No Sick Fish, No QT, No water change

[Hobster]

Has everyone seen this? Just read the ad copy. They have a banner ad here on RC. I'll just leave it at that.....
:eek2:

http://www.nosickfish.com/

[dcoufal]

:lol: Thanks... I needed that! :lol:

[nossalucard]

It works on itchy skin too!!!! :lol:

[Anthony Calfo]

wow... three steps to success: pick you problem, pick your product, make your purchase.

I'm wondering if these folks have a dating service?

I'm thinking Nobel prize on the horizon.

[Falko]

I think these people thought the placebo effect would work on fish. Just one problem. It doesn't though.

[MiddletonMark]

Talked to the fellow at IMAC, seemed like a decent fellow.

Don't believe the product claims, but frankly - prefer to QT as I see other [behavioral] benefits from a stress-free tank in my basement, where the only `human interaction' my fish get for the first month is when I'm around to feed.
By the time they make the display, they're coming out when I walk past the tank, eating well, and looking good.

If they had a bottle for that, I'd think about it ;)

[Anthony Calfo]

Nice fellow or not, I cannot imagine how the he/mfg can quantify or back up the claims "no qt" needed, "no water changes," etc.

The product also lists no ingredients I can see.

If this chap wants to distance himself from other products known to be fraudulent or "snake oil", he needs to clarify.

Some consideration for responsible marketing would help too.

[MiddletonMark]

You got that right.

But in this hobby, responsible marketing isn't practiced by that many. This is not very impressive, I agree ... but not that much different IMO than profiteering, poorly chosen livestock to sell, and that end.

Sadly, the crappy LFS in my town has another set of products to confuse newbies :(
And the good ones one more way to distinguish themselves :)

[Anthony Calfo]

very true... and sometimes it is or at least feels like the best we can do as conscientious aquarists, mentors, merchants, etc is what amounts to triage: help those that want the help/be advised... those that will listen. And don't stop to take the time to ponder about the slow or resistant ones.

It's a huge industry/hobby.

In the time it takes to convince a stubborn consumer of something they will learn (or cause them to fail or leave the hobby)... we can help several/many more folks who are willing to listen/learn or consider alternates in their information gather process.

I can appreciate that the familiar names in this thread do this indeed as y'all travel the boards and help folks/share opinions.

And I sincerely do not want to see any good merchant fail. Quite the contrary!

I would encourage this chap to consider such feedback. If potential consumers have reservations, founded or unfounded, do tailor that marketing to correct that. Starting with a product information page that actually has information about the product stating how it works, and not merely that it is just the best thing since sliced bread. Seriously :)

[mhltcob]

when i talked to him at IMAC, he said "it works instantly 85% of the time". and it works on tumors. I mean i havn't heard of a product that will change how we keep fish since the eco aqualizer, which "won product of the year in 2003". It seems a bit on the expensive side, but then again arn't all good products?

[Anthony Calfo]

If I'd had more tea with breakfast, I think I would have become suddenly and spastically incontinent with that eco-aqualizer comment. :p

Fantastically funny :D

[benf]

I would like to hear from someone who has used the ich product. I did notice in their ad that they covered themselves by saying if it doesnt work"There are two strains of ich that are hard to fight" and they could easily say you must have had one of the 2 difficult strains.

[mhltcob]

I didn't reallize that their were "multiple strains" of ich. Maybe cryptocaryon irritans has evolved into a bacteria? Maybe when you add marc weiss reef vital DNA it makes the parasite morph into a super parasite. As far as i know copper kills both "difficult strains", and costs a heck of alot less, and you can probably set up a quarantine tank with the money you save to use it in. maybe the water and food coloring in the "no sick fish" medication isn't effective against "both strains", but if you add another 50$ bottle you would get better results.

[Anthony Calfo]

ahhh... very good point! (seriously here)

A Qt tank is less expensive and has many other merits. Magic meds can't physically remove pests and predators (Aiptasia, fish lice/isopods, predatory worms, snails, and other various undesirable hitchhikers).

That's assuming that said magic med can(!) cure every known pathogen so as to even begin to fairly assert the claim of no QT needed (with regard only for pathogens). And I know of no such proven silver bullet of a med.

A bare bottomed ten gallon tank new costs $10-ish (less on sale or mere dollars used). A sponge filter and small air pump for QT style (sterilizable) filtration plus aeration. Thermometer. Plastic plant or PVC pipe (again... non-porous objects for sanitation). Hang on heater if room is not climate controlled. Glass cover (piece of plastic, whatever.

We are talking well under $100 for a QT tank with lights. And that's a gross underestimate. With sales and/or used gear... it often is under $50. And one of the the best (and most necessary) investments of any long-term successful marine hobbyists.

To run without QT for your new livestock is like playing Russian roulette, as sometimes say... nobody wins the game - some (aquarists) just get to play (risk) a little longer than others :p

Tragedies of introduced predators and disease can be removed or at least reduced drastically by proper QT protocol. Merely 4-8 weeks of patience.

You'll be hard pressed to find a single hatchery, fishery, public aquarium or professional aquarist that does not use QT. That says a lot.

[Anthony Calfo]

Today I received an e-mail from Tyler of "No Sick Fish" that was most impressive. It was clear, frank, considerate and to me... desirous of sharing information about his/their product in a constructive response to questions/concerns from aquarists.

He has invited me to share his message, and in support of merchants intent on doping good business... I am quite happy to do so.

My thanks and kudos to Tyler/No Sick Fish for taking a patient and professional approach to legitimate consumer questions/concerns for their product.

Best of luck/life to all :)

Anthony

-----

The pasted content of Tyler's address follows here verbatim. Again... kudos for the effort. It will be great to watch the product/company and product evolve. Offering samples to aquarists (without sales... impressive) at national trade shows is indeed good business and good faith. Quite so... confidence in their product.

If any aquarists have tried the product and care to offer an honest/respectful review of it... it is welcome here.

From Tyler at NSF:

"When I say “No QT” I am not implying that you never need to qt your
fish. I think quarantining is very important in fish care. When I say
“No QT” I am implying that you do not need to quarantine your fish in
order to use our product. You do not need to QT your fish because it is
a reef safe product. It is meant to be used in the show tank.

I agree that QT is a proven method and it does work. When you cant
quarantine your fish, or you don’t want to...etc etc... this is a very
good option.

“No water changes necessary” We are not implying that you never have to
change your water again, nor would I ever recommend that. We do not
sell “Fish never get sick again medicine”. When we say “no water
changes” we are implying that you do not need to change or do partial water
changes with our medicine before you begin or when you are done. Many
customers have asked us if they need to change their water when they
are finished to remove the chemical from the water. No they do not,
that is the only thing that is implied by “no water changes”

When I was at IMAC I did not try to sell one bottle. All I did was
give away the product. The medicine sells it self. Every one at IMAC that
has taken the chance to try the medicine loved it. I received
telephone call’s stating “I know why the medicine costs so much” “ It’s the best stuff I have ever used”"

[NicoleC]

Alas, I am very skeptical of a medicine that does not state the active ingredient. (Or ANY ingredients.) Tyler may have the best intentions, but without such a critical piece of information, no such product will go in my tank.

He may want to reconsider his ad campaign. A flashing banner that says "No Water Changes - Ever!" is unlikely to attract complimentary interest from informed hobbyists.

[Anthony Calfo]

very well stated, Nicole.

Indeed... I am known to regularly make the statement that, "I won't eat anything that doesn't have a list of ingredients in it... and I sure won't put any such thing in my aquarium with countless lives depending on me, and many thousands of dollars invested."

On reply to Tyler, I have respectfully asked him to share information about the nature of his product. If not the ingredients, then the nature of the matter at least (antibiotic, homeopathic like yeast cell derivatives, etc, etc.).

Time will tell if this is a good product or not. There is lots of cause for concern at this point from superlative claims that are not clearly defined.

Tyler does indeed seem to be aware of consumer doubts here.

[Randall_James]

Just kind of disheartening to see ReefCentral sell access to the members here on a product of "dubious" content. Perhaps if there were a line of members that had in fact tried the "Stuff" and could vouch for it. I fear the same problems faced by any Ich treatment. "I feed my fish ginger for 1 week and the ich went away" (sound familiar?) Next time I will feed my fish taco sauce for a week and scare the ich away with capcium oil.

[Anthony Calfo]

from an advertising/sales perspective... RC cannot easily prejudice against sponsors that meet the same requirements as others.

Nor should they IMO.

The forums are for discussions, the banners are for advertising that supports the forums (read: pays the bills).

There is also the issue of who gets to say what products have value and which do not?

I see your point my friend, but RC is just not in the business of consumer product testing, and as such... cannot pass judgment.

Again... that's what productive forum discussions are for :)

[Randall_James]

Well one can only hope that the product does no harm I suppose. I do know that RC does in fact limit advertising in the forums however to only "fish" related business.
I am however in the group with NicoleC that does not induce unlabeled products into my tanks. Just so hard to substantiate claims made by a product like this one or any other for ich.

[Anthony Calfo]

understood... the claims here are a very far stretch, the defined support to back the claims weak at best, and the marketing can be perceived as misleading.

But... the response by Tyler and their presence at IMAC was very considerate and professional. Very different from what we have seen in years past from dubious product manufacturers.

I appreciate and respect Tyler's intent and attempt.

Always optimistic... let's see how it develops in time. If some significant part of the product turns out to be useful/effective as claimed... it will/may well be worth a look. I'm not sold yet though.

[Nagel]

Originally posted by Randall_James
Just kind of disheartening to see ReefCentral sell access to the members here on a product of "dubious" content.

I can speak a little on this issue, but I am afraid that I am limited in what I can say (for obvious legal reasons). RC has in the past removed sponsors whose products proved to be, well, lets just say not completely truthful. The sponsorships do pay the bills, and we cannot test every sponsors product, but a quick search of RC would show that Mods and Staffers are often outspoken about snake oils and such, and we are in favor of better husbandry practices. We like to give products a chance to prove themselves, when they cannot, or they fall drastically short of their claims, it is possible for RC to remove a sponsor, and it has been done in the past...

[Hobster]

In all fairness, it should be noted that there are many products out there for aquarium/reef use that do not list the active ingredients. Some are from well known respected companies and some are well known and perhaps not so respected. There are several of these products that do in fact work. I guess only time and a track record will tell.

[Randall_James]

Originally posted by Hobster
In all fairness, it should be noted that there are many products out there for aquarium/reef use that do not list the active ingredients. Some are from well known respected companies and some are well known and perhaps not so respected. There are several of these products that do in fact work. I guess only time and a track record will tell. And there is not a one of them I will put in a tank that has thousands of dollars of livestock in it. I suppose it is a matter of personal preference but my investment is not subjected to "unknown" compounds that may be quoted as "Reef Safe" It is just such a fragile environment and the potential for problems so high (is enough trouble keeping a happy place without adding unknown chemicals)


I am not sure what chemical additives from "Well known respected companies" you would be referring to. Could you enlighten me on a few of these additives that do not have the ingredient list and are also known to work?

I personally would LOVE to have an additive for ich that is both effective and reef safe. It would save countless hours and dollars in copper, hyposalinity, qt tank time etc. If I had a steady supply of ich infested fish, I would gladly create half dozen tanks and start experimenting. I just have no way to control or even diagnose with certainty the cruddy parasite to start with. :(

[NSF]

In response to mhltcob about what he said I said at IMAC. "It works instantly 85% of the time". That is incorrect, and he has miss spoken. My customers have told me that 70-80% of the time the ich is no longer visible with in 24hours. This does not mean that the ich is gone, and it is important to continue treatment to get rid of all of the ich still remaining in the tank in different stages of there life cycle.

This does not imply that every user will have the same success with such a speedy treatment. For example, I had a customer call in a couple weeks ago that was treating for ich. He was on his 5th day of treatment and the ich was still present, He said that he was going to continue treating after the seven days was up. He did get back to me, and told me that everything worked out. 10-11 days of treatment. Every tank and fish is different, and will have different response times. For most cases treatment will be successful within the first week of treatment.


Mhltcob also misspoke about our claim on tumors. I don’t think he read things very close on our website or listened very closely to me at IMAC. On the website it was stated very clearly that results are not in favor of the fish healing itself from a tumor. Using our medicine we found that we did have a positive effect on some fish that had problems with tumors. Some successful, and many others unsuccessful. Our intentions by placing the tumor medicine on the market were not to cash in. We listed the tumor medicine, to let consumers know that there was hope if they were fighting a tumor on the fish. We have never said that it works great, or that there is even a 35% chance that it will work on their fish. For the consumers that were looking for a product to help, we decided to list the product. We never meant to trick any customers. I thought it was stated very clearly. Since then we have decided to take it off to eliminate the possibility of confusing consumers.


