Bolus dosing

[twentyleagues]

I think part of it is to show, look I have great tank hence I know the reef chemistry.
You don’t have a tank or are not successful hence you don’t know the reef chemistry.

I just don’t see the link between understanding chemistry and reef keeping knowledge /ability.

When I am referring to chemistry I mean things like this:

In this thread we have individuals stating, if you don’t have 1000gal tank you should not participate. Again I am not understanding how 10gal, 200 gal or a 1000gal tank suddenly gives you degree in chemistry. Does not compute…

Just my opinion.

That is exactly what they are using it for and training their followers to respond with when confronted.

"it works, see my tank, now show me yours".

"I have experience and my results prove what I am saying. You have only theory and your tank looks like one from the 70's -- therefore you are not qualified to speak about this subject"

"If Claude is so wrong, then why does my tank and his tank look so good?"

"If Doug is so wrong, then why would he have a successful frag business and be a paid consultant for FM"

Etc.

All of it aimed at avoiding defense of the nonsense explanations in favor of just speaking to the results.

Boy oh boy I wish just owning a reef tank would make you a chemist or even make me competent in using chemistry. It does not as it turns out I am living proof you can grow corals and know next to nothing about chemistry and how it works. Yeah I got the basics but dont ask me how to figure some thing out, I'll be asking the questions on how if you dont mind.....lol

 

[Mo.]

Hmmm,

Come one now!

The hobby is ultimately about keeping fish / growing corals and ultimately having nice looking tanks. Some corals are harder to keep than others. A tank with lots of those is testament to the ability of said hobbyist.

All I’m seeing is willful misinterpretation by pod01 which the moderators should really be calling out!

At which point did I say only a certain size of tank qualifies anybody to comment???

Regardless of biochemistry. Results speak for themselves

I’m sensing excuses here?! Particularly from pod01who told me my contribution is full of fluff. I’m sensing his is full of tumbleweed?! Am I wrong? Lol

“Just my opinion” doesn’t indemnify you or your cheerleaders. Lol

Cheers
Mo

 

[Mo.]

That is exactly what they are using it for and training their followers to respond with when confronted.

"it works, see my tank, now show me yours".

And BAM! You show them your tank and they shut the hell up.

What’s wrong with that?!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

And BAM! You show them your tank and they shut the hell up.

What’s wrong with that?!

I hope that is sarcasm.

 

[Oldreefer44]

That is exactly what they are using it for and training their followers to respond with when confronted.

"it works, see my tank, now show me yours".

"I have experience and my results prove what I am saying. You have only theory and your tank looks like one from the 70's -- therefore you are not qualified to speak about this subject"

"If Claude is so wrong, then why does my tank and his tank look so good?"

"If Doug is so wrong, then why would he have a successful frag business and be a paid consultant for FM"

Etc.

All of it aimed at avoiding defense of the nonsense explanations in favor of just speaking to the results.

Oh no.....I missed the training class again?

 

[BeanAnimal]

And BAM! You show them your tank and they shut the hell up.

What’s wrong with that?!

What is wrong with it is that it is a pure deflection with no correlation to the scientific claims being made.

The topic is Claude and FM's ridiculous scientific claims. Not a debate about who has a nicer looking aquarium.

Oh no.....I missed the training class again?

No - you appear to be doing just fine even though you missed a class, but nice deflection. :astonished-face:

It is actually case-in-point to the training - which obviously refers to followers repeating the talking points of the idol, and not formalized training as your snarky response would imply :)

As it was, my comments were not directed at you directly or indirectly, but a generalization. That said, given your response, it certainly looks like you wished to be counted as a a "follower" and in that sense the deflection away from the actual topic is expected :)

So - again -- so that there is no confusion about where I stand. I am sure that you folks have nice coral and aquariums. Likely far nicer than mine in many cases. It may even be that "bolus" dosing has helped to improve your results beyond any other method that you have tried. None of that makes Claude's scientific fantasies and fabrications true or gives them merit.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

"it works, see my tank, now show me yours".

I almost took that bait to show a 6 year reef tank that kalkwasser made, focusing solely on pH. But in the end, what does that prove?

The better retort would be that expertise in reefing isn’t limited to those who pursue it as a career.

