In the first part of this series, I discussed
some of the most common, tried and true methods for dealing
with Marine Ich, along with symptoms, its life cycle and prevention.
In this second part, I discuss some of the newer and/or more
experimental "cures." Please keep in mind the lifecycle
of the parasite and the proven cures when evaluating the effectiveness
of the treatment options detailed below.
Fish can develop immunity to Cryptocaryon
irritans that can last for up to six months (Colorni,
1987 and Colorni & Burgess, 1997). It is this natural
immunity that makes evaluating the effectiveness of various
treatment options so difficult. How can someone ever be certain
that what they dosed to their tank or fed to their fish is
what caused the cure they observed? The answer is simple,
they can't. Until there are controlled, scientific studies,
preferably repeated a few times, we cannot be sure that any
of the newer homeopathic or "reef-safe" treatments
This limited immunity is also the basis
for some aquarists advocating that if a fish gets sick, to
just maintain pristine water quality, feed a superb diet,
and to allow the fish's own immune system to do the job. While
it is possible that this could work, natural immunity is not
totally foolproof. In the studies cited above, some of the
fish were not completely protected by their own natural immunity.
It is possible that immunity could protect the fish from massive
infestation, but still allow small numbers of parasites to
remain and reproduce undetected by the aquarist. This is where
the 'Ich is always present' argument comes into play and why
sometimes an aquarist has recurring difficulties with this
pathogen. It is possible, in some cases, that the treatment
was cut short or misapplied or for some other reason not totally
effective, but that immunity helped to partially ward off
the infection. In this situation, a low-level infestation,
held in check by natural immunity but not totally eradicated,
could continue to survive but be misdiagnosed, or missed all
together, by the hobbyist. The parasites could progress through
their lifecycle by predominately attacking the gill tissue,
where they could go unseen. Or, the number of parasites could
be so low and their appearance (and disappearance) be erratic
enough that the aquarist does not pick up on the infection
or attributes the occasional white spot to a speck of sand
or air bubble because the fish are behaving normally otherwise.
That is until some other minor mishap occurs or the immunity
wears off and the balance shifts in favor of the infestation,
resulting in a full-blown infestation once again.
I want to be clear on this point. I do
not believe Cryptocaryon irritans is always
present in our systems. With a strict quarantine protocol,
it is possible keep an Ich-free aquarium. I just believe that
there have been enough hobbyists who have misused a treatment
or utilized an ineffective treatment option, such that they
never really fully conquered their initial infestation. Their
continuing problems over the course of many months, and the
posting of those experiences, seem to be enough to promote
this aquarium myth. Cryptocaryon irritans can be eradicated
from an infected system with a proven treatment and can be
kept out of the system if good quarantine practices are employed.
Most of the hobbyists who consider letting
their fish fight off the infection on their own are hopeful
that it will work because they find the challenge of removing
all the fish and allowing the aquarium to go fallow (without
any fish hosts), very daunting. If you are considering natural
immunity as a treatment option, ask yourself a few simple
||How big is the tank?
||How difficult would it really be to tear
the display apart to capture and remove all of the fishes
to a separate hospital/quarantine tank for treatment?
||How much is it going to cost
to replace all of the fishes in the event of a catastrophic
||What kind of moral and ethical
responsibilities do you have for the pets that you purchased?
||And lastly, what in the world
were you doing adding anything that had not been quarantined
into your aquarium in the first place?
I cannot answer these questions for you,
but it is my opinion that it is inappropriate to do nothing.
I would hope for acquired or innate natural immunity to kick
in when used with other less aggressive but pro-active treatments,
such as using biological cleaners, medicated foods, UV, ozone,
and garlic. Although I clearly don't believe this shotgun
approach of unproven treatments is the most effective option
available. For me, if you gamble with un-quarantined items
and infect your tank, it is best to bite the bullet, remove
all the fishes to a separate quarantine aquarium, fallow the
tank, and use a proven treatment.
Treatment Option 6: Freshwater Dips
Freshwater dips are a highly effective
form of treatment against a wide variety of parasites, although
their use against Cryptocaryon irritans has been questioned
(Colorni, 1985). I am including them here because I still
choose to employ them, as I believe they have at least some
effect against Ich and because they have been proven effective
against Amyloodinium, Turbellarian Worms (the so-called
Black Ich), some Flukes (Noga, 2000), and Uronema (Kollman,
2003). For these reasons, freshwater dips are still part of
my standard operating procedure when receiving fish.