We all know that you can set up a QT and treat your fish with copper. It works, and is a proven method. The biggest problem for some users is that you have to be able to catch your fish in order to transfer them to a separate tank. If and when you do finally catch the fish, it is probably completely stressed out. In this stressful state the chances of survival have gone down a considerable amount, and even more after you transfer it to a new tank.

Our medicine is also used by customers that have a QT tank set up and can catch there fish more easily, but don’t want to wait 4-6 weeks while they treat there fish in a separate tank in the basement.

So when ever your tired of chasing your fish around your tank, knocking down coral or even taking apart your tank and waiting 4-6 weeks during treatment and maintaining two tanks, you can use our medicine and be done with the mess most likely in one week.
The following is one of the emails that I received today. Emails like this come in every day from new customers that have used our medication. Our company is growing because of satisfied customers who are spreading the word.


-----Original Message-----
From: Billy B [mailto: @RiptidesReef.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:14 AM
To: sales@nosickfish.com; Sales
Subject: Contact Request
Name: Billy B.

Customer Type: Retail Customer

Email: @RiptidesReef.com

Phone: 2148944

How they heard about us: Other - @charter.net

Hi, It\'s Billy from Riptide\'s Reef. We just received your product and I wanted to thank you for the expidited shipping. I was under the impression it would take a couple of weeks to recieve the items if we did\'nt choose express shipping. We have\'nt had the opportunity to use the transit yet. We are also a small company trying to grow but I\'ll let you know after we use it. We had a whipfin fairy wrasse with ich and used the ich treatment you included in our order and it cleared up in 24 hours. The fish system is connected to 300 gallons of coral tanks and harmed nothing! Thank you for your professionalism and please give credit to the gentleman who suggested your products. His name is Randy and I included his email address. Sincerely, Billy B www.RiptidesReef.com

[Anthony Calfo]

FWIW... catching fish in a reef is a non-issue. Here at RC, over at WWM, etc there are fast and easy tips and tricks for catching fishes gently and easily.

Spotting at night is one way (like night fishing... I literally dumbstruck Daniel Knop while visiting his home in Germany. He was complaining he had been trying to catch two rabbitfishes out of his 1500 gallon reef tank for weeks tro no avail. We had some beers, stayed up chatting late... and then I caught both fish with a single swoop of the net in the wee hours of the night. The first one was caught before he could walk over to the sink for a bucket :D). Good aquarists have caught their fishes sensibly like this for years.

If the fish needs to be caught by day in smaller home aquaria, then a clean garbage can or two ($8 at the local Wal-mart, etc) and one of the tanks powerheads/water pumps can pump a tank dry in mere minutes. The targeted fish can literally be scooped up in a moment from the shallow water barely covering their backs... and the aquarium pump can fill the tank back up again in mere minutes. All this for the cost of a new garbage can (still useful later :D) and a pump that you already have in your aquarium.

Fishes stressed by capture occur with misinformed folks mercilessly trying to run down wake and frisky fishes with a single net in the 3-D environment of their tank. Its simply misinformed.

[dcoufal]

Originally posted by Randall_James
I am not sure what chemical additives from "Well known respected companies" you would be referring to. Could you enlighten me on a few of these additives that do not have the ingredient list and are also known to work?

I can think of one that is "well known and respected" by many.... though, not everyone holds that same opinion of them.

I fear that mentioning that product here may cause this thread to spiral into a dark abyss leading to the demise of an otherwise intelligent and useful conversation. ;) At least.... that's what typically happens.

Dwain

[Hobster]

Originally posted by dcoufal
I can think of one that is "well known and respected" by many.... though, not everyone holds that same opinion of them.

I fear that mentioning that product here may cause this thread to spiral into a dark abyss leading to the demise of an otherwise intelligent and useful conversation. ;) At least.... that's what typically happens.

Dwain

Thank you:) Took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to just leave it, but you said it perfectly!

[Anthony Calfo]

And I have yet to have to close a single thread in my forum (ever)... I would like to keep it that way ;)

Thanks Dwain :)

[mhltcob]

Originally posted by NSF
In response to mhltcob about what he said I said at IMAC. "It works instantly 85% of the time". That is incorrect, and he has miss spoken. My customers have told me that 70-80% of the time the ich is no longer visible with in 24hours. This does not mean that the ich is gone, and it is important to continue treatment to get rid of all of the ich still remaining in the tank in different stages of there life cycle.

Mhltcob also misspoke about our claim on tumors. I don’t think he read things very close on our website or listened very closely to me at IMAC. On the website it was stated very clearly that results are not in favor of the fish healing itself from a tumor. Using our medicine we found that we did have a positive effect on some fish that had problems with tumors. Some successful, and many others unsuccessful. Our intentions by placing the tumor medicine on the market were not to cash in. We listed the tumor medicine, to let consumers know that there was hope if they were fighting a tumor on the fish. We have never said that it works great, or that there is even a 35% chance that it will work on their fish. For the consumers that were looking for a product to help, we decided to list the product. We never meant to trick any customers. I thought it was stated very clearly. Since then we have decided to take it off to eliminate the possibility of confusing consumers.



Tyler,

I did not misspeak, you said that quote directly. anyway you are yet to get back to me with the "studies" that you say were done. I am very curious as to where you base your claims on. Surely You must agree with me that if a medication is going to work in the reef tank, it would actually be EASIER for it to work in a lab/controlled setting than a reef tank setting. So you need BOTH lab and real world studies to back up your lab studies, not one or the other. How would you know your product works solely from customer claims, and how would you go about creating it, if no lab work was done. How did you know these products worked in the first place. The whole point of experiments are control, you have little of that in your "testimonials". You can't possibly make your claims solely from testimonials. How did you make your first claims.

I assume your studies you claimed were done show the following-

Show me a study that shows increased survival with fish effected by tumors using your medication over the control.

Would a 50$ medication be worth the money if it only improved the survival 10%, what about 5%

Show me a study that shows increased survival with fish effected by ich with your medication over that of the control. What about your medication versus copper sulfate?

This same medication must have also gone through a study to evaluate its "reef safe" claim.

Show me your studies to evaluate these claims-
What do you consider reef safe?
Does coral have equal or close to equal survival rates chemicals and without.
What about echinoderms?
what about the fauna?

Anyways i would love to look at your data and how the experiments are performed.

BTW, I still find it amazing that all these magical potions and cures for every disease came out at THE SAME TIME.

Thanks for your continued response.

[Anthony Calfo]

When reef systems cost many thousands of dollars (even tens of thousands for larger displays), it is important to address these concerns.

Proprietary ingredients/recipes can be protected by simply sharing the independent test results that led to the claims for success, reef-safeness, etc. and by what definitions.

Reef keepers are generally very savvy, well-read, intelligent folks. We can accept various degrees of reef-safeness. Just look at products used to kill aiptasia, flatworms, microcrustaceans ("red bugs", etc). These each have a range of tolerance whereby they are safe for a majority, but can be harmful to some desirable organisms. Armed with the definitions of the product, we (consumers) can choose the use the product safely (or not) or simply remove the items that are at undue risk.

But we need information beyond advertising and testimonials.

Without such information, what may be a good product is remitted to an unsavory category with other less esteemed products. And that does no good for the product or the waiting/willing consumers.

[melev]

Okay, here's my stance: I want to know what is in it. I don't care if it cost you .05 to make a bottle's worth and you are charging me $50.00 for it. That isn't an issue. If you can state what is in the bottle, but not the percentages of each component, I have to imagine that your product is still safe from home-cloning.

Not to mention, by now you must be looking into patenting your product just to protect your investment, right? I suppose once that has been accomplished, you'll be less fearful to share a least a part of the recipe.

As was pointed out, what surprises us most is not that you have a cure - but rather than you have 10 cures all at once. All bottles are the same size, for about the same price, and dose about the same (based on what I read on your website).

If it is the cure-all of many ailments, great! Heck, if it is simply liquid ginger and it works, I've no problem with that. However, to just give it away and then have feedback be the basis for others to purchase it seems beyond haphazard. What happens in six months when more and more people come forward with a suddenly discovered common problem? Over the years, I've discovered this hobby may be global, but the participants are a tight community. We usually find out what is going on pretty quickly, via daily online contact.

Lastly, as with most things in this hobby, there are many ways of accomplishing the same thing. And there are many options when it comes to treating our fish. Being upfront can garner huge support, but being elusive definitely sends up the warning flags.

[Trickman2]

Interesting thread, Its too bad no one really knows if this stuff works. Wish we had some studies.

[Anthony Calfo]

"wish we had some studies..."

Amen and pass the ammunition.

[wds21921]

After reading through this and having been in the hobby for so many years I can understand and sympathize with the reactions on here concerning the claims made.

I too have and still wonder about many of the products on the market that are introduced with varying claims and little more than testimonials to back up the efficacy of many of the products offered.

I think it would be easy to make such claims as is for this particular line and possibly harder to disprove than to prove it's effectiveness? Since we're talking about living things, the variabilities of how and why are endless and sometimes, may never be answered either correctly or enough to satisfy everyone? We can however quantify the overall results though and litmus test it by our own knowledge and experience when given the facts, not simply claims.


In the last few years though we've seen even government regulated testing scewed to offer benefits to the manufacturer at the cost of the consumer's health which was the very reason regulators such as the EPA were originally formed to protect the general population. Lately the validity of some there regulations and testing has come under deserved fire. Another factor to keep in mind.

I've had very good luck in being selective about what condition the animal is in before I purchase it over the last several years. Even with that though, there is always a possibility of some unwanted pest sacrificing my animals health. Preventative measures go a long way in this hobby.

It's funny in a way, as advanced as we get in both this arena as well as our own health some of the most basic of things cannot be eliminated but only managed until it's run it's course.

It may be a good product that does in fact eventually live up to many of it's claims. For myself though it's a little pricey.
When you consider the cost of your animals versus the "sometimes" small investment in there health and future, it confuses me as to why someone would offer such a product when there are already proven cures out here? Maybe they're not all inclusive as this manufacturer claims his is but there are already products and methods that do work for less money.

I hope the manufacturer understands our skepticism and realizes just how expensive the hobby already is and that many have gotten burned and dropped out of the hobby altogether over claims similar to or greater than this.
It's (IMO) not a personal attack on his company or there products so much as it is healthy and warranted skepticism over some of the claims presented.

[pecan2phat]

I've been in the hobby since '79 and I'll speak about why I decided to try the product and it's results for me.
Story starts out with this:
Back in July, I had an outbreak of ick in my SPS/clams dominated 120g reef tank. Of course it was due to insufficient quarantining methods with an Achilles that I introduced into the tank a few months prior. I don't treat with meds in quarantine if no symptoms appear and this guy was in my 55g for at least two months. He started showing the telltale signs of the white speaks but not in great numbers and they would fall off and not always reattach. There was no scratching or flashing observed so I left it until I introduced a Chevron. I'm assuming that the stress of the addition brought out the parasite in greater numbers but that's when I decided to treat with Ruby Reef's Kick-Ick. I know that there are a ton more failures than success with this product but it worked once or twice for me in the past 10 years and the small percentage was still better than not trying on my part.
Yes, I tried to catch the fish but had no luck and got lazy!
So I started my treatment and 2/3rds into the treatment, some acros and all my monti caps start to RTN from the base up. I stop the treatment, turned on my skimmer, added carbon and performed a decent size water change and kissed the Kick-Ick goodbye and eventually the two tangs also. No other fish were quite affected like the tangs and I just left it alone.

Fast forward to the end of September and I noticed that my 90g FOWLR is infected. This tank has been ick free of symtoms for 4 years and there were no new additions so it must be from my carelessness of transferring the parasite from the reef tank. (probably from not washing my hands from one tank to the other) I'll admit that I could've taken all the critters and the live rock out & hypo'd the tank but that was hindsight. So since I had a 2L bottle left of Kick-Ick left over, I started to treat. After the first 14 days, things got worse, so I do a 2nd treatment. Then I asked Randy on the chemistry forum whether I should turn off the UV sterilizer and he thinks yes and directs me to some manufacturer's TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM off of Premium Aquatic's website:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=693921
I read this data and apply the remedy of an 150% dosage with the UV turned off for treatment #3. By this time, I've invested another $100 in the product and start to supplement with their Rally product due to apparent secondary infections taking place. Each treatment is done for 12 days with a rest period of 2 days and a 17% water change to improve water conditions. So by the time I'm into treatment #4, I start to lose my Harlequin tusk, Imperator, Majestic, Annularis & Flame hawk.