I agree with what Randy said a few times in this thread. Paraphrasing: When it comes to chemistry, the average hobbyists may not nor should they be equipped to know any better. But even I was able to spot the pseudo science, double talk and lack of substance from their messaging. But boy, I can see how it was presented in a way that was convincing to said average hobbyist!

I also don't understand the push back for not wanting to have an open discussion with other chemists in order to explain your claims unless you know that there's holes in your logic. As much as most would like to see Randy mop the floor with Claude, I don't see it ever happening.

But with all this discussion, I wonder if challenging these bolus claims inadvertently elevated them by providing a platform they might not otherwise have??

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

I almost took that bait to show a 6 year reef tank that kalkwasser made, focusing solely on pH. But in the end, what does that prove?

The better retort would be that expertise in reefing isn’t limited to those who pursue it as a career.

I agree with what Randy said a few times in this thread. Paraphrasing: When it comes to chemistry, the average hobbyists may not nor should they be equipped to know any better. But even I was able to spot the pseudo science, double talk and lack of substance from their messaging. But boy, I can see how it was presented in a way that was convincing to said average hobbyist!

I also don't understand the push back for not wanting to have an open discussion with other chemists in order to explain your claims unless you know that there's holes in your logic. As much as most would like to see Randy mop the floor with Claude, I don't see it ever happening.

But with all this discussion, I wonder if challenging these bolus claims inadvertently elevated them by providing a platform they might not otherwise have??

That it takes longer than six years to break the buffer!

 

[areefer01]

I also don't understand the push back for not wanting to have an open discussion with other chemists in order to explain your claims unless you know that there's holes in your logic. As much as most would like to see Randy mop the floor with Claude, I don't see it ever happening.

Would the narrative change if one said they do not know why?

I am not being dense here but rather often wonder if one arguing is not formally trained in the discipline and/or respected field. It puts them at a disadvantage when trying to discuss certain things. On the hobbyist level we can often say we are uninformed, ignorant, or unversed if you will. How does that apply on the small business front? Does it matter or make a difference? One would think they have a trained chemist employed to address that but maybe they don't which gets us back to the vitamins and supplements debate.

I am not giving anyone a pass because it seems that the opportunity was there. It just crosses my mind.

But with all this discussion, I wonder if challenging these bolus claims inadvertently elevated them by providing a platform they might not otherwise have??

That is an interesting observation. I don't know. I do, however, believe they are being elevated by our peers who adopt the practice. By peers I mean the more popular, subscribed to, socialites who monetize off the trends. I do not mean that disrespectful.

Hope your day is well.

 

[Oldreefer44]

What is wrong with it is that it is a pure deflection with no correlation to the scientific claims being made.

The topic is Claude and FM's ridiculous scientific claims. Not a debate about who has a nicer looking aquarium.



No - you appear to be doing just fine even though you missed a class, but nice deflection. :astonished-face:

It is actually case-in-point to the training - which obviously refers to followers repeating the talking points of the idol, and not formalized training as your snarky response would imply :)

As it was, my comments were not directed at you directly or indirectly, but a generalization. That said, given your response, it certainly looks like you wished to be counted as a a "follower" and in that sense the deflection away from the actual topic is expected :)

So - again -- so that there is no confusion about where I stand. I am sure that you folks have nice coral and aquariums. Likely far nicer than mine in many cases. It may even be that "bolus" dosing has helped to improve your results beyond any other method that you have tried. None of that makes Claude's scientific fantasies and fabrications true or gives them merit.

IMO, this whole thing is way overblown so just an attempt at humor.
If Claude or anyone else is someone's idol it's a problem. If so, I can offer free professional counseling to help them level set.
I am not a "follower" of anyone in particular so if anything I say sounds like a quote (unless it is in quotation marks) then it is purely accidental.
Not sure how one can have "scientific fantasies" but am open to them.
As I have repeatedly said: I don't know which part of the bolus system is causing the dramatic improvements that many are seeing. It may be just the lights. Don't know and don't really care.
I will not criticize anyone that rejects it. Not saying they are wrong but IMO some of the verbiage is a little over the top. I certainly don't dispute anything that Randy says and I think he has been more than fair.

 

[BeanAnimal]

IMO, this whole thing is way overblown so just an attempt at humor.

As was my opening comment in the response :)

Not sure how one can have "scientific fantasies" but am open to them.

Unsettling

I don't know which part of the bolus system is causing the dramatic improvements...
I will not criticize anyone that rejects it...