For some reason, many hobbyists are extremely
reluctant and nervous about freshwater dipping their fish,
yet show little concern about using toxins, poisons, and carcinogens,
such as Copper or Formalin, for treatment. It is my contention
that any fish that does not survive a properly conducted freshwater
dip would not have lived regardless of treatment. I have dipped
hundreds, perhaps thousands of fish, and have yet to kill
a fish with a freshwater dip. I define this by the fish dying
either in the dip bucket or within hours of the freshwater
treatment. If a fish dies a day or two later, while one may
claim it was the result of the dip, it is more likely that
the disease was too far along and the fish too damaged to
To prepare a proper freshwater dip, take
either dechlorinated tap water or demineralized water (RO
or DI), aerate for an hour to maximize dissolved oxygen, heat
to match the temperature of the dip water to that of the tank
water, and then add buffering compounds to match the freshwater
pH to your saltwater pH. The aeration should continue throughout
the dip. It is crucial to match temperature and pH and to
maximize dissolved oxygen. Most people that experience problems
with freshwater dipping have made an error in these critical
The recommended duration of the dip varies
from author to author because different species of marine
fish tolerate freshwater to different degrees. Generally speaking,
any dip less than two minutes is useless. Many fish will easily
tolerate five, ten, even fifteen minutes or more. The least
tolerant fish are wrasses, lionfish, pufferfish, drumfish,
hi-hats, jackknives, firefish and many of the scaleless fish
as a rule (Calfo, pers. comm.). I also choose not to dip lionfish,
foxfaces, or any other venomous fishes because I don't want
a flying torpedo of spines to come shooting out of a dip bucket
at me. A lionfish has stung me before, and it is not an experience
I ever wish to relive.
Please only dip one fish in each bucket.
If you must dip several fish, it is best to make up several
smaller freshwater dips versus one large bucket, and always
discard all dip water. I also would like to warn you about
dipping fish that excrete toxins. There are several fish that
give off toxins with their protective slime coat. Mandarins,
boxfish, and the Six-line Grouper are a few. When in freshwater,
they will naturally excrete more protective slime. There is
a possibility that in the confines of a dip bucket, these
fish could poison themselves or others, so be careful.
The best advice I can give you is to observe
your fish closely. Some fish will swim around like nothing
is happening. Others will go straight to the bottom and lie
there. Definitive signs of trouble are manifested by the fish
jumping out of the dip bucket and spitting water.
There is an alternative to standard freshwater
dips that should also be mentioned. Some individuals prefer
to use freshwater with methylene blue in the dip (Fenner,
pers. comm.- more information here).
Methylene blue is an anti-microbial dye. It is effective against
a wide range of microbes such as bacteria, fungus, yeast,
etc. This combination works well to rid the animal of external
parasites and provides some protection against secondary infections.
As I stated in part one of this series, I almost always use
daily water changes. These daily cleanings tend to spur the
fishes' own immune system to combat any secondary infections
by helping to maintain optimum water quality, so I have not
felt the need for using Methylene blue, but it is a worthwhile
option to consider.
I wanted to add a footnote on the effectiveness,
or lack thereof, for freshwater dips against Cryptocaryon
irritans. The question of whether they work or not stems
from one study, Colorni 1985. In that study, Colorni watched
as trophonts and their host, the Gilt-Head Sea Bream, Sparus
aurata, were given freshwater dips. After the dips, which
lasted up to 18 hours, were administered the trophonts were
still there in their same positions. These same trophonts
later dropped off the fish and reproduced successfully. My
first comment is, I am unsure if any of the common ornamentals
we see in the trade could withstand an 18-hour freshwater
dip! Secondly, Gilt-Head Sea Bream, Sparus aurata,
are found in marine, brackish, and even freshwater environments.
I am concerned that whatever protection these fish have that
allows them to withstand such osmotic shock could also unintentionally
protect the parasite. Please take my musing with a grain of
salt. Better yet, make that a whole 50-gallon bag. I am not
a doctor, nor am I schooled in fish pathology. This was merely
something that struck me in my reading, so I wanted to mention
it. In fact, it has aroused such curiousity that I am currently
working on developing a protocol for testing freshwater dips
against Cryptocaryon irritans in a common marine ornamental
species. I will keep you posted.
With all that I have discussed concerning
freshwater dips my position on its use may seem a bit murky.
Just to clarify, I do employ and advocate the use of freshwater
dips when first receiving fish. I believe all fish that can
be dipped should be administered this treatment prior to placement
into a proper quarantine tank. This is done in an effort to
minimize all possible parasitic infections. I do not, however,
recommend freshwater dips as a cure for Cryptocaryon irritans.
In my opinion, the repeated handling and osmotic shock of
repeated dips are far too stressful to warrant its usage when
other proven, but less aggressive treatments are available
such as hyposalinity or daily water changes. Lastly, assuming
freshwater dips can kill the embedded trophonts on a fish,
once they are returned to the infected aquarium, they are
just going to contract this pathogen again. So, I recommend
using them and using them once only upon receiving the fish
to minimize all possible parasitic infections.
Treatment Option 7: Quinine Based Drugs
Quinine Hydrochloride and Chloroquine
Diphosphate are two medications commonly available, although
the later is usually indicated for the treatment of Marine
Velvet/Amyloodinium. Several of the references report
these Quinine-based drugs as having mixed results, and I agree
(Bassleer, 1996, Gratzek et al, 1988 and Fenner).
I have used a commercial preparation of Quinine Hydrochloride
and Malachite Green on several occasions when treating a display
aquarium. In all instances, the infestation subsided, but
with a few mortalities. In my opinion, I would have experienced
fewer deaths with the removal of the all the fish to a separate
I can say that the Quinine Hydrochloride
and Malachite Green preparation is fairly invertebrate safe.
Although I have never used it in a full-blown reef tank, I
have used it in the presence of motile invertebrates (various
shrimps and crabs), liverock, and livesand (along with the
various hitchhikers; amphipods, copepods, small feather dusters,
sponges, chitons, etc.) with little to no discernable adverse
reactions. The only effect I witnessed was Sun Polyps (Protopalythoa
grandis) turned green, although this was likely due to
the Malachite Green. They did survive though, resumed their
normal coloration, and have since multiplied, as did all of
the little liverock hitchhikers.
I need to point out a few serious precautions
regarding the use of Malachite Green. First, it is a respiratory
poison, teratogen (an agent that can cause malformations of
an embryo or fetus), and a suspected carcinogen. For these
reasons, it is illegal to use on food fish in the United Sates,
although it is still used on ornamental fish for treating
eggs for mold and fungal infections. Also, Malachite Green
is thought to accumulate in tissue after repeated treatments
(Noga, 2000). Lastly, the original preparations of Malachite
Green from the 50's were made from the mineral Malachite (Dr.
Shimek, pers. comm.), which contains high levels of copper.
Although the compound Malachite Green does not contain copper,
it is possible some aquarium preparations may contain traces
of copper and could be very toxic to invertebrates (Dr. Shimek,
Treatment Option 8: 5-Nitroimidazoles
There is another class of products on
the market that are alleged to be a reef-safe, alternative,
anti-parasitic medication for Cryptocaryon irritans.
The active ingredient of this category of treatments is 5-Nitroimidazoles.
I have only used this type of product a few times, but never
in a reef tank, so I cannot speak to those claims. I found
these to be moderately successful against Cryptocaryon,
although it required twice as many applications as the manufacturer
stated on the instructions to affect a complete cure. My biggest
complaint is how expensive it was, in particular accounting
for the amount and time needed to affect a full cure. Anyone
who wishes to try one of these products should perform a search
on several of the online message boards to get additional
feedback prior to purchasing. Based on my own experience alone,
I cannot recommend them.
Treatment Option 9: U.V. Sterilization
Ultraviolet sterilizers work by damaging
most anything in the water column that passes through them.
Their effectiveness is dependent on the wattage of the unit,
the flow rate through the unit, the age of the lamp, the volume
of the water being treated, the cleanliness of the sleeve,
the clarity of the water, and the decorations (potential hiding
spots for tomonts) in the aquarium (Moe, 1989). Colorni &
Burgess (1997) discuss the use of UV. They extrapolate from
a previous study done on freshwater Ich, Ichthyophthirius
multifiliis, and UV (If you are so interested, the original
article is Gratzek, Gilbert, Lohr, Shotts, and Brown's 1983
piece "Ultraviolet light control of Ichthyophthirius
multifiliis in a closed fish culture recirculation system."
