Bolus dosing

[BeanAnimal]

No need to call me Silly, Bean. It was a valid point. His integrity was being questioned. It was a personal point about Keith’s integrity. No need to add your credibitly into the discussion, nobody questioned it.

I don't know Keith personally and can't speak to his integrity. What I can tell you is that I have seen him give Claude plenty of air time and kid glove treatment with regard to these topics.

Keith's podcast and his ReefBum brand are both monetized by his sponsors.

While his integrity is not directly tied to his sponsors, it is certainly fair to question his motives when it comes to adopting the talking points, marketing or products from his sponsors.

I think that was the point.

 

[Mo.]

As Elon Musk said, “The cure for misinformation isn’t censorship, but better information.”

Had FM been professional and courteous they likely would have seen a very different path and attitude from the skeptics. Instead, they were extremely rude from the very get go. They tried to fight fire with gasoline and IMO it totally backfired on them

Well, it was their stream and it got hijacked. Thats what I saw anyway. Maybe I’m wrong.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I didn’t see that, I did see a lot of rude comments on somebody elses you tube stream. Almost like it got hi jacked.

As I’ve said before, I’m not affiliated, just interested. Sorry I didn’t see what you saw…. Just saying.

Maybe check out the subliminal message Doug placed in a recent video. I think it pretty much sums this whole nonsense up.

 

[areefer01]

He was sponsored by many others. It didn’t necessarily follow, as I don’t think he uses everything from his sponsors he may have accepted their sponsorship because he thought they had legs to start with. Who knows. But it’s no need to question his integrity, just wait for him to show his ongoing results.

I'm not questioning integrity as he declares them as a sponsor of content.

In an earlier post I questioned someone who mentioned he is moving to the method and why it mattered. I personally do not see that it matters one way or another but understand to some it may be a big deal. There are some in the hobby who believe if they follow Bob they can be just like them.

Bob is a fictional character and nothing more...

 

[Reign1]

Is Keith Broke? He seems to be a pretty honest guy with a lot of SPS colonies to lose? No? Maybe a bit more credit due?

That is what I am leaning towards.

 

[Mo.]

I don't know Keith personally and can't speak to his integrity. What I can tell you is that I have seen him give Claude plenty of air time and kid glove treatment with regard to these topics.

Keith's podcast and his ReefBum brand are both monetized by his sponsors.

While his integrity is not directly tied to his sponsors, it is certainly fair to question his motives when it comes to adopting the talking points, marketing or products from his sponsors.

I think that was the point.

I understand that and agree to a degree.

Will Keith be given a fair shout if he says he thinks bolus works (in whatever way)? I’m not so sure. He’ll just be labelled as being in the FM pocket?

Lose/ Lose? He’s a talented sps keeper who is trying out bolus- Maybe we just let him have his say on what he thinks, rather than set him up as being bought out already?

 

[Mo.]

I'm not questioning integrity as he declares them as a sponsor of content.

In an earlier post I questioned someone who mentioned he is moving to the method and why it mattered. I personally do not see that it matters one way or another but understand to some it may be a big deal. There are some in the hobby who believe if they follow Bob they can be just like them.

Bob is a fictional character and nothing more...

Fair point!

 

[BeanAnimal]

I'm not questioning integrity as he declares them as a sponsor of content.

In an earlier post I questioned someone who mentioned he is moving to the method and why it mattered. I personally do not see that it matters one way or another but understand to some it may be a big deal. There are some in the hobby who believe if they follow Bob they can be just like them.

Bob is a fictional character and nothing more...

@Mo. -- I think it is prudent to (again) contextualize the fact that almost universally most of this think "bolus dosing" does "work" in the context that it is typically a viable dosing option. If Keith adopts it, and it does no harm to his tank, but does please his sponsor.... it is a win for him. What it doesn't do is explain away the growing body of junk science that it is marketed on.

As for giving Keith a fair shake? Unfortunately, one is often judged (right or wrong) by the company that they keep. In my personal opinion, I don't find Claude to be credible. If Keith starts repeating the same nonsense as Doug and the rest of the followers, well then... I would question Keith's level of understanding.

 

[Aaron Stone]

What it doesn't do is explain away the growing body of junk science that it is marketed on.

This is the point. I would have no problem with them coming out with the Bolus Method, maybe developing some marketing around it about ease of use or something, and selling some bottles to the masses. But selling them junk science is what we should ALL have a problem with.

I don't expect Keith to bite the hand that feeds, but I would also expect us to recognize who is doing the feeding.

 

[rtparty]

Well, it was their stream and it got hijacked. Thats what I saw anyway. Maybe I’m wrong.

How is commenting and asking questions about their stream hijacking it?

You know who worries about questions being asked? Those who want to silence critics and opponents. Ask yourself why someone would want to silence critics. The onus of proof is on FM and their minions since they are making claims well outside of accepted science.