I don't reject it --- just the science used to explain it -- and the rebranding of it as something new and novel -- and the rest of the nonsense put forth by FM and so many who do subscribe.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Not sure how one can have "scientific fantasies" but am open to them.

I have them all the time. I just don’t share them publicly. lol

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

Would the narrative change if one said they do not know why?

I think so, someone who's willing to admit they don't fully understand, goes a long way. Instead of digging your heels and doubling down on pseudo science, maybe it would've been met with, "let's try and figure this out". Which I think was most peoples initial response regardless of said claims. Except the opposition was split and the approach was met on 2 fronts. One, to point out obvious flaws and dispute claims, while the other was trying to make sense out of the results despite claims.

I am not being dense here but rather often wonder if one arguing is not formally trained in the discipline and/or respected field. It puts them at a disadvantage when trying to discuss certain things. On the hobbyist level we can often say we are uninformed, ignorant, or unversed if you will. How does that apply on the small business front? Does it matter or make a difference? One would think they have a trained chemist employed to address that but maybe they don't which gets us back to the vitamins and supplements debate.

Perhaps I missed your point with this. Saying that hobbyists aren't scientist doesn't mean that we can't smell bs. That's why we have to defer to the experts in matters such as this.

But regardless of where you stand in your knowledge as a hobbyist, the onus is on the small business not to blow smoke, and when they do, they need to be ready to defend their position when challenged. As well as concede when evidence doesn't support their claim.

I think the aproach of getting "buy in" from the influencers and coral farmers is a ruse to muddy the waters. As if success is proof of all these claims. It's a weird world to be living in, when blatantly obvious sleight of hand is overlooked in order to maintain a set of beliefs.

The fact that this can't be explained by the seller or sellers scientist is what's alarming. Perhaps this new book will explain it all and connect the dots. My ask is, why not simply explain it without the monetary gain of book sales?

 

[Mo.]

I hope that is sarcasm.

Yup!

Are you cautioning me for something?

 

[areefer01]

Perhaps I missed your point with this. Saying that hobbyists aren't scientist doesn't mean that we can't smell bs. That's why we have to defer to the experts in matters such as this.

Yes, but maybe I didn't articulate my thought correctly. And I still may not if I am being honest.

On the discussion front I was wondering if the difficulty or challenge is between those being formally practiced and educated in the discipline (chemistry) vs that of one not but yet in the business of bringing products to market or aquaculture. Thus me saying one would think they have a chemist on the payroll to help with these types of questions.

As a hobbyist I can safely say I am uninformed, ignorant, or unversed and it wouldn't be disrespectful. Saying I'm stupid, well, that is both mean and disrespectful. If that makes sense.

The shorter version is I was just trying to see if the possibility of formality or discipline was a factor. Not to say that hobbyist can't call BS.

Not sure if I clarified any - sorry if not.

 

[Mo.]

This is very strange.

What’s the point of this whole forum if not about reef keeping?

Theres a lot of deflection going on here. I’m a bit disappointed by it I have to say..

I thought I was going to see
Some nice tanks in response.

Cheers

Mo

 

[BeanAnimal]

This is very strange.

What’s the point of this whole forum if not about reef keeping?

Theres a lot of deflection going on here. I’m a bit disappointed be it I have to say.

Mo., that feels like a deflection from the reality of bad science and back to wanting to frame this whole thing as "it works".

Just saying :grimacing-face:

 

[Mo.]

The fact that this can't be explained by the seller or sellers scientist is what's alarming. Perhaps this new book will explain it all and connect the dots. My ask is, why not simply explain it without the monetary gain of book sales?

Isn’t the problem that they think they can explain it and you think they can’t ?

or am I missing something?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yup!

Are you cautioning me for something?

No, just making sure I understand. :)

 

[Mo.]

Mo., that feels like a deflection from the reality of bad science and back to wanting to frame this whole thing as "it works".

Just saying :grimacing-face:

lol.

Even if it were bad science leading to nice corals is still Worth showing off.

The deflection is in the not showing off.

We have for many many years said to judge a commentator the bottom line is look at their tank and not what they say. It seems to have changed on this thread.

after all, there are very few ways to judge credentials. We can all talk a good game.

I don’t see the harm in asking to see tanks, but you’ve all gotten offended.

Just saying…. Lol