It can be found in the Journal of Fish Diseases volume 6 pages
145-153). In the study, they showed UV could prevent the spread
of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis when used on a central
system, but could not affect a cure within an individual aquarium.
Colorni and Burgess believe the same would hold true with
Cryptocaryon irritans. I would concur with them as
my own personal/professional experience has demonstrated the
same. I have found UV's to be very effective in bare bottom
tanks, primarily in retail and wholesale operations. In display
aquaria, the volume of the tank, the substrate and rockwork,
the flow rate of the UV, and the wattage all work against
its effectiveness. In commercial operations, many times, employees
wipe down bare bottom tanks daily to maintain a clean appearance
for customers. This has the added benefit of knocking loose
the cyst stage of the parasite. The bare bottom, minimal decoration,
high flow rates, and massive UV units on these systems ensure
that most all the cysts and theronts pass through the sterilizer
and are neutralized.
Please note that while I have drawn a
comparison between freshwater and saltwater Ich, there is
no taxonomic relationship. They may appear superficially similar
to aquarists and they do in fact share some common features
such as life cycle, mode of reproduction, and dispersal mechanism,
but they are different and distinct organisms. This is a case
of convergent evolution; when different organisms evolve to
have a similar appearance because they occupy similar niches.
There is a very nice example illustrating this phenomenon
located at this website.
Treatment Option 10: Ozone
The use of ozone is somewhat similar to
the use of ultraviolet sterilizers in that you are attempting
to kill the pathogen by killing everything that passes through
a reaction chamber. In this case, the reaction chamber is
usually a protein skimmer, although there are some dedicated
ozone reactors on the market and instructions on the Internet
for DIY units. Ozone does not have as many of the variables
affecting its performance as UV's do. On the contrary, if
water clarity is an issue, ozone will help to improve overall
water quality while at the same time, work towards neutralizing
The other big difference between ozone
and UV treatments is there is a higher probability that the
use of ozone can affect a cure in a single aquarium. Wilkie
and Gordon (1969) reported that they were able to prevent
the infestation of fish placed into an infected aquarium for
21 days with the use of ozone. Unfortunately, due to the prolonged
life cycle of Cryptocaryon irritans, I cannot say that
this is definitive proof, but it does show some promise. It
was not until more recently that the biology and life cycle
of Cryptocaryon irritans was better understood, so
much of the older data on this disease is now deemed inconclusive.
The major drawback to the use of ozone
is the potential to overdose and kill everything in the system.
Ozone must be administered using a monitor/controller unit.
Also, the effluent of the water and air should be run through
activated carbon to ensure that any residual ozone is neutralized
Treatment Option 11: Biological Controls
While probably not able to affect a cure
in a full-blown infestation, the use of cleaner shrimp may
help with a mild problem. I wish to express my dismay when
seeing cleaner wrasses, Labroides species, offered
for sale. The vast majority of these are doomed to waste away
as they are obligate feeders of marine ectoparasites (Fenner,
2003). There are many other effective cleaners available with
a much better survival rate. Please leave these fish in the
ocean where they can live long, happy lives and help maintain
the health of the other reef fish.
The other argument against the use of Labroides
wrasses is, being a fish, they are just as susceptible to
infection as the fish they are "treating." In a
closed, contaminated system, the cleaner wrasse will, in time,
become infected too. As a result, it will eat less and become
useless for combating Cryptocaryon. This same argument
also rules out the use of other cleaner fish such as the various
Gobiosoma species. While these make excellent aquarium
residents, they are not an effective cure for parasitic diseases
of fish. The cleaner shrimp, on the other hand, are not susceptible
to Cryptocaryon and could therefore help to bring about
a cure, while not being a complete cure in and of themselves.
One last note on Labroides wrasses,
contrary to popular opinion, they do not consume Cryptocaryon
parasites. They have demonstrated a strong preference for
gnathid isopods, which make up between 77 and 85% of their
natural diet (Grutter, 1997 & 2000).