There is nothing wrong with making claims outside of accepted science. But one must provide accurate information why they believe that and show evidence. “Trust me bro” science doesn’t do any of us any good.

For some reason, users and supporters of Bolus can’t separate the two: does the method work AND does the method work HOW THEY CLAIM?

Many of us have said we believe it will “work” whatever “work” means. We knew this decades ago. There is nothing new or groundbreaking here.

What doesn’t hold water are the claims of HOW/WHY it works.

They are two different things. Separate the two and you will understand the discussion

 

[Mo.]

@Mo. -- I think it is prudent to (again) contextualize the fact that almost universally most of this think "bolus dosing" does "work" in the context that it is typically a viable dosing option. If Keith adopts it, and it does no harm to his tank, but does please his sponsor.... it is a win for him. What it doesn't do is explain away the growing body of junk science that it is marketed on.

As for giving Keith a fair shake? Unfortunately, one is often judged (right or wrong) by the company that they keep. In my personal opinion, I don't find Claude to be credible.

That’s Fair enough.

I personally like the method. It’s clean and easy. No high pH solutions that belong in labs. No real concerns and none of the potential highlighted issues in this thread have materialised, so as I said a few months ago “ it works” whatever that means.

My corals have shown consistent growth and

How is commenting and asking questions about their stream hijacking it?

You know who worries about questions being asked? Those who want to silence critics and opponents. Ask yourself why someone would want to silence critics. The onus of proof is on FM and their minions since they are making claims well outside of accepted science.

There is nothing wrong with making claims outside of accepted science. But one must provide accurate information why they believe that and show evidence. “Trust me bro” science doesn’t do any of us any good.

For some reason, users and supporters of Bolus can’t separate the two: does the method work AND does the method work HOW THEY CLAIM?

Many of us have said we believe it will “work” whatever “work” means. We knew this decades ago. There is nothing new or groundbreaking here.

What doesn’t hold water are the claims of HOW/WHY it works.

They are two different things. Separate the two and you will understand the discussion

The two are separated now. They weren’t when I first posted my questions on here.
I created the “heated”discussion if you recall? So I understand and remember it all too well.

You all questioned my definition of “works” at the time, almost to ridicule. It was categorically stated that the method couldn’t possibly “work” and if my definition of works is the tank is still alive then it just goes to show that the method is farcical.

I’m glad the two issues have seemingly separated and the narrative has changed a little from that initial exchange. At least that’s what I see after several
months. Particularly as it has since been increasingly acknowledged that in fact stat doses of alk have been used for years. You can’t possibly claim it doesn’t work in the face of that evidence I guess.

However, there is still a narrative that Bolus dosing “stresses” corals into a reduced growth state. I find that hard to believe after several months of first hand experience.

At least the discussion has evolved. The theory- well let’s see what happens.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Hi Randy,

Just a little note that you might not know.
The bolus method started out as only the alk bolus dose.

The lighting schedule changes were subsequently added. Many of the early observations regarding pH/ alk changes were “defined” without the lighting schedule changes.

I believe the reason for suggesting that FM potions are used is that the composition of the trace elements mixed with alk in the balling light method is heavy on halogens and it is believed by some that halogens protect corals from sun damage and free radicals.

I know you don’t agree that halogen traces such as iodine have any effect at all, but it’s what’s been said by “the other side”

I thought I’d just add that for those that may not know why the light boost was added into the method.

Ps- I don’t work for FM or are sponsored by them. I have read and had many conversations with them about the methods.

FWIW, I don’t think the possible explanation by Garf earlier today (flat top alk due to stalled alk uptake after stuffing corals with a bolus; apologies to Garf to my adding the stuffing part) is inconsistent with a thriving reef tank, and depending on what is compared to what and by what metric, better than some other methods.

All of the other aspects of this method may also play important roles in tank health, growth, whatever. None of that have I expressed a problem with in this thread. It may well be the case that iodine (possibly bromide, very definitely not fluoride) may act as a useful antioxidant for some organisms in very bright light.

That does not alter the misinformation they are spreading by posting falsehoods such as this one that I addressed on the second day this thread was here;

When the Bolus is dosed there is an adjustment made to the carbonate chemistry in your tank, this is using a completely natural phenomenon where the bicarbonate dosed is converted to a small amount of carbonate but a large amount of carbonic acid. The effect of this is to increase the pH, but the alkalinity will not go up as far as you might expect.

 

[Mo.]

FWIW, I don’t think the possible explanation by Garf earlier today (flat top alk due to stalled alk uptake after stuffing corals with a bolus; apologies to Garf to my adding the stuffing part) is inconsistent with a thriving reef tank, and depending on what is compared to what and by what metric, better than some other methods.

I must say that confuses me.
A thriving reef tank with stalled uptake?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

That’s Fair enough.