This is about the time I came across the NSF banner when I was browsing the Fish Disease forum. I figure what the heck, I'll try it since it looks like the tank would need to broken down soon because the remaining 4 fish did not look good at all.
I started to post on one of the threads on the Fish Disease forum that I was going to try this but right from the beginning, I was labeled a "marketer", a "#1 salesman for NSF" and I haven't even started the treatment or said if there were any positive or negative results.
One of the results that I have experienced is that it is "reef safe" in my application. The reason why I say this is because whatever I was thinking at the time (and it probably wasn't much!), I wanted to try it in the reef tank at the same time. The only other thing that I did was to email NSF and ask again if this product was truely "reef safe" and if it has been tested in tanks with SPS corals. I did not want to lose any additional SPS corals. The reply was absolutely & that it has been tested in SPS tanks with no negative effect.
I've dosed this product into both my tanks twice a day consecutively for 3.5 weeks and have had no RTN'ing on any acros, no negative effects on 7 clams, no negative effects on any shrimps or snails. After the first two weeks, maybe half way into the 3rd week, I did notice that a yellow leather did not expand as much and some of my Candycanes also did not have great expansion.

As for what the product was intended for, here are my results so far:
After the first 7 days, the reef tank appeared good. I base this on a few spots on a True Perc and a Yellow Coris and Bartlett scratching with no spots.
After day 7, I noticed that the spots on the Perc were gone and the Coris & Bartlett were not scratching but I continued to dose as a precaution.
As for the 90g FOWLR, nothing improved but the remaining 4 fish were still alive. Continued to dose.

Around day 9, I receive an email from NSF asking how the meds were working, so I relate my results. I got a call from Tyler at NSF to attempt to troubleshoot my conditions and we come to a conlusion that the residual heavy doses of Kick-Ick & Rally might be affecting the active ingredient in NSF. At this time, I also told him that the reef tank looked good so far & that I will stop dosing that tank in another day or two to conserve the remaining meds for the FOWLR tank. Also ordered more cause I felt treatment #1 was wasted and ineffective.
I turned on the skimmer, added carbon & performed a 45% water change over the next two days. I restart the NSF on the FOWLR and continue.
Day 15 on the reef tank, (I stopped dosing on day 12 I think) and the scratching & flashing is back.
So all this time, I'm talking back and forth with Tyler from NSF via email and out of one of my replies, I mentioned that through out this ick ordeal, I left my Phosban reactors running on both tanks because Ruby Reef's instructions stated that phosphate removal or binding media can be left running. Didn't think to mention this to NSF in the beginning and forgot about it. When Tyler found out, he told me to stop running the Phosban and that Phosban will take some of the active ingredients out of the meds.
It's been a full treatment week (3rd treatment) for both tanks with no skimming, carbon, UV or Phosban.
Reef tank visible symptoms are gone and the FOWLR tank has cleared up of visible symptoms also. I did have to fresh water dip a Naso in the beginning of week 3 because he looked so covered with the parasite and his secondary infection (body patches & sores) looked so bad, I thought he was a goner. He still has some marks from the body sores but it looks like it's almost healed.
I'm into week 4 as a precaution once again, but I have turned on the skimmers for both tank at the start of the 4th treatment due to concern that the reef tank has not had a water change since 10/16/05 and the algae film on the glass is almost every other day. I'll finish up the 4th treatment and stop to see if the symptoms return.

So to me, I do see some positive results in such that I was able to treat my reef tank with something other than Kick-Ick, the FOWLR was well on it's way to a total crash and most likely would've been broken down to start up from scratch.

Whether or not this has "eradicated" the parasite, I'll know in about two weeks.

I don't know if this is the type of feedback that people were looking for but this is what I've experienced so far.

[Anthony Calfo]

"... [I asked] again if this product was truely "reef safe" and if it has been tested in tanks with SPS corals... The reply was absolutely & that it has been tested in SPS tanks with no negative effect. "

And despite repeated requests from various people... the mfg has not offered a single piece of data to show their scientific trials to back up their claims. All we have is marketing and repeated directs to testimonials... some concerns to about shilling, etc.

I ask again to the mfg or anybody: where is the evidence to back up the claims?

I don't have a problem with the lack of evidence so much as the repeated offering of unsubstantiated claims. Without the latter, we have less concern about the former and relegate it to "try at your own risk," which I am frankly OK with... hoping simply that educated consumers will do it sensibly (ie - QT tanks with small risks and limited variables).

[puter]

Anthony -

The third from last testimonial on the mfg's site is listed as being from "Bob F" on Wet Web Media.... curious if it is "the" Bob F. and if so, that he'd try a product, ingredients unknown.

[Anthony Calfo]

wow... interesting! And I would be floored if it was the Bob Fenner. Bob does not take samples, do testomials, etc. In fact... he doesn't even have any marine aquariums presently (or for some time now) because of his heavy travel schedule.

I will check it out, let Bob know, and perhaps Bob will ask this chap to answer for the use of the testimonial. Odd to say the least.

[Anthony Calfo]

Ughhh... found it. And adding to the growing lift of concerns about the intent of this manufacturer... I found the following:

what the mfg claims is the testimonial on his site is:

----------------------------------
Posted on WET WEB MEDIA

My Fish were getting along just fine, even the blennies. The only issues I had was a case of Popeye on one of my yellow tangs, which I treated successfully with No Sick Fish’s Popeye treatment.
Bob F.
------------------------------

But what is actually said on the wetwebmedia.com is:

-------------------
We have a large cleaner crew but as for fish we have (many),
1) Queen Angel (Juvenile)
2) Emperor Angel (Juvenile)
3) 2 Yellow Tangs
4) 1 Purple Tang
5) Tassel Fish
6) Orange Shoulder Tang (Juvenile)
7) 2 Blackcap Jawfish
8) Purple Firefish (the guy in question)
9) 5 Cleaner Shrimp
10) 2 Bicolor Blenny
11) Coral Beauty
12) Sixline Wrasse
13) Ruby Head Fairy Wrasse
14) and the big daddy a Zebra Moray
I know this seems like a lot of fish but so far everyone is getting along just fine (even the blennies). The only issues I have had was a case of Popeye on one of the Yellow Tangs (which I treated with NoSickFish.com's Popeye treatment)

- BF: I do wonder what is in these products.

and a case of Lymphocystis on the other Yellow Tang and the Queen Angel which went away on their own. I noticed tonight that my Firefish has what appears to be several blisters forming along his sides. I don't recall seeing them before today but now he has about 5 of them mainly on his right side and 1 or 2 on his left side. He isn't lethargic and eats just fine. I'm not sure what these are and as a result I don't know what to do. I hoping that you can help me because I really don't want to lose him.
Thanks,
Marshall

- BF: I wish I could... the microdesmid may have a subcutaneous "worm" or protozoan pathogenic disease... but, w/o removing it (I would not add medicines to the main system...) and trying a few (e.g. Praziquantel, Metronidazole) targeted therapeutics... and the added stress... I would leave it as it is, and "hope for the best", a spontaneous recovery. Bob Fenner

----------------

As you can see... the mfg has... er, "strategically" edited Bob Fenner's name to Bob F when it really is some chap named Marshall that wrote in. It's not even a testimonial. Well... not the way the mfg portrays it ;)

Marshall also does NOT state the fish were treated "successfully" with the NSF product... the mfg site added that word.

Very, very sad to see.

Read for yourself on the post named "Sick Purple Firefish 9/4/05
"
here:
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/dartfshfaq2.htm

and compare it to the mfg site (before they wisely delete that post):

http://www.nosickfish.com/testimonials.jsp

I have made a copy of their web page as well as a backup of our WWM page.

Good consumer advocacy, folks.

[TippyToeX]

Yikes, that's bad news right there. :(

[melev]

The only thing that is clear is how much money can be earned if only a tiny % of RC members buy the product.

[Randall_James]

The Bob F. post is still on the mfr site.

Also there are claims made by a couple RC members

Attomikk and Ryan... interestingly neither show up in member searchs... Wonder what that is about?

Posted at NSF site

Posted by Attomikk on Reef Central

Guys, NoSickFish’s ICK medication is a miracle bottle. After purchasing my CBB, I discovered that it had some ick. I quickly bought the medication, while previously researched its results. I dosed 1 drop per 25 gal for 7 days. After the 7th day, there was no ick. None. To this day there is 0 ick. I couldn’t be happier owning this product.

It’s been at least 1.5 months since the last time I treated the tank. I treated the tank directly with everything in it. I did turn off my skimmer for 3 days, and I lightly fed the tank inhabitants. Also carbon was taken out as well. It worked just like it said it should.



Posted by Ryan on Reef Central

I’ve never paid much attention to these forums. Occasionally I’d pop in when I had a problem. I just ran across this slink and thought I would share my opinion after reading atomikks post. I cold feel his excitement. I remembered how much of a pain ich was for me in the past. I’ve tried a lot of treatments; some worked better than others, but ich always seemed to come back. Since then things are different. I also have used no sick fish’s ich treatment. I treated my tank 9 months ago, which was the last time I’ve seen ich in my tank. I also passed along my bottle to a friend 4 months ago. Worked great for her as well. She has been ich free since. We both have full reef tanks. Inverts live rock- the whole 9 yards. Such a little bottle, yet it treats 300 plus gallons. Good stuff.
That’s my 2 cents.
Best of luck to all!

[GTR]

Maybe he made a mistake (or two) and mispelled the user name.
Atomikk

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=5994299&highlight=miracle#post5994299

Further search returned the first link in question.

SteveU

[GTR]

The second one comes from a one-post wonder but it is here none the less.
Ryan Utterback

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=6006107&highlight=ich+free#post6006107

It's obvious the quotes were actual quotes from RC regardless of the factual content.

SteveU

[Steven Pro]

The BobF comments are simply scummy.

And by the way, just because a manufacturer makes claims of being safe does not mean they actually are.
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-12/sp/index.php

I have not tested any of the No Sick Fish products yet, but they sound like very good candidates for further review.

[Anthony Calfo]

there is always concern about the intent of low post history members whose first/early post(s) are testimonials.

[puter]

Geez Anthony, I kind of figured you'd chase down/clarify the "Bob F" thing, but 17 minutes from initial post to resolution... including write up! Dang, you're good.;)

[Anthony Calfo]

17 minutes is terrible actually... I have to get much faster/better at sleuthing to make the master proud...

Nothing escapes Habib :D

[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.

[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]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6240362#post6240362 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> 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) :D

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 :D

[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]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6243427#post6243427 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> 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]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6243685#post6243685 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> 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]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6244536#post6244536 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> 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 :D

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.

[Randall_James]

is it not possible with all the time that has passed that the fishes own natural ability to fight off what ever has succeeded and the outcome would have been the same had flavored water or nothing at all been added to the tank?

I mean there is evidence to the fact that some fish will fight off the parasite to survive without intervention of any kind.. Hence the problem with proving any treatments ability to work..
All it takes is a manufacturer with enough confidence in their product to commission an unbiased study..

[GTR]

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..

Now, now, now. Because someone voices an opinion on how the free market works suddenly they're all scam artists? please

Personally I don't think there's enough profit potential to run FDA style drug studies on a fish med being marketed to the hobbyist. If you thought having a lab determine the contents of this product was expensive you should research the funding this type of study would require. If they do it any other way no one will accept the results so it seems fruitless. I'd guess that's why you wont see further post by the maker.

SteveU

[Randall_James]

I think the market for a "reef safe" product that cures the scope of ailments that this does is tremendous. Ich alone would generate figures that would make most reasonably wealthy.

Lest we be naive about the amount of money spent in this hobby:

Year 2003
an estimated 20 million coral reef fish were purchased for trade in the salt water tank hobby

Revenue in the aquarium hobby rose from 16.9 to 17.2 BILLION dollars

This is a lucrative market to say the very least...

As Ich is arguably one of the leading parasite issues facing reefers, do you think that maybe there is a likely source of revenue for the guy that comes up with a "Reef Safe" cure?

Please....

[aaron23]

-----Original Message-----
From: Billy B [mailto: @RiptidesReef.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:14 AM
To: sales@nosickfish.com; Sales
Subject: Contact Request
Name: Billy B.