The remaining prey items are composed of scales, parasitic
copepods, and non-parasitic copepods. So, regardless of whatever
conscientious objections one may or may not have regarding
their availability in the marine aquarium trade, they are
not going to help in the battle against Ich. Also, since Cryptocaryon
irritans is known to be rare in the wild (Bunkley-Williams
& Williams, 1994), it would follow that it is unlikely
that Ich makes up any significant portion of any cleaner organism's
diet. This, coupled with how deep the trophonts embed, throws
into question the effectiveness of any cleaner against Cryptocaryon
Treatment Option 12: Medicated Foods
Tetra previously made a medicated food,
Anti-Protozoan Medicated Flakes, which was reported to be
effective against Cryptocaryon. The active ingredient
was Metronidazole, also known as Flagyl. This was a good option
when it was impossible to remove the fish to a separate quarantine/hospital
tank because this food was safe for use in the display tank.
The only downside was whether the fish could be coaxed to
eat it at all and whether they could eat enough of it. Although
the Tetra Medicated Food is now discontinued, Metronidazole
is available, so it is possible to obtain it and mix it into
the fish's favorite food and, with luck, to elicit a feeding
The medicated foods are a good option
for use as a preventative, for mild infestations, or when
used in conjunction with one of the other less effective treatments,
such as biological controls, UV, ozone, and garlic. All of
these methods could be employed together in a display tank
when removal is not chosen, although this is not the most
effective solution, in my experience. I have always had better
luck going through the trouble of removing all the fish for
separate treatment or better yet, quarantining all new livestock
and avoiding infection in the first place.
There is one possible drawback to this
treatment that was brought to my attention. Feeding something
like Metronidazole, or potentially even garlic (discussed
below), could have deleterious affects to the beneficial microflora
of a fish's intestine, much like the side effects to Copper
exposure (Dr. Charles Moon, aka moonpod, pers. comm.). Additionally,
any medication with significant antibiotic properties will
act upon the bacterial populations living in the system, and
will foster the development of drug resistant bacteria (Dr.
Ron Shimek, pers. comm.).
Treatment Option 13: Garlic
Garlic is another of the alternative treatments
for Cryptocaryon to be touted lately. I have read of
many people reporting using it "successfully" as
a preventative. The difficult part in assessing these reports
is whether the fish would have developed Cryptocaryon
in the first place. And, when someone claims it to be a "cure,"
how can they definitively rule out natural, acquired immunity
or even confusion over Cryptocaryon's life cycle.
At the very least, garlic does have some
proven anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, anti-parasitic, and antiviral
properties (Bartelme, 2003 and and Cortes-Jorge,
2001). I included it here because this treatment has shown
enough promise to warrant further scientific evaluation. Unfortunately
for us, all the real money in this industry is directed to
commercial food fish, not our ornamentals. With other effective
and inexpensive treatments available, I don't know if grant
money will ever be directed into finding out if this alternative
treatment conclusively works. Perhaps we could convince the
fine marketing people at Mrs. Gordon's that they should try
a pre-flavored version of their famous fish sticks by feeding
the fish garlic. I can just hear the ad now, "A hint
of garlic in every bite."
My biggest problem with the use of garlic
is the mythology that has developed regarding it. This all
began quite simply and innocently. Kelly Jedlicki was studying
the use of garlic as an intestinal dewormer. For those who
don't know who Kelly is, she is affectionately referred to
as the "Puffer Queen" as they are her favorite fishes
and oftentimes are brought into the trade polluted with various
worms. As I said, she was examining the effectiveness of garlic
against nematodes and cestodes on impacted puffers when she
noticed a general decrease in Cryptocaryon irritans
incidence. Later on, she proposed feeding garlic to fish as
a preventative for Cryptocaryon irritans. From
there the legend of garlic has spread. Feeding garlic to fish
is now an accepted cure for Marine Ich by some individuals.
Furthermore, I have read of people merely hanging cloves of
garlic in their tank in an effort to ward off the parasites,
like some sort of bad vampire movie. And lastly, I have recently
heard of a surprising number of hobbyists who soak their corals'
food in garlic in an effort to combat possible pathogens when
target feeding them. It goes to show that garlic has become
an all-purpose wonder drug in some peoples' eyes based on
little more than anecdotal observations.
Treatment Option 14: Ginger
First garlic, now ginger. Is anyone else
starting to get hungry? Either I am going to whip up a plate
of Roasted Garlic Fettuccini Alfredo or mix up some Wasabi
and get busy rolling some Sushi Maki.
