (1-5 posts) individuals on multiple sites, with those individuals never posting about anything else => At the very least, this creates a serious cloud of suspicion. This is considered to be an "unnatural act" by most people and is most typically viewed as a shill.

Now, one of those things happening could simply be a natural occurence. But, the more of those acts that occur, the more likely people will distrust the company. Whether that distrust is correct will be obvious as time goes on.

Dwain

[cduran02]

The way I see it, this product serves a purpose. A person who uses it will spend a lot of money and find out it doesnt work and do one of two things: 1) Learn from the mistake and never do it again 2) get out of the hobby. Both of these are good outcomes, #2 is good becuause someone who is willing to blindly put something into their aquarium should not be in the hobby.

[Randall_James]

It just galls me to see someone benefit from people that will blindly try products on a "chance" they might work.....

Shame on the person that blindly uses products in a desperate attempt to save their precious pets, I understand the feeling of helplessness and the willingness to do what ever it takes to help your fine finned friend....

Worse than shame on those willing to capitalize on these same individuals by knowingly deceiving the person in the first group in an effort to line their pockets with the money put out by these desperate individuals.

Further shame on anyone that stands to defend the second group of people. Maybe more so than most as you make it possible for this group to continue on... perhaps you yourself have pulled such scams and so defend the others right to do the same thing....

[pecan2phat]

Originally posted by cduran02
The way I see it, this product serves a purpose. A person who uses it will spend a lot of money and find out it doesnt work and do one of two things: 1) Learn from the mistake and never do it again 2) get out of the hobby. Both of these are good outcomes, #2 is good becuause someone who is willing to blindly put something into their aquarium should not be in the hobby.

So If I'm willing to try a product, I fall into your two categories?

Come on guys, those are the type of comments that bring on some nasties and some bad feelings.

Okay guys, since I revived this thread, lets make sure that it stays as a discussion thread

Anthony,
I actually welcomed you when you came in with Jim to Atlantis last year for NERAC, I was manning the registration booth.

Hopefully this gives me a smidge of creadence above wacko & I'm not a one post wonder such as farmboy or utterback that some were referring to. I'm also not providing a testimonial, just a discussion that I am trying the product. Whether it works or not, is yet to be seen.

A large concern is whether the product is "reef safe". I might not have $10Ks in corals, but it's in the thousands mark. I also mentioned how Kick-Ick affected my acros (most likely the nitroimidazole reagents) and that the product was advertised to be "reef safe". Why I tried this in my reef tank is beyond me (especially since I told myself that the tank will never see Kick-Ick again), but I did try it. In the 3 weeks that I have dosed it, I have not experienced any negative effects on any of my SPS & clams. What I did notice was my yellow leather has not expanded much in the past week or so but also has closed up or started to slough either. As for LPS, I do have some candycanes that are not as full on the fleshy part, also within the last week or so. Even though the softie & candycanes are not at it's best, I would still consider it to be "reef safe" for my application.

Whether the product works or not:
Here's my opinion so far & I am basing this from my FOWLR tank that was heavily infected and lost 60% of it's fish inhabitants. I wouldn't consider the first 7 day treatment effective because I failed to remove the heavy dosing of Kick-Ick & Rally prior to the treatment. Week 2 would also be questionable since I also failed to turn off my Phosban reactor.
Of the 4 fish that were left after week 2, a Naso tang was the worst affected fish. He had a heavy covering of the parasite including the eye area and also showed patches of secondary infections on the body area along with some fin rot.
Due to the amount of visible parasites, I decided to give him a 5 minute fresh water dip. The dip was performed (I didn't think he would survive the dip) and he was returned to the tank for treatment week #3.
Whatever fell off during the fresh water bath came back within a few days but now it's been about 11 days and the Naso shows no visible signs of the parasite and what surprised me a bit was the body scars from the secondary infections have healed up nicely.
I won't say that the ick has been erradicated because:
#1 - I'm weary of the product so that's why I'm still dosing
#2 - I see no "visible" attachments but I think or thought I still saw my Blue angel scratch once or twice

I've eliminated all the possibles that I could in regards to interference with the product's active ingredient but i'm sure my water quality has gone downhill so I turned my skimmers back on for both tanks while still dosing the product.
I going to finish this treatment & stop the dosing to see if the intial results are just temporary.

I've used up about 4 bottles of the stuff, so I did spend some money on the product. It may very well be put with the Kick-Icks, RxPs & Chem Marins but it was asked if anyone has tried this product and I'm answering that question.