Customer Type: Retail Customer

Email: @RiptidesReef.com

Phone: 2148944

How they heard about us: Other - @charter.net

Hi, It's Billy from Riptide's Reef. We just received your product and I wanted to thank you for the expidited shipping. I was under the impression it would take a couple of weeks to recieve the items if we did'nt choose express shipping. We have'nt had the opportunity to use the transit yet. We are also a small company trying to grow but I'll let you know after we use it. We had a whipfin fairy wrasse with ich and used the ich treatment you included in our order and it cleared up in 24 hours. The fish system is connected to 300 gallons of coral tanks and harmed nothing! Thank you for your professionalism and please give credit to the gentleman who suggested your products. His name is Randy and I included his email address. Sincerely, Billy B www.RiptidesReef.com
LEESOCCER: it says you used the ich product...
LEESOCCER: ???
LEESOCCER: tell me the truth billy
LEESOCCER: cuz this guy is a sponser for reef central
LEESOCCER: and i really think
LEESOCCER: he is cheating everybody out of their money
LEESOCCER: did you say this stuff ?
LEESOCCER: i was like wat the hell hey i know billy
LEESOCCER: and i read it and was like hmmm this seems kind of fishy let me ask him
RipTides Reef: yeah he added the part about us using it on the whipfin lol
LEESOCCER: LOL
LEESOCCER: ur kidding
RipTides Reef: no Im not
RipTides Reef: I wrote the rest though
RipTides Reef: thanked him for the fast shipping
LEESOCCER: would you allow me
LEESOCCER: to post this on rc?
RipTides Reef: the transit seems to be working fine
RipTides Reef: you know whats funny?
RipTides Reef: if you read that post
RipTides Reef: you can tell its an email thanking him for the product and fast shipping
RipTides Reef: and then said, I havent had a chance to use it
LEESOCCER: LOL
RipTides Reef: then it says it worked good lol
LEESOCCER: would you mind that i post that he made that stuff up about the whipfin?
RipTides Reef: go ahead
RipTides Reef: i dont care


Boy o boy... CAUGHT RED HANDED SON!~

BADABING BADABAM .... PEACE CHEAP SKATE!~

Ownd / Beat by,

Aaron

[Pyrrhus]

It would appear that RC has one less sponsor than it used to.

[Anthony Calfo]

No kidding, joking or pretenses here... I sincerely love the Information Age.

The Internet is a lot of things. Indeed, it is enormous and growing exponentially.

But in so many ways it is an incredible tool to be used.

The speed with which communications (and verification!) can now occur is staggering. And impressive.

I'm especially delighted to see even small acts of consumer advocacy finessed this way. It's especially welcome in our aquarium industry with almost no watchdogs or accountability whatsoever.

Kudos.

[Pyrrhus]

Absolutely, Thumbs up to the staff of RC.

Regretably the "testimonials" from Bob and Billy are still on the NSF website. :(

[Anthony Calfo]

To be clear... no decision has been made on the sponsor. The owner of the site is away and has yet to be informed to the best of my knowledge.

All we are talking about here is consumer advocacy/chatter among aquarists.

And I strongly favor sensible self-policing of any industry or people when possible, rather than have excessive regulation.

[Steven Pro]

Speaking of products that make unsubstantiated claims, I just got an email from SANO. My first reaction was I could not believe they were still around. Then I read the email.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sano

Beyond Chemicals

"Safe For Invertebrate, Plants, Fish, The Environment & You"

The quick, easy and safe way to:
Increase Oxygen
Reduce Water Changes
Control Bacteria & Fungus
Reduce Indoor Air Pollution
Reduce Aquarium Maintenance
Stop Chemical Induced Disorder
Eliminate Wastewater Chemicals
Get Rid Of Parasites Overnight
Increase Nutrient Absorption
Protect Endangered Species
*Slow Climate Change
Clear Hazy Water

"Email Sano Today For More Info On Our Products"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They have got to be kidding! They left out regrows hair, helps you lose weight while you sleep, and adds length and girth. :lol:

[kevin2000]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6240153#post6240153 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Anthony Calfo
there is always concern about the intent of low post history members whose first/early post(s) are testimonials.

Right on the money ... nosickfish.com showed up at the saltwater forum sponsored by about.com with a number of independent testimonials ... when some of the "discussion" got heated the Moderator did some checking and discovered that the independent testimonials were coming from the same IP address and the NSF crew were admonished for SPAM and encouraged to find another forum.

[Randall_James]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6257743#post6257743 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kevin2000
Right on the money ... nosickfish.com showed up at the saltwater forum sponsored by about.com with a number of independent testimonials ... when some of the "discussion" got heated the Moderator did some checking and discovered that the independent testimonials were coming from the same IP address and the NSF crew were admonished for SPAM and encouraged to find another forum. Sorry but without links to the posts, this post is about as valid as the testimonials, not trying to get you riled up but the main issue is "Unsubstantiated claims" and even though I believe what you say is possible, without direct links, I just think it falls into the "Unsubstantiated" claims dept.. So if you have those links I would like to see them is all...

[mmoore0803]

I tried the stuff as I was freaking out and was looking fo rthe quick and easy way out (yeah yeah I learned my lesson and I just added new fish after an 8 week qt of the main tank)...here's a link to a thread on the snake oil being peddled

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=670521&highlight=nosickfish

and here is my post

I bought and treated my tank with NSF Ich treatment and evrything (in regards to fish) in my tank still ended up dying. Dosed as it said on the package and the first day it looked like it might work (Fish started looking better...fewer spots) but after day 1 treatment, it went downhill. I lost a white-faced powder brown, a juv. imperator, then 4 little oscellaris'...slow die off...All the inverts and corals in the tank are fine so the product doesn't seem to infect reef inhabitants...I sent NSF a letter of what happened and was told I had the strain that is difficult to get rid of (though I only know of 1 strain of marine ich). Ich came into my tank via LFS (got me once in my FW and now in my SW....no more $$$ for them) and now I'm looking into a UV purchase just to make sure all parasites are in fact dead (plus waiting 6 weeks b4 thinking of adding any fish)...just another of life's lessons (yeah yeah...a QT would have prevented this and yes I plan on QTing all new fish in the future)

Mike

[kevin2000]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6257887#post6257887 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Randall_James
Sorry but without links to the posts, this post is about as valid as the testimonials, not trying to get you riled up but the main issue is "Unsubstantiated claims" and even though I believe what you say is possible, without direct links, I just think it falls into the "Unsubstantiated" claims dept.. So if you have those links I would like to see them is all...

This may help

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=24&tid=22582&webtag=ab-saltaquarium

There are some monster threads covering this outfit on that forum .. if you are interesting in viewing them use their advance search feature and use "nosickfish.com" as your search term.

[cduran02]

Another win for the internet!!! Information travels too fast on the internet for scams to go undiscovered for long.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6257998#post6257998 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kevin2000
This may help

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=24&tid=22582&webtag=ab-saltaquarium

There are some monster threads covering this outfit on that forum .. if you are interesting in viewing them use their advance search feature and use "nosickfish.com" as your search term.

[NSF]

I just finished reading this thread.

The first thing I did was call Billy Brock to see if aaron23 was a liar. He is!!! He said that he had no recollection and asked that I forward him the link so that he could read it. He said that he would post! I am going to include his email with this post in the form of a picture. You can see the email directly in my inbox. No alterations. Except phone numbers removed.

http://www.nosickfish.com/advertising/billybrockweb.jpg

Mmoore0803: It didn’t work for you. I am sorry. There is nothing that I can do about it. We have been direct from the very beginning about our medicine. It is not perfect, and we publicly state that it doesn’t work all of the time. It does however work a high percentage of the time. Were you running a phosband reactor, or any other phosphate reducing media? They need to be removed!

Bob F/ W.W.M./ Atomikk: Clearly some errors were made by our web technician. There was no intention to mislead anyone, and things will be corrected. A couple web site related issues is completely separate from our company and what we do. I think it is clear that a mistake was made, and that alone. He mis-spelled a name, he used the wrong name/word. The very last written word on the post is Bob Fenner. I can clearly understand why he would mistakenly use the wrong name. Some asked why F. was used in place of Fenner. Look at every single testimonial. None of them use a full last name. The user marshal on wet web media. I hope he can be contacted, and tell us his story. I bet he will use the word “successful”

I find very interesting that every time that we have users post in a positive manner they are instantly attacked! I understand the credibility of posts if they have a week record. What about the posts with a deep history. Regardless, Why attack them?

A re-occurring comment that I have read on this forum. “ I wont put anything in my tank unless I know the contents in it” We have thousands of customers who use it in reef tanks with out problems. If you don’t want to use it, that’s fine. We have some of the Big Boys using our medicine. There is a really good chance that your fish/corals/inverts have already been subjected to our medicine before you ever bought it. They don’t know what is in it, but they don’t care. They can see what it is doing for there fish, and business!

I have $63,000 dollars in-vested in the formula. I could have spent money on patents, but I choose to spend money on masking agents, and a better formula. It will take a lot more than $12,000 to figure out how the medicine works. There are 11 ingredients in it, and my chemist’s ensured me that it would take $40,000-$60,000 to find out what is in it, and how they all work.

For the people that cry, moan, and complain about a product they have never used. I hope you never get the opportunity to own an aquarium where you don’t have spend each night looking at your quarantine tank taking care of sick fish, while your neighbor is looking at his Show Tank!

** post edited to remove advertising and profanity. A.C. **

Hundreds of happy customers each month and few complainers who have never used the product.

No Sick Fish

http://www.nosickfish.com/advertising/billybrockweb.jpg

[Anthony Calfo]

NSF... your advertising (reported by RC member(s)) and your profanity have been removed form the post above... consider yourself warned.

It will not happen again as long as you intend to be an active member of RC.

For however long that lasts.

Anthony

[Steven Pro]

I have $63,000 dollars in-vested in the formula. I could have spent money on patents, but I choose to spend money on masking agents, and a better formula. It will take a lot more than $12,000 to figure out how the medicine works. There are 11 ingredients in it, and my chemist’s ensured me that it would take $40,000-$60,000 to find out what is in it, and how they all work. :lol: I particularly like the comment that you need to spend "$40,000-$60,000 to find out what is in it ..." How in the world as a manufacturer do you not know what is in your own product? How they all work is a different matter completely, but what is in it should be very simple and straightforward. I understand the need to protect your product secrets and not wanting to disclose the ingredients, but don't say you don't know what is in it.

If you have conducted bioassays to make sure your product is safe, please post this. If you have conducted experiments to prove that your product works, please post this. If all that happened was you created a concoction, added it to a display with sick fish, the fish got better, and nothing else seemed to die, then say that and be done with it. If all you have is anecdote and testimonials, be up front about it.

[Anthony Calfo]

worse... rather than make an effort to patent and define (as per patent laws) the formula (assuming a patent could be granted for this product) that could back up NSF claims like "No QT, No water change"... and "it works a high percentage of the time," an effort was said to be made instead to use that money to create masking agents.

Er, riiiiight.

Now I don't have any problem with the use of masking agents. On the contrary! By all means protect your investment of a whole $63K. Although thats's really not much money for total product development.

What concerns me is the statement that NSF did not have enough money to do both the patent/trials AND create the masking agents. :(

So in essence we are left to wonder (still) how the claims of success and safety can be asserted by the mfg via testimonials and otherwise, when the mfg's own admission is that limited funds were focussed instead on creating masking agents?

NSF - do not take these (the whole thread) comments as attacks, but instead consider (if you are a wise businessperson) the value of negative customer feedback... for its inherent worth to improve your product and advertising, and to finesse/imrpove PR.

You need to somehow address the concerns (legitimate or otherwise) of your customers (potential and real) in a civil and sensible manner and without the use of profanity in your replies if you are to succeed.

Using profanity or shills is not a good strategy under any circumstance.

Neither is spamming.

It's a small world.

BTW... Stan and Debbie Hauter are very fine people over at their saltwateraquarium guide (about.com). Yep... small world. ;)

[GTR]

I particularly like the comment that you need to spend "$40,000-$60,000 to find out what is in it ..." How in the world as a manufacturer do you not know what is in your own product?

When I read the statement below I don't interpret it to say that he doesn't know what's in it but rather it would require $40,000 -$60,000 to find out and not the figure suggested earlier in this thread which was considerably less.

I have $63,000 dollars in-vested in the formula. I could have spent money on patents, but I choose to spend money on masking agents, and a better formula. It will take a lot more than $12,000 to figure out how the medicine works. There are 11 ingredients in it, and my chemist’s ensured me that it would take $40,000-$60,000 to find out what is in it, and how they all work.

I'm not sure why anyone would spend $12,000 let alone $60,000 to discover the contents of these products or any others for that matter unless there was another motive besides "I just want know" or "we have the right to know". Obviously the way the laws stand now we only have the right to use it or not.

SteveU

[Anthony Calfo]

Indeed... it is as SteveU says. It boils down to "you can buy it or not."

And if the mfg can inspire, reassure and/or convince enough consumers of product merit, then the rewards will follow.

There is potential and room for improvement always.

Growing thick skin helps too ;)

[GTR]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6275515#post6275515 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Anthony Calfo


Growing thick skin helps too ;)

Best advice I've seen in this thread. :) ;)

SteveU

[Randall_James]

I'm not sure why anyone would spend $12,000 let alone $60,000 to discover the contents of these products or any others for that matter unless there was another motive besides "I just want know" or "we have the right to know". Obviously the way the laws stand now we only have the right to use it or not.

SteveU
Agreed, you would be a darn fool just for the "I want to know" aspect.

However: Many companies maintain their own labs and are fully capable of reverse engineering the mix and I might venture to say it is likely already been done or in process if they felt it was a worthwhile endeavor?

Given the scope of the efficacy claims, revenue invested, failure to start patent process would be well.......poor business sense?

Even filing for a provisional patent would make perfect sense. This gives you a year to run the process as well as gives you some protection (whether you follow thru or not).

The revenue potential would warrant some type of action IMO if the maker truly felt the product did what it claims.

[NSF]

*post edited - advertising/testimonial removed. A.C. *

second formal warning - PM to follow to help clarify the specific UA violation for non-commercial posts

[dcoufal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6276314#post6276314 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by NSF
.... Feel free to post this on RC. We would like to be left out of this completely!!!


:confused: :confused: Feel free to post this email.... but, leave us out of it.... :confused: :confused:

Am I the only one that thinks this makes no sense?

Dwain

[graveyardworm]

I am glad to finally see the manufacturer getting involved with this discussion about thier product, I just wish they could've brought alittle more proof that thier product works, rather than just trying to debunk whats been stated with accusations. "The best defense is a good offense" would work wonders here.

[thrlride]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6276640#post6276640 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by graveyardworm
rather than just trying to debunk whats been stated with accusations. "The best defense is a good offense" would work wonders here.

I'd have a hard time responding objectionably if I was the owner of NSF after reading some of the attacks here.

[cduran02]

Responding objectionably is a must if a company is to show that they are profesionals and not just some hacks that mixed some stuff and call it a cure for everything.

[Anthony Calfo]

charming sig line, thrlride:

"Why do they call it an asteroid when it's outside the hemisphere, but call it a hemorrhoid when it's in your butt?"

as it pertains us (all) pondering each others' insight/perspective/maturity on the posts we make ;)

"I'd have a hard time responding objectionably if I was the owner of NSF after reading some of the attacks here."

In the words of Don Dewey, "You may be right."

[Anthony Calfo]

Hmmm... rereading my own last post and some others recently, I am wondering how useful it is (the spin of the thread)?

I will make a concerted effort to stay more on topic.

[Steven Pro]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6276927#post6276927 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Anthony Calfo
In the words of Don Dewey, "You may be right." You are showing your age (in aquarium years). I am betting most people are saying to themselves, Don who?

[thrlride]

Before we get back on topic, I think I got that quote in my sig line in email from someone and found it humerous. :)

I agree this chemical concoction is probably too good to be true and the way they go about keeping the ingredients secret goes over just as good as... well zeovit. I also agree cduran02, that they need to respond in a professional manner if to be taken seriously. I guess I feel they are now labeled as guilty before given the chance to prove innocence.

I'll hide in the background now. :D

[dcoufal]

Five pages before the "z" word came up..... pretty good. ;)

Dwain

[thrlride]

LOL

The tone is the same though. :) For the record, I have used neither. ;)

[puter]

NSF (Tyler?) -

Let me give you an opportunity to make, perhaps, more constructive comments:

First, can you describe how your product came to be? Are you a hobbiest, biologist, chemist, LFS owner?

Second, can you disclose some things your product does NOT contain? For instance, I'd like to know if, in using your product, I'd be adding 1) Malachite Green, 2) Formalin, 3) Vinegar, or 4) Pepper extract to my tank?

I don't think anybody would hold it against you if you're a hobbiest, who did a bunch of research (reading), developed a list of potentially effective ingredients, and created a concoction of those ingredients that you believe is effective against ICH... as long as you're up front about it.

Then, we can make a decision to use or not use your product on that basis. Surely, you understand that having a website with no physical address listed, no principal officers, no substantive product information, and misquoted testimonials raises serious credibility questions?

[cduran02]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6277135#post6277135 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by puter
NSF (Tyler?) -

Surely, you understand that having an anonymously registered website, with no physical address listed, no principal officers

Man, I completely forgot to do a whois on their site, thats usually the first thing I do on a questionable site.

[puter]

Actually, Tucows didn't pass that info through to the registrar I checked from... it isn't anonymous, my mistake and I edited my post to reflect that.

[Jamesurq]

Anthony,

Have you ever used Flatworm Exit?

[puter]

From: http://www.wetwebmedia.com/flatwrmfaq3.htm

If it's Planaria, do you recommend the Flatworm Exit product from Salifert? [I would never recommend it or anything like it. No such product has been demonstrated to my satisfaction to kill one nuisance invertebrate while not harming some others of like kind but desirable.]...I read a lot of thread on RC and almost people didn't have any problem with this product.[does the product list its ingredients? If not, I'm not inclined to use or recommend any products if unknown composition on the live creatures in my care...Anthony]
Anthony's comments bolded. (Not that the credibility of one product reflects on another...)

[cduran02]

Ok, did a little research on the administrative contact listed for nsf website. Didnt find anything useful in idetifying the origing of NSF all I found out was that he once rented out a house to college students and is or was into kite flying.

BTW, I found this stuff by simply googling the email address and phone number listed under the administrative contact.

[Jamesurq]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6277410#post6277410 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by puter
From: http://www.wetwebmedia.com/flatwrmfaq3.htm


Anthony's comments bolded. (Not that the credibility of one product reflects on another...)

Thank you for digging that up and saving Anthony the time of repeating it :)

An equal opportunity skeptic - good to hear.

[Anthony Calfo]

heehee... yes, an equal opportunity skeptic indeed :D

...and I will say too that Habib (Salifert) is one of the most intelligent and affable human beings I have ever known. I have tremedous regard for him inside and outside the industry. And I have very high regard for his product line at large.

But friend or no friend... I will not use a product in my aquarium that I do not understand or know the ingredients. Thats my choice as a consumer.

And as a mentor, I aspire to be honest to a fault. I expect to be regarded as opinionated (I am) but not unfairly biased (I try not to be).

Another difference here too is that Habib does not shill or plaster testimonials, violate the UA etc to advance his product line. Instead, his products stand easily on their own merit and are enhanced by his industry reputation.

IMO... NSF, me and anyone else in the hobby/industry would do well to abide by that strategy and ethic.

Anth-

[GTR]

cduran02... It took me a while to learn so only about half the domains I have registered list any owner or partner as the Adminstrative Contact.

SteveU

[Jamesurq]

Well there goes that joke :)

[kevin2000]

Walks like a Duck, Quacks like a Duck, looks like a Duck .. chances are its not an Eagle. There is sufficient evidence within this thread alone to question the marketing practices of this Company ... the old adage of "consumer beware" still makes sense to me.

[riptidesreef]

Dwain,

When I said we wanted to be left out of this, I meant just that. I would prefer to not find myself or my business name dragged into these discussions where people argue tirelessly over proof or lack of proof that something may or may not work. There is no way for this discussion to ever end agreeably for either side. One person says it works great, another says it couldn't possibly, both without evidence.

I finally received an email from an RC member asking me my opinion. Not a customer of mine or anyone I've ever spoken to previously. I explained, in detail, what experience I've had with NSF and the product and said "Feel free to post this email...but we would like to be left out this completely". The entire email may have answered what I meant by that, not just the last sentence. Here is the email in it's entirety:

Honestly, I cannot remember it has been so long ago. We dont focus much on fish and the ones we do are normally farm raised so we rarely have a problem with ich. I do remember being referred to this person selling the "transit" shipping treatment. I ordered a bottle as a test and he included a bottle of
the ich treatment for free. All he asked me was that if it worked well to let people know. He was a very pleasant individual and they did expedite shipping without my request. I know that we had a pair of whipfin wrasses that we bought from an outside wholesaler and they didnt look so hot. We used the ich treatment. One died and one lived. It has been months since then and I still have the one whipfin. At that time, that particular fish system was connected to a sump that shared with a coral system and no corals suffered. I cannot be certain if the ich treatment worked or if the whipfin that survived just fought it off. Likewise, I use the "transit" on every fish I ship and have not lost any fish that were delivered on time. Is that
because I'm using the transit or because I use plenty of water and oxygen in every bag and only ship hardy, farm raised fish? I dont know but it hasnt hurt them.

Like I said before, the person I dealt with was very nice and helpful. I sincerely do not want to be a part of a "bash session" on RC. I do remember writing an email right after I received the order from them and thanked them for the fast shipping. I do not recall writing the part about the fairy wrasse but that doesnt mean I didnt write it, I just dont recall. I would like to draw attention to the fact that some of these people posting have most likely never used the product.

Feel free to post this on RC. We would like to be left out of this
completely!!!

Perhaps I should've said "We would've like to have been left out of this completely". I agree this is a superb way to exchange information but when it seems to become personal, with no acceptable outcome, then I think it's time to move on to more productive topics.

[kevin2000]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6278145#post6278145 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by riptidesreef

Feel free to post this on RC. We would like to be left out of this
completely!!!
Well in your next life you might think twice before you give explicit permission to quote you on the internet.

[Steven Pro]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6278145#post6278145 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by riptidesreef
There is no way for this discussion to ever end agreeably for either side. One person says it works great, another says it couldn't possibly, both without evidence. I don't think you properly grasp our (if I may be so bold to speak for the group here) objections. We are not saying it can't work. On the contrary, I don't know nearly enough about the product to even hazard a guess as to whether or not it might work. Instead, we are simply (and repeatedly) asking for proof that it is safe and effective.

[riptidesreef]

I understand exactly what you are saying Steven. But many of the previous posts have not been that simple question. Take kevin2000's sarcastic response to my post for prime example. I think this is a great way to exchange information but then it seems to take a sour turn here and there. Before you know it, we're off topic and some people resort to taking cheap shots. I wouldn't mind knowing what's in the stuff myself. lol

[NSF]

Anthony,



I have no intentions of breaking the rules, but help me out. Aaron23 said that we lied, and made up the testimonial. How am I supposed to clear the air and PROVE that we did nothing to alter the testimonial, but to show the actual testimonial as a picture of my inbox. It has shows the date, time stamp, everything…. written directly from Mr. Brock. There is no way that I could change it. I then backed it up even further with a letter from Mr. Brock talking about the original testimonial that he wrote. I do all of this, using the facts, and then I am told that I only did it to advertise. If I was trying to advertise, I would post my website each time under my name, and put up a recent flyer promoting our products.



I don’t know how to give a better response, than what I did. I used the facts, and facts alone.



That goes for all comments made up about N.S.F. How do I give appropriate responses to these questions, if you are going to delete them each time and say that I am advertising…I am wasting my time responding to questions, when my answers are deleted?



Thrlride- The ingredients are proprietary information to protect our investment from other manufactures. I wouldn’t care if you or any other individual new how we developed our products and what was in it. The reason that they are not being released is to prevent other manufacturers from stealing our ideas.



Puter- Thanks for direct questions, and being respectful. I did not make the product. 2 chemists worked on the product for roughly 3 years before we began to sell. The ich medicine is composed of 11 different ingredients. If I made the medicine I would be more than happy to take credit for it. I can’t. The complexity involved in creating the formula is more advanced than most chemists could handle or understand. It isn’t malachite green or formalin. It isn’t some concoction that we made in the basement using vinegar and peppers.



I wish I could give out the names of business’s that use our medicine and there contact information. If you heard the things they tell me you wouldn’t ever think twice about the medicine. I just get off the phone with Jud McCracken. Some of you may know who he is. He has been in the industry for a long time, and knows a lot about reef systems. I met him at MACNA, in D.C. this year. He was working in the Carib Sea booth. At that time he told me that he had used my medication on 3 different tanks infected with ich. He told me it worked great each time. After speaking with him on the phone he told me that he used it one other time since then. 4 successful treatments with one bottle! I called him to ask if it was ok to leave his email address on the thread so others could email him. His email address is: declevis@hotmail.com. When someone emails him please forward the email onto the thread, so every one can read it.





I sincerely apologize to any one that took offense from reading my previous response, but stand in my shoes and you might respond very sternly as well if you were being spoken to, the way I was. Some users noted it. Thank you.

thanks riptide for the post. I sincerely appreciate it!

[NicoleC]

Tyler,

Do you have the results and methodology of a controlled scientific study that proves the effects of the medicine? If you spent 3 years creating it, I would think that some sort of series of controlled studies to test the effectiveness of the product MUST have been done. Said studies would then cumulate in a study that shows the effectiveness of the final product -- and would be far more persuasive than testimonials.

If you haven't done those studies, how did you finalize the formula? And if you have done them, why have you not shared them? Granted you may need to change the names somewhat to "Ingredient X," "Formula Y," etc.

Clearly in independant study would carry much more weight, but any study -- proved the methodlogy was clearly explained -- would be a valuable tool to prospective customers. And might, in fact, shut up the critics.

[thrlride]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6280464#post6280464 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by NSF
Thrlride- The ingredients are proprietary information to protect our investment from other manufactures. I wouldn’t care if you or any other individual new how we developed our products and what was in it. The reason that they are not being released is to prevent other manufacturers from stealing our ideas.

I understand your reasoning with keeping the ingredients hidden as you don't want other companies to take the ingredients. Just understand that many people claim to not put anything they do not know the ingredients of in their tank and then adamantly say that in these types of threads. Been around and seen it too many times I guess...

[spawner]

NSF,

Why don't you give a load of your product to a researcher that works with fish disease in an aquaculture setting, then they could test your product. No I am not asking for samples, ;) Your going to need to cover a lot of ground after your ads. I for one, when I saw your ad was so POed I almost had your product ran through a HPLC and a mass spec to see what the heck you have in there to make the claims you make. I don't like the fact that beginning hobbyist will mistake your "No Q" for not Qing in the first place. I personally don't care what your product does. when you make claims like that. I might work great but when you say No Q and no more sick fish, that is plan BS. You might have all the best intentions in the world, but when you make statements and place ads that the newbies well for sure mistake it is WRONG, end of story. Again you might have the best cure for fish disease in the world but you should never have No Q in an ad like that without a huge in bold disclaimer that you need to Q all fish before putting them in a tank. If you want to have your product tested by a real lab, in a real aquaculture setting with real disease issues let me know and I'll put you in contact with a few labs that have plenty of needs for a cure. I still have the itch to run it through a column.

[GTR]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6280630#post6280630 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by NicoleC
Tyler,

Do you have the results and methodology of a controlled scientific study that proves the effects of the medicine? If you spent 3 years creating it, I would think that some sort of series of controlled studies to test the effectiveness of the product MUST have been done. Said studies would then cumulate in a study that shows the effectiveness of the final product -- and would be far more persuasive than testimonials.

If you haven't done those studies, how did you finalize the formula? And if you have done them, why have you not shared them? Granted you may need to change the names somewhat to "Ingredient X," "Formula Y," etc.

Clearly in independant study would carry much more weight, but any study -- proved the methodlogy was clearly explained -- would be a valuable tool to prospective customers. And might, in fact, shut up the critics.

Nicole... to be fair I don't think I've ever seen that information offered to hobbyist for many products in the 40+ years I've kept FW and SW fish tanks. That's not limited to medications but additives that make claims of wonder by well known, some well respected, some well liked and some just really big companies owned by larger companies listed on NASDAQ. Well maybe some of them, but everybody questions the results and methods and nobody believes them anyway. :)

SteveU

[Anthony Calfo]

Tyler... your first testimonial was allowed and given (IMO) due leverage for the very reasons you cited. It's leverage I don't have to give regardless of the nature of the argument: the UA is crystal clear... no endorsing of products by merchants. The use of a testimonial is not your only means of posting. It is, instead inappropriate advertising used by you. If Mr Brock wants to come on voluntarily, then that is reef discussion by a reef central member.

But you are more than a member. You are a merchant and a sponsor. To spare all RC members the pollution of these threads and this database by a wide variety of folks with commercial interests... the rule exists. And its hard to enforce too on a site this large with a majority of the administration generously donating their time for free. That is why mods are so appreciative when someone reports a UA violation. They/we cannot see them all as soon as they occur. High profile threads like this get fast notice... obscure threads may go completely unnoticed.

But it is your default and tenacious use of testimonials that is the problem with me as a mod.

And it is your use of testimonials almosty to exclusion in response to any question or challenge that seems to be concerning some people that just want answers to fair questions like "will this harm my tank, how does it work, and how do you know?"

None of those questions is unfair. And the exploration of them is not an "attack" as some in this thread have suggested. Please, people... grow up.

So after two formal warnings not to shill... several banned alter-handles... your use of profanity as a response (unacceptable under any circumstance) and a PM from me copied to the admins and clearly warning you not to shill a third time... your respond with yet another testimonial?!?!?!??!:

"If you heard the things they tell me you wouldn’t ever think twice about the medicine... I just get off the phone with Jud McCracken... He told me it worked great each time... 4 successful treatments with one bottle! His email address is: declevis@hotmail.com. When someone emails him please forward the email onto the thread, so every one can read it."

To say I am confounded at your staggering inability to comprehend (if you even read) the User Agreement woud be an understatement.

You shilled... you used profanity... you disregarded two formal warnings. I am giving you more leniency here than most mods Tyler. Moreover, we all want to make friends not enemies here. To do that you need to understand and heed the simple rules of this privately owned message board. You will then benefit by earning the respect of customers, me, etc.
I am giving you third and final, formal chance here.

Don't waste it.

I'd much rather see another RC sponsor member that wants to advance his business by advancing the hobby without needing to resort to (more) shills, planted posts or other unsavory tactics.

BTW... your invitation to have folks e-mail Jud is dubious to me in light of your history that has been discussed offline. If I see new posters with low post counts planting testimonials in here... its not going to be pretty.

[NicoleC]

Nicole... to be fair I don't think I've ever seen that information offered to hobbyist for many products in the 40+ years I've kept FW and SW fish tanks. That's not limited to medications but additives that make claims of wonder by well known, some well respected, some well liked and some just really big companies owned by larger companies listed on NASDAQ. Well maybe some of them, but everybody questions the results and methods and nobody believes them anyway. :)


Let's set aside the example of dubious additives and other snake oils, the miracle claims of which are rightly ignored. We're talking about a medication here; in fact a series of medications (assuming that every bottle doesn't contain the same formula.)

If I purchase "Rid-Ich," I can easily get the Product Data Sheet (http://www.novalek.com/kpd38.htm) including ingredients.

If I purchase Kent Marine's RxP, I can get the MSDS (http://www.kentmarine.com/msds/RXP.PDF) even though the ingredient list is pretty dubious. ( Deionized water, natural plant extracts, pepper, stabilized vitamin c, stabilizers.)

If I want to know about SeaChem's NeoPlex, I can get the MSDS (http://www.seachem.com/support/MSDS.pdf) and a list of ingredients (http://www.seachem.com/products/product_pages/NeoPlex.html) and contraindictions (http://www.seachem.com/support/FAQs/NeoPlex_faq.html).

Every medication from Aquarium Pharmeceuticals lists the active ingredients on the label with MSDS's online. (http://aquariumpharm.com/aqumsds.html)

If one wants to use Prazi-pro, you can look up the history of the active ingredient, praziquantel.

Even something as fairly useless as Ruby Reef Hydroplex has the ingredient list on the bottle. (Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Imidazolidinyl Urea, Methylparben, octyl dodecanol, polysorbate-20, polyvinal pyrolidone, potassium phosphate, potassium sorbate, propylparaben)

With the ingredients and MSDS in hand, one has the tools to research contraindications and past performance. Not everyone will do this, of course, but the information is available for anyone who desires to do so. (I have a bit of difficulty understanding why a business person would take the risk associated with not producing a MSDS to protect one's, er, business assets, but that's a different issue.)

I only suggest revealing the results of internal studies done since Tyler is so strongly opposed to revealing the active ingredients.

[spawner]

Nicole,

Pepper (RxP) treatments work very well on external parasites (copepods mainly). Not as well as Dilox but then I again it won't kill you if you inhale it either. I still prefer Dilox
I beleive that any time a product has a harmful ingredient it must have a MSDS. Not exacty sure, someone might know the exact answer to this.

andy

[NicoleC]

Yes, but the definition of harmful is vague enough that most companies write one for anything remotely resembling a chemical, just to cover their butts.

I mean, can you imagine hot pepper in your eye? Eee-yow! Not a "dangerous" chemical, but the company would probably get sued if they didn't have one. We live in a world where you can be sued for not telling your customers that hot liquids might burn you...

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6281294#post6281294 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by spawner

I beleive that any time a product has a harmful ingredient it must have a MSDS. Not exacty sure, someone might know the exact answer to this.

andy

The need for harmfull ingredients is not needed in order to require a MSDS. Simply using it in the workplace is all that is needed. i.e. if I was to own a store with employees and used any type of chemical, meds, cleaners etc., I would be required to have a MSDS on hand for my employees to examine at a whim ;) Fish meds are no different. Saying that, gee, the manufacturer won't say whats in it, would not wash in an OSHA ispection.

[NicoleC]

Thanks for the clarification, Bill!

[billsreef]

Those OSHA requirements for MSDS sheets are so strict, that if you were to say typically use windex to wipe down your tanks and than had to buy another brand of glass cleaner for some reason, you would need to get the MSDS for that other brand :eek1: Kind of thing that makes me glad to be a one man operation with no employees :D Heck, I can even legally use child (family) labor :lol:

[puter]

Tyler,

First, thanks for participating here. Your continued presence and forthright responses to direct questions, sans advertising, can only improve the perception of your company and product.

The gist of the criticisms here are that a product of undisclosed composition, with unproven efficacy and unknown origin, is being offered for sale by a small, unknown company, from an undisclosed location, with undisclosed principals, no industry background and questionable marketing practices. That's an awful lot to overcome.

Assuming you're serious about your company and product, you can address some of those things very expeditiously just by updating your website, correcting/removing the misleading testimonials, toning down claims, and providing more substantive product information.

Ironically, what you need most is not a greater quantity of testimonials, it's more credible ones.

NicoleC is spot on. I'm sure everyone here would like to better understand the scientific basis of your products (it targets which strains, at what stages, using what approach). The more of that type of information you are willing to share, the better.

I certainly understand your reluctance to publicly disclose detailed product composition information. Realistically, many/most of us wouldn't be sufficiently qualified to evaluate the information you'd disclose anyway.

However, there ARE highly respected, disinterested individuals who could objectively comment on the soundness of the approach and methodologies used to develop the product, evaluate its efficacy, and determine the collateral effects of the product.

Would you be willing to disclose your development/composition information to such a person under a NDA that prevented them from disclosing the specific composition?

[captbunzo]

Oooh... My new word of the day.

Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

[Anthony Calfo]

C'mon Paul/all... lets stay on track with on-topic/constructive posts only please.

We are seeing good posts from Nicole, Andy, Bill, etc with suggestions, constructive crits and other(side) perspectives. Lets keep it so.

[captbunzo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6283150#post6283150 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Anthony Calfo
C'mon Paul/all... lets stay on track with on-topic/constructive posts only please.

I apologize if I seemed off track. But seriously, the word shill really was new to me. Googling a definition made your post more clear to me and I thought the wikipedia articile was the best definition I found.

Again, I apologize if I seemed to be distracting from the point here. Not my intention at all.

[cduran02]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6281783#post6281783 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by puter
Tyler,

Would you be willing to disclose your development/composition information to such a person under a NDA that prevented them from disclosing the specific composition?

I would suggest Randy from the reef chemistry forum, his sugestions and insight into chemicals is very respected on RC and with me for that matter.

[Drewcipher]

This is offered as constructive criticism, not an attack. NSF wants to be treated as a reputable dealer. IMO you first need to act as one. I am not going to speak about your product at all, but if you want to run a business you need to address the concerns of your potential customers, even if they are a bit "enthusiastic" at times.

I completely understand your desire to keep your product ingredients proprietary, that is your choice. Those of us who don't wish to add unknown things to our tanks don't have to. Those that don't mind can. There will always be some griping about the ingredients in any product, even if 1000 people come on board and say it works great. As a business owner you must understand that your business practices will antagonize someone sometime, but they are your practices and your choices.

Now, what can you do? Well, first off, fix the testimonials. You claimed they were mistakes by the webmaster, fine, fix them. Sure they might just be typos, but understand that your failure to address this item simply added fuel to the fire. As the original posts were found in a couple of cases, it should be very easy to rectify.

Next, think before you post defensively. You comment that you wish you could tell us some users of your products. You say you have some "Big Boys" Here again, the Internet is a great resource, but as we all know from getting email, there are alot of scams too. Consider us skeptical of unspecific claims. Instead, if you truly have these "Big Boys" and they are happy, then make a deal with them to give a public testimonial, and put the biggest and best at the top of your list. If they refuse to give, then best not to allude to them at all. Again, adding fuel to the fire. If they won't give a testimonial then we are left to assume (rightly or wrongly, some companies simply don't want to get caught up in it) they don't like your product.

If you react to customers questions in a timely and courteous manner (btw everyone has mentioned you are very plesant to deal with) that will go a long way towards establishing a reputation as reputable. It's funny, but in this respect, in some ways, your reaction to peoples questions or comments, deserved or not, can actually be more important at this time than if your product actually works or not. There are enough people in the hobby that that question will be answered eventually.

We all want to believe in you. You offer something that is undeniably awesome, but you need to do a little more than you are to help us. In the abscence of an ingredient list, you need to have something more than suspect testimonials. Test results performed by an independent party would be best, but whatever tests were done during development would be something. Be prepared for questions from some very smart people though. Not to imply you would post false data, but to warn you that if you do post some test reults, before you do something so simple as to fix the typos in the testimonials(which are all suspiciously misleading in your favor) then your posted results will be looked on with increased skepticism.

I love the idea of a non disclosure agreement with someone on this board, though I am unsure as to whether or not anyone would be available to do it, but it could go a long way towards future sales if you could get a Randy Holmes Farley or someone similar in your corner.

I wish you well and hope that your product is proven to work.

[racer69]

Drewcipher, that was the most eloquent written, unflaming, and to the point post in this entire thread. Thank you.

[aaron23]

I just finished reading this thread.

The first thing I did was call Billy Brock to see if aaron23 was a liar. He is!!! He said that he had no recollection and asked that I forward him the link so that he could read it. He said that he would post! I am going to include his email with this post in the form of a picture. You can see the email directly in my inbox. No alterations. Except phone numbers removed.

http://www.nosickfish.com/advertising/billybrockweb.jpg

Mmoore0803: It didn’t work for you. I am sorry. There is nothing that I can do about it. We have been direct from the very beginning about our medicine. It is not perfect, and we publicly state that it doesn’t work all of the time. It does however work a high percentage of the time. Were you running a phosband reactor, or any other phosphate reducing media? They need to be removed!

Bob F/ W.W.M./ Atomikk: Clearly some errors were made by our web technician. There was no intention to mislead anyone, and things will be corrected. A couple web site related issues is completely separate from our company and what we do. I think it is clear that a mistake was made, and that alone. He mis-spelled a name, he used the wrong name/word. The very last written word on the post is Bob Fenner. I can clearly understand why he would mistakenly use the wrong name. Some asked why F. was used in place of Fenner. Look at every single testimonial. None of them use a full last name. The user marshal on wet web media. I hope he can be contacted, and tell us his story. I bet he will use the word “successful”

I find very interesting that every time that we have users post in a positive manner they are instantly attacked! I understand the credibility of posts if they have a week record. What about the posts with a deep history. Regardless, Why attack them?

A re-occurring comment that I have read on this forum. “ I wont put anything in my tank unless I know the contents in it” We have thousands of customers who use it in reef tanks with out problems. If you don’t want to use it, that’s fine. We have some of the Big Boys using our medicine. There is a really good chance that your fish/corals/inverts have already been subjected to our medicine before you ever bought it. They don’t know what is in it, but they don’t care. They can see what it is doing for there fish, and business!

I have $63,000 dollars in-vested in the formula. I could have spent money on patents, but I choose to spend money on masking agents, and a better formula. It will take a lot more than $12,000 to figure out how the medicine works. There are 11 ingredients in it, and my chemist’s ensured me that it would take $40,000-$60,000 to find out what is in it, and how they all work.

For the people that cry, moan, and complain about a product they have never used. I hope you never get the opportunity to own an aquarium where you don’t have spend each night looking at your quarantine tank taking care of sick fish, while your neighbor is looking at his Show Tank!

** post edited to remove advertising and profanity. A.C. **

Hundreds of happy customers each month and few complainers who have never used the product.

No Sick Fish




wow.... dude i just spoke to billy you are seriously just wow QUIT LYING HOW DOES THAT SOUND?????

.......


NO COMMENT ...

DONT EVER SAY THAT I AM LYING.


giving out false feed back.

DO NOT MANIPULATE WHAT PEOPLE SAY.

end of story.


THANKS.

[aaron23]

how would it sound if i had billy himself post on reef central to say YOU ARE FURTHER LYING .... wow WHAT LENGTHS MUST YOU GO THROUGH TO LIE AND LIE AND LIE???? no comment.
totally pathetic. seriously stop trying to sell your product and call me a liar. you are seriously running some thing here.


YOU CAN READ HIS FEED BACK. FIRST IT SAYS HOW HE DIDNT USE THE PRODUCT ICH FREE or whatever the crap its called. AND THEN IT SAYS HE USED IT ON A WHIP FIN WRASSE WAT THE FREAK? GET SOME COMMON SENSE BEFORE YOU POST SOME THING THAT JUST TOTALLY MAKES YOU LOOK FAKE???? your story just shoots itself down. sorry but you have failed.

Billy's feed back. -
http://www.nosickfish.com/advertising/billybrockweb.jpg

ON THE 6'th - 7th SENTENCE OF THIS FEEDBACK JUST TOTALLY NEGATES WHAT HE SAID MEANING YOU MANIPULATED HIS EMAIL.

caught red handed.

take a look for yourself.


no comment ... further posting to this thread NSF will make you further look ridiculously dumb. sorry.

dont play around w/ me and try to lie and cover it up.

NOW: riptides reef's email in its entirety.

"Honestly, I cannot remember it has been so long ago. We dont focus much on fish and the ones we do are normally farm raised so we rarely have a problem with ich. I do remember being referred to this person selling the "transit" shipping treatment. I ordered a bottle as a test and he included a bottle of
the ich treatment for free. All he asked me was that if it worked well to let people know. He was a very pleasant individual and they did expedite shipping without my request. I know that we had a pair of whipfin wrasses that we bought from an outside wholesaler and they didnt look so hot. We used the ich treatment. One died and one lived. It has been months since then and I still have the one whipfin. At that time, that particular fish system was connected to a sump that shared with a coral system and no corals suffered. I cannot be certain if the ich treatment worked or if the whipfin that survived just fought it off. Likewise, I use the "transit" on every fish I ship and have not lost any fish that were delivered on time. Is that
because I'm using the transit or because I use plenty of water and oxygen in every bag and only ship hardy, farm raised fish? I dont know but it hasnt hurt them."

Though this may seem like i'm trying to attack your business obviously there is going to be some what of an impact but you to post that feed back and manipulate what he says is apauling. I am not saying whether or not your product works or doesnt. Its up to the customers to decide. But what i am saying is that you manipulated his email and you know it. bottom line done deal.

[Anthony Calfo]

I'm out for the weekend... will be asking fellow mods to moniter this thread. I have strategically selected mods with a hair trigger on their whips ;)

I frankly feel this thread has run its course on the present information or lack thereof. Without any new developments, it really stands to turn into a dreadful flame and would be at risk of closing. But I'm leaving it open and asking everyone to think mindfully before they post.

This is not the place to vent.

I may still be licking my wounds next weak and in no mood to babysit boorish posting. I just had my home broken into while I was away travelling (to a hobby club, as always) and it was badly vandalized... so when I get back, I'm really hoping nobody has volunteered to be the first person I've ever banned or made this the first post I've ever closed ;) I'm quite proud (on the reason why, not just the stat) that neither has happend yet and would very much like to keep it that way.

Thanks in advance if you can help make this so.

Anth- :)

[thrlride]

Sorry to hear about your house Anthony, I can't imagine having to deal with that!

[billsreef]

Sorry to hear about the vandalism :(

[mhurley]

Anthony,

That is unbelievably tragic, I am so sorry to hear that. I hope the police have some leads.

That said, I'm pretty hopped up on coffee today so my hair trigger is ready, waiting and twitching :)

Take care of yourself.

[griss]

Sorry to hear about your house Anth:(

[aaron23]

wow that is bad sir calfo .... did thye do anything drastic? what did they do ?!?!!? and how are your reef / marine stuff doing? did they harm anything?

[Randall_James]

Thanks Bill for the info on the MSDS.

As a business owner I am bound with the outraqeous demands of OSHA and the dreaded book. Not to mention having to "assign" an staffer as "OSHA Compliance officer"

The problem would fall however on the commercial entity using the formula in the business without the MSDS. I would question the wisdom of any shop owner using the product without this MSDS on file. Although prosecutions are very rare, they are very expensive and virtually impossible to win.

I doubt as a commercial entity, using NSF products that I would be very eager to post such information in the wild. Any employee that fell ill, could point to this product and I am afraid the employer would have a big problem on his hands regardless of who or what made this person ill.

[BrianD]

I am sorry to hear about your house Anthony :(

[Vintage_Fish]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6288478#post6288478 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Anthony Calfo
I may still be licking my wounds next weak and in no mood to babysit boorish posting. I just had my home broken into while I was away travelling (to a hobby club, as always) and it was badly vandalized... so when I get back, I'm really hoping nobody has volunteered to be the first person I've ever banned or made this the first post I've ever closed ;) I'm quite proud (on the reason why, not just the stat) that neither has happend yet and would very much like to keep it that way.

Anthony.... Deeply sorry to hear this, man. I do hope all will be well with time.

Best of life to you.

-Sabrina

[rbaker]

I'm sooo sorry to hear about your house Anthony... :(

Ryan

[Sicklid]

Anthony, I too have been a victim of vandalism within the past couple of months in a supposedlly gated, safe community. I am sorry for you and I feel your pain my friend.

[number8]

Sorry to about your home, Anthony, am glad you are safe and hope everything works out

Adam

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6291848#post6291848 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Randall_James
I would question the wisdom of any shop owner using the product without this MSDS on file.

Your quite right. Which raises the next question.

Tyler, do you have MSDS sheets for your products?

[Anthony Calfo]

I very much appreciate the kind words, my friends.

But no worries, now.

It's really all water under the bridge already. I was indeed angry/violated/hurt on day one... but am thankful for many things. No one was hurt above all. Just another stat at that point. I do have insurance... and my two most fav antiques were untouched. Actually... most all the larger furniture were untouched. Its rather silly the damage they did and things they chose to steal.

OK... OT diversion over :p
'
Much thanks for caring :D That's the sort of kindness that is so inspiring :)

[graveyardworm]

C'mon Tyler 157 posts and 3690 views alot of which are undoubtably following this thread. Thats alot of sales if you can answer some of the most basic questions posted here.

[GTR]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6295650#post6295650 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
Your quite right. Which raises the next question.

Tyler, do you have MSDS sheets for your products?

Just like everyone else here I have no idea what's in this stuff. But just because it's in a bottle that's being used by an employee does not mean it must have a MSDS supplied. That is only required for products that fall into the catagory of being hazardous.

(d) "Hazard Determination."

(d)(1)

Chemical manufacturers and importers shall evaluate chemicals produced in their workplaces or imported by them to determine if they are hazardous. Employers are not required to evaluate chemicals unless they choose not to rely on the evaluation performed by the chemical manufacturer or importer for the chemical to satisfy this requirement.

(d)(2)

Chemical manufacturers, importers or employers evaluating chemicals shall identify and consider the available scientific evidence concerning such hazards. For health hazards, evidence which is statistically significant and which is based on at least one positive study conducted in accordance with established scientific principles is considered to be sufficient to establish a hazardous effect if the results of the study meet the definitions of health hazards in this section. Appendix A shall be consulted for the scope of health hazards covered, and Appendix B shall be consulted for the criteria to be followed with respect to the completeness of the evaluation, and the data to be reported.

Trade Secrets

(i) "Trade secrets."

(i)(1)

The chemical manufacturer, importer, or employer may withhold the specific chemical identity, including the chemical name and other specific identification of a hazardous chemical, from the material safety data sheet, provided that:

(i)(1)(i)

The claim that the information withheld is a trade secret can be supported;

(i)(1)(ii)

Information contained in the material safety data sheet concerning the properties and effects of the hazardous chemical is disclosed

I'll spare you and not insert the remainder of this here but it can be found at....
http://www.ilpi.com/msds/osha/1910_1200.html#1910.1200(i)


Getting an attorney involved in detirming what the regulations require should help support our economy and add a substaintial amount to the retail price of the product. :lol:

SteveU

[Anthony Calfo]

just about three weeks now since it was pointed out that Bob F from WetWebMedia is falsely cited as giving a testimonial when it really was another chap not even giving a testimonial about a NSF product...

...and the bogus Bob F testimonial is still on the NSF page. I wonder if Bob needs to threaten NSF with a lawsuit before they'll change it.

Interesting.

[Randall_James]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6297136#post6297136 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gtrestoration
Just like everyone else here I have no idea what's in this stuff. But just because it's in a bottle that's being used by an employee does not mean it must have a MSDS supplied. That is only required for products that fall into the catagory of being hazardous.

SteveU Yes but you of all people owning a business in CA would know that all a employee has to do is sneeze foul and defending yourself will easily cost you his years wages. Even in AZ in my auto shops, we had to keep MSDS on every compound in the shop by the requirements of my insurance carrier.