Ginger is the newest homeopathic treatment
to be suggested. The main thread to this discussion is located
I waded through the entire thing. It was up to 11 pages and
258 individual posts when I read it. A good portion of the
thread is devoted to an ongoing debate about whether this
"experiment" was scientific and/or valid. It was
neither. The next biggest group of replies debated which side
of the previous debate was being rude in their replies. I
would say there were some rude people who happened to be on
both sides of the argument. Then there was a bunch of people
posting nothing, just tagging along so they could get the
email notifications. I hate to say it, but the vast majority
of the replies were useless as far as determining whether
or not ginger was effective at all.
I will attempt to sum up the essence of
the thread to save you the time in reading it. Cratylus saw
some Ich in his tank. He added ginger to his homemade frozen
fish food. The Ich went away. There is no telling whether
or not the ginger cured the infection or if natural immunity
did. Then, Cratylus specifically purchased a Purple Tang that
had a heavy infestation. He brought that fish home, placed
it in a separate quarantine tank, fed it the same food, and
the Ich went away again. Some people pointed to this experience
as being proof. The problem is, moving a fish from an infected
tank to a clean tank is a proven cure. It is one of the variations
on the daily water change method that I mentioned in my first
article on Cryptocaryon irritans (Colorni, 1987). In
that paper, Colorni describes moving an infected fish between
two tanks. The tanks are cleaned and dried between uses, thereby
ridding them of tomonts. He instructs to do this every three
days for ten days. This is very similar to what happened with
the Purple Tang. There should have been two more moves, but
Cratylus got lucky with just the one.
I want to say explicitly that I do not
fault Cratylus for attempting something new. There would be
no new discoveries without someone trying to push the envelope.
I only wish to put his experience in light with what is already
known about the biology of Cryptocaryon irritans and
known methods or treatments.
Treatment Option 15: Pepper-Based Medications
We have yet another kitchen spice treatment,
this time involving pepper. These medications claim to work
by stimulating an increased mucus layer response from the
fish. This in turn is alleged to be able to slough off the
parasites and prevent reinfection. I was able to find only
one article on this treatment option. There are several links
to "articles" on this product at the Chem Marin
website, but only one specifies that it was published in a
magazine. Chem Marin's website utilizes frames, so I am unable
to give you the exact link to the piece, but the main site
Next click on "Reviews" at the bottom of the left
side menu. Sandy Cohen's Review #2 from FAMA was the only
publication I was able to find on these products. Both Chem
Marin and Kent's pepper-based medication are discussed, but
without documented, scientific studies, I am leery to recommend
these products. There is also no bibliography given for Sandy's
article. It would appear that it is just general impressions
and background on these products, with no testing or literature
referenced. Kent Marine offers a large list of "Considerations
for use" about what is safe and what is not here.
So if I have not dissuaded you, please review their precautions
thoroughly before attempting this treatment.
Treatment Option 16: MelaFix
I have read several threads on various
message boards suggesting the use of Aquarium Pharmaceuticals'
MelaFix as a treatment for all manors of disease, including
Marine Ich. It is important to note, however, that not even
the manufacturer recommends this product for any parasite.
As such, I certainly cannot recommend it as a treatment for
Treatment Option 17: Mystery Solutions
Lastly, there are a couple of products
on the market that do not list their ingredients. Sometimes
they say something mysterious about being able to stimulate
the immune system of the infected fish. I can only say, I
won't use or recommend something unless I know specifically
what it is, how it works, and preferably having some type
of documentation showing its effectiveness.
Hopefully, you now have a more complete
understanding of the disease and the range of some of its
treatment options. While I have attempted to cover the entire
range of options, there are likely a few that I have missed
and there are always new treatments coming onto the market.
Regardless of which treatment is most effective, the best
medicine is to prevent the outbreak in the first place; an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Please do invest
in a quarantine tank and use it. The cost is minimal compared
to buying all new fish and gives you peace of mind in knowing
all your additions are healthy. If you do this and keep a
good, stable environment in your display tank, you should
never need to treat your charges for anything. In the event
that you do have a problem, armed with the above options,
you should be able to wage a good fight against Cryptocaryon
I just wanted to take a moment to thank
Dr. Charles Moon (aka moonpod), Dr Ron Shimek, Skip Attix,
and Adam Cesnales (aka Adam) for their editorial content and
ideas. Their suggestions were quite helpful in crafting this