I personally like the method. It’s clean and easy. No high pH solutions that belong in labs. No real concerns and none of the potential highlighted issues in this thread have materialised, so as I said a few months ago “ it works” whatever that means.

My corals have shown consistent growth and

The two are separated now. They weren’t when I first posted my questions on here.
I created the “heated”discussion if you recall? So I understand and remember it all too well.

You all questioned my definition of “works” at the time, almost to ridicule. It was categorically stated that the method couldn’t possibly “work” and if my definition of works is the tank is still alive then it just goes to show that the method is farcical.

I’m glad the two issues have seemingly separated and the narrative has changed a little from that initial exchange. At least that’s what I see after several
months. Particularly as it has since been increasingly acknowledged that in fact stat doses of alk have been used for years. You can’t possibly claim it doesn’t work in the face of that evidence I guess.

However, there is still a narrative that Bolus dosing “stresses” corals into a reduced growth state. I find that hard to believe after several months of first hand experience.

At least the discussion has evolved. The theory- well let’s see what happens.

The narrative has not changed. I’ve asked over and over what users were comparing this method to when claiming it was better. That is far from claiming it doesn’t grow coral.

That’s rewriting history. Show once where I said this method would not grow coral? You are either intentionally or accidentally confounding two different things.

I certainly believe that high pH from kalkwasser causes some of the dosed alk to end up as precipitated calcium carbonate. Does that mean I think the method is no good? Of course not.

We’ll see what happens with the theory? How will anyone see anything if no one tests it?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I must say that confuses me.
A thriving reef tank with stalled uptake?

Why should it be confusing? Lower pH and lower alk slows uptake too. Does that mean reef tanks cannot thrive at lower pH? Lower alk?

If the bolus gives them a boost of carbonate they were not expecting, why would they not be satisfied for a while until they use up those internal reserves, I expect the same happens with many ions corals take up.

In any case, I’m open to better explanations, especially if there is any evidence supporting them.

 

[Mo.]

FWIW, I don’t think the possible explanation by Garf earlier today (flat top alk due to stalled alk uptake after stuffing corals with a bolus; apologies to Garf to my adding the stuffing part) is inconsistent with a thriving reef tank, and depending on what is compared to what and by what metric, better than some other methods.

All of the other aspects of this method may also play important roles in tank health, growth, whatever. None of that have I expressed a problem with in this thread. It may well be the case that iodine (possibly bromide, very definitely not fluoride) may act as a useful antioxidant for some organisms in very bright light.

That does not alter the misinformation they are spreading by posting falsehoods such as this one that I addressed on the second day this thread was here;

When the Bolus is dosed there is an adjustment made to the carbonate chemistry in your tank, this is using a completely natural phenomenon where the bicarbonate dosed is converted to a small amount of carbonate but a large amount of carbonic acid. The effect of this is to increase the pH, but the alkalinity will not go up as far as you might expect.

Randy- can I just ask.

Am I confused or have you previously said/ published that you know of no useful function of iodine in a. Reeftank?

I thought I had read this in one of your old articles?

 

[BeanAnimal]

And broken buffers and magic crystals and latent reactions that defy real-time known reactions and immune responses based on…. The list is so long and intertwined that nobody can untangle it all to refute it without getting lost in the weeds. That is 100% by design and Claude’s MO for as far back as I care to look. It’s shameful really.

 

[Mo.]

The narrative has not changed. I’ve asked over and over what users were comparing this method to when claiming it was better. That is far from claiming it doesn’t grow coral.

That’s rewriting history. Show once where I said this method would not grow coral? You are either intentionally or accidentally confounding two different things.

I certainly believe that high pH from kalkwasser causes some of the dosed alk to end up as precipitated calcium carbonate. Does that mean I think the method is no good? Of course not.

We’ll see what happens with the theory? How will anyone see anything if no one tests it?

I didn’t say it was better, I claimed it worked and you questioned my definition of “worked”.

 

[Mo.]

Why should it be confusing? Lower pH and lower alk slows uptake too. Does that mean reef tanks cannot thrive at lower pH? Lower alk?

If the bolus gives them a boost of carbonate they were not expecting, why would they not be satisfied for a while until they use up those internal reserves, I expect the same happens with many ions corals take up.

In any case, I’m open to better explanations, especially if there is any evidence supporting

That’s a different scenario Randy.
Reef tanks can thrive at a range of pH and a range of alk, whether higher or lower.

What was being suggested was that bolus dosing leads to a reduced uptake and I’m not sure what science that is based on. Hence my confusion.

Stable tanks at lower ph or Alk can still thrive. That’s a different point altogether. That’s not me confounding….

 

[BeanAnimal]

I didn’t say it was better, I claimed it worked and you questioned my definition of “worked”.

Because that is the fallback language Claude conditions people to use when facts are questioned. It is a catch-all to hide from the facts. So “what, exactly, works?” Becomes the question.