[puter]

Anthony -

I'm disappointed (but, as you might imagine, not at all surprised) that Tyler hasn't responded to the legitimate questions raised here. According to the Federal Trade Commission (here (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm)), advertisers are required to have a reasonable basis for their claims and testimonials are not sufficient:

What kind of evidence must a company have to support the claims in its ads?
Before a company runs an ad, it has to have a "reasonable basis" for the claims. A "reasonable basis" means objective evidence that supports the claim. The kind of evidence depends on the claim. At a minimum, an advertiser must have the level of evidence that it says it has. For example, the statement "Two out of three doctors recommend ABC Pain Reliever" must be supported by a reliable survey to that effect. If the ad isn't specific, the FTC looks at several factors to determine what level of proof is necessary, including what experts in the field think is needed to support the claim. In most cases, ads that make health or safety claims must be supported by "competent and reliable scientific evidence" - tests, studies, or other scientific evidence that has been evaluated by people qualified to review it. In addition, any tests or studies must be conducted using methods that experts in the field accept as accurate.

Are letters from satisfied customers sufficient to substantiate a claim?
No. Statements from satisfied customers usually are not sufficient to support a health or safety claim or any other claim that requires objective evaluation.
Therefore, customers who feel they've been misled do have recourse.

I'm also disappointed, given this exchange, that Reef Central continues to list No Sick Fish as a sponser given the endorsement one might infer.

[GTR]

I'd be more concerned if Reef Central had cancelled the sponsorship!!! We don't need the powers that run RC to decide what it is we see and don't see. Were would you suggest the line be drawn?

There are many products here that RC, it's general membership or it's list of "experts" would not endorse.

That's what this discussion is for. :)

SteveU

[puter]

Steve -

If you investigate the "real world" of publishing (newspapers, magazines, journals, etc.) you'll find nearly all of them have acceptable advertising policies that limit the types of advertising they accept for their publications. You'll also find the requirements for "sponsors" are typically quite a bit higher because of the implied association.

You may not agree that NSF's actions warrant RC ending the sponsorship relationship. If so, we've identified the point of our disagreement and can leave it there.

Best,

- Mark

[Anthony Calfo]

I see your point and understand (even largely agree with) your sentiment, Mark... but I agree with Steve strongly here.

it would be concerning to me if RC or any benevolent overseer (seriously... RC acting as a free content provider only here) passed judgement on merchants as well. It's not their place, duty or "speciality", if you will. Instead, the very machine that is RC is the means by which educated hobbyists get the information they need to be educated consumers. This thread is but one example. And its not an example of what to buy or not buy, but rather a consensus of experiences and (mostly) opinions by which each potential customer forms their OWN individual consensus.

Free will... free market... and NO censorship please :)

I'm a big boy... have a few smarts, and can make my own decisions without yet another entity excessively shaping what I see, hear or read. I trust that others are competant to do the same... though I realize not all are: hence my personal efforts on (hobbyist) consumer advocacy and education.

That all said, if a sponsor was deemed in fact to be fraudulent, somehow a risk to RC members and/or (of course) in violation of some aspect of the RC User Agreement, then they are gone. Period. But its a serious decision that must be given thorough examination and consideration before action.

[puter]

Then, may I respectfully suggest that you and I, Anthony, have a different point of disagreement.:p For you've brought in the rather inflammatory word "censorship" and equated it to a publisher's decision to decide whom they choose to accept funding from. The newspaper publishers I work with, who weigh this issue heavily, would cringe at your associating the two. I am not at all for censorship.

NSF has the right to say whatever they wish, but they do not have the right to use RC's microphone to say it. RC is choosing to reap financial gain from an organization that is being blatently disingenuous. That does not reflect well on RC...

[Anthony Calfo]

Mark... you do realize that NSF has scarcely posted at all? In their forum or outside.

I'd hardly call it using RC as a microphone.

Instead... we (hobbyists) have gone offsite mostly in regards to the points raised here. And all as fodder for our discussion on a reef hobby topic. That is the way this machine called RC works. Public forum.

I also think you are way off base on the analogy between your/the newspaper business and RC as publishers of content.

Unless your newspapers are free... then the difference is that your publishers take pay for all of the content they dole out. It is required (payment for the newspaper) before one can read the new/today's news, etc. As such... they are answerable to their customers for the product offered. That is to say... they have obligations and responsibilities (by law even).

But here on RC... it is free content for any/all. Regular membership is free and the overwhelming majority of members choose not to contribute to the site operation by buying a premium membership.

They just sign on for free... just like you, Mark (as of this date 12/26/05) ;)

And RC as a privately owned free content provider technically owes you nothing.

You are, in fact, getting more than you paid for here at RC.

[puter]

The seventh logo up on this (http://www.reefcentral.com/sponsors/) page respresents paid "sponsorship" does it not? I didn't ask that Tyler in any way be banned or prevented from posting.

Would you be interested in NSF sponsoring your posters? IMO, it doesn't reflect well on RC... I'll leave it there.

[Anthony Calfo]

I can't speak to whether the sponsorship has been paid or not. That is, in fact, a huge problem with many message boards as others with experience will attest.

As far as NSF sposoring my posters... I don't see how that would be possible. I don't take advertising monies from anyone... for anything.

Furthermore, my books any posters are produced for very little profit (others have hard/read this rant before). Yet, ignorant (as in not knowing) folks always presume that if you are a book author, it must be profitable. Ah... not so. Not even close :D

When you pay your layout folks/friends the same share as you (the author), print in the USA and keep your price points lower than industry average so that more content can reach more hobbyists more affordably... you have situations where it costs over $120K to make only $5K for floating the cash for several years... taking two years to write and several in promotion to follow, its hardly profitable by any definition. So again we are at a place where the "publisher" (me) really owes you little to nothing. If you don't want to buy a book, point me to your local library if it does not have one to lend. Go see any of the lectures I give... I've never once asked for a dollar of profit to give presentations and rarely been given an honorarium. Or... people can just reach me for free on RC, RF, WWM, SRC, SARC, etc.

I write books and make posters for several reasons including but not limited to information sharing, pride in accomplishment and vanity. But I do so at a significant profit risk for my efforts.

What exactly is your point here Mark? I think I'm missing it.

[puter]

What exactly is your point here Mark?
That if I owned RC, I wouldn't accept advertising/sponsorship from firms shown to have acted as NSF has
just as I doubt (if you ever did accept such an arrangement) that you would welcome an offer from NSF to, for instance, sponsor a booth at IMAC featuring your books/posters because of how it would reflect on you
But, I regret my participation in taking this thread off topic so I'll end it here.
FWIW, I did collaborate on a book, and I remember the cup of coffee it afforded me well.:)

[Anthony Calfo]

ah... understood then. As a hobbyist/consumer I share this sentiment largely. It would be nice to see (and we often expect) the organizations we support to in turn not support entities that do not seem to support us (not help, or hurt).

It certainly is not an unreasonable expectation either! And even as an RC mod, I am not wholly on one side of the argument or the other.

After things settle down (holidays, personal difficulties among some of the RC powers) I do expect this issue and others to be revisited. Spring cleaning perhaps :)

re: your book collab - I do hope that cup of coffee you earned was at least good coffee :D Amen :p

[NSF]

If anyone has questions email me. My email address is Tyler@nosickfish.com. I apologize to any users that were respectful and asked direct questions, and I didn’t respond to your question.

I am not participating in this thread! Everything I say is altered, attacked, ignored, etc. etc…….I don’t have the time for it.

Email me, and I’ll do my best to respond. Feel free to forward my response on to the forum!

Tyler
No Sick Fish

[ReefDiver]

Tyler: Not for anything but if you are willing to rspond to emails then why aren't you also willing to answer posted questions on this site? I am also very curious as to the "How" & "Why" your product does what you profess it to do.

Reading this entire thread has taken some time (I'm a slow reader I guess) but has been a real eye opener. Much of the discussion appears to be focused on how your company can make such claims but not have the backup research to substantiate them. Not to take sides but to me your argument that it "works" just does not hold water. I am sure that someone on this site, i.e., Dr. Randy Holmes-Farley, would be more than willing to at least evaluate the effectiveness of your product, or lack of as may be the case.

I am also in the camp of not wanting or caring to place anything in my tank that does not list the ingredients and/or is not backed up by any research studies. Mere "testimonials" do not fit the bill either as has been planely noted in this thread.

I wish you well with your product but I believe that "buyer beware' in this case has a lot of merit. Nuff said!

BTW, IMO Anthony has been more than fair regarding the contents of many of post/comments herein.

[Steven Pro]

Does anyone have a free sample that they picked up at IMAC or MACNA that is still unopened? If so, please send me a PM or email.

[Steven Pro]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6565116#post6565116 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Steven Pro
Does anyone have a free sample that they picked up at IMAC or MACNA that is still unopened? If so, please send me a PM or email. Anyone?

[billsreef]

Steven,

Just to let you know, I recently had oppertunity to test NSF against ich in a reef tank setting, mostly softies and LPS. No corals, sea cukes, snails or worms apeared to alter behavior or polyp extension. In addition the ich did not alter it's life cycle in the least either ;) I found it just as ineffective against ich as Sano and other so called reef safe ich medications.

[Steven Pro]

Thanks for the heads up.

[billsreef]

No Problem ;) I've been meaning to PM you, but a host of computer issues had me sidetracked. Excercised the gremlins from the PC and my laptop, and then they attacked my ozone unit :eek1:

[Steven Pro]

Just a heads up. I finally got a bottle of No Sick Fish Ich Treatment and I have 36 specimens of Xenia awaiting part two of my trials. It is still going to be a week or so until I start the experiment, a few weeks to conduct it, and then a while to compile my notes into an article, but I will keep you all posted.

[Vintage_Fish]

Steve, I almost picked up a bottle for you at a local aquarium club auction recently, but I just couldn't justify paying six bucks for it. I'm glad you got ahold of some, though! I'm also eager for your results, but even more interested in knowing wether it actually lives up to its claims.

I, for one, will not put anything into any of my tanks without knowing what exactly it is, so it's just pure curiosity at this point.

[melev]

Steven, why xenia? Why not ich infested fish?

[Steven Pro]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7007628#post7007628 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by melev
Steven, why xenia? Why not ich infested fish? Here is the article detailing my first batch of testing. The reasons for Xenia are explained in there.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-12/sp/index.php

By the way, getting ich and only ich infested fish is easier said than done.

[melev]

:lol: Not based on the threads I read here on RC.

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. I was thinking "xenia?", similar to Ron Shimek's salt study about urchin larvae. Not too many of us are raising urchins, but we all have reef tanks... ;)

[thrlride]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7006347#post7006347 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Vintage_Fish
Steve, I almost picked up a bottle for you at a local aquarium club auction recently, but I just couldn't justify paying six bucks for it. I'm glad you got ahold of some, though! I'm also eager for your results, but even more interested in knowing wether it actually lives up to its claims.

I, for one, will not put anything into any of my tanks without knowing what exactly it is, so it's just pure curiosity at this point.

Sure hope you never get flatworms!

[thrlride]

Nice article Steven. By looking at the pictures, it looks like greenex caused the xenia to grow more than the control.

[powdertang05]

so all this evidence and comments from tyler and RC still allows him to be a sponsor on here. makes me sick to my stomach. can some mod or someone tell me why they are still allowed to be here?

[graveyardworm]

Here's your answer from page 7 by Anthony Calfo

I see your point and understand (even largely agree with) your sentiment, Mark... but I agree with Steve strongly here.

it would be concerning to me if RC or any benevolent overseer (seriously... RC acting as a free content provider only here) passed judgement on merchants as well. It's not their place, duty or "speciality", if you will. Instead, the very machine that is RC is the means by which educated hobbyists get the information they need to be educated consumers. This thread is but one example. And its not an example of what to buy or not buy, but rather a consensus of experiences and (mostly) opinions by which each potential customer forms their OWN individual consensus.

Free will... free market... and NO censorship please

I'm a big boy... have a few smarts, and can make my own decisions without yet another entity excessively shaping what I see, hear or read. I trust that others are competant to do the same... though I realize not all are: hence my personal efforts on (hobbyist) consumer advocacy and education.

That all said, if a sponsor was deemed in fact to be fraudulent, somehow a risk to RC members and/or (of course) in violation of some aspect of the RC User Agreement, then they are gone. Period. But its a serious decision that must be given thorough examination and consideration before action.

[rbaker]

Thanks David :thumbsup:

[shookbrad]

Well All I know is NSF ICK has worked for me 100% of the time on three different SPS dominate Reef tanks.
However I had to treat for two full weeks not one.
Also, Why is it SOOO expensive? I know you are in it to make a profit but it seams your profit might be a little too high. Have some compassion on the hobbiest. :)

[daytonben]

Sounds... fishy.

[the808state]

4 year old bump. Wow congrats