NeuroDoc
Well-known member
I think that this is likely where our discussion will need to take a different tack. You come to the discussion believing that C. irritansdoes not have a very high prevalence in the wild, while I believe that the prevalence is significant. I am not sure that we will ever find evidence of an actual number, for many of the reasons you list.
You raise many good points to question the outcome of this study. I am working on getting a copy of the whole thing, and if I do, I will e-mail a copy to you.
I have based my opinion on my basic education in parasitology and infectious diseases. I am not an infectious disease specialist, so I don't deal with this on a daily basis.
Let's change the discussion a bit with the following question:
What is the prevalence of sub-clinical infection with C. irritans for fish purchased at the average LFS? I have no data on this, but lets see if we can agree on a number so we can move forward with the discussion. 10-20%?
You raise many good points to question the outcome of this study. I am working on getting a copy of the whole thing, and if I do, I will e-mail a copy to you.
I have based my opinion on my basic education in parasitology and infectious diseases. I am not an infectious disease specialist, so I don't deal with this on a daily basis.
Let's change the discussion a bit with the following question:
What is the prevalence of sub-clinical infection with C. irritans for fish purchased at the average LFS? I have no data on this, but lets see if we can agree on a number so we can move forward with the discussion. 10-20%?
Last edited: