ZEOVIT

[reef]

r&b wrote

funny how many acros are imported and so few are ever seen in the shops.......

You must have purchased them all as i did not see any either.

[wasp]

I have been known to be wrong . And have no problem admitting that when the time comes.

Layton

What? .... Gasp!!..... Choke!!

Layton that has not been my experience with you at all. On a number of occasions I have pointed out where you are wrong, backed it with proof, and you have been unable to accept it.

And furthermore, I have reviewed your replies to the recent posts, and am disappointed to say that once again most of what you say is unfounded suppositions.

I have to suspect that in the absense of proper evidence to back what you say you simply try to wear down your opponent with increasingly large volumes of words that really never amount to anything concrete.

Sorry - but that's how it looks to me.

[wasp]

I've said a one off dose is all that is necessary, unless you have a complete tank crash.

I've never said that adding bacteria is useless. Just that continually adding bacteria is pointless. So my issue is really with the continual addition.

The above statement is wrong.

I am going to present evidence, and then we will see if you admit it. (As you said you have no problem admitting when you are wrong).

Here is a direct quote from Solbby, who is a practising qualified microbiologist. (A guy who is university trained and qualified in bacteria, and now works every day with bacteria in a professional capacity. IE he knows lots about bacteria.) He has avoided technical lingo, and has instead used common simple english, so common folks like us will be able to understand it.

Quote -

"when someone says: “Adding bacteria to an existing bacterial ecosystem will have zero effect on the present ecosystem†they are not necessarily true, because it will depend on the bacteria. The best analogy I can give, (I really like to use analogies), as to why this is not true is that people die from and get sick by bacterial infections. Our body, like our aquarium plays host to many different bacterial species. These bacteria set up an ecosystem in our body almost the moment we were born, and live in different niches through out.

(A really cool microbiological fact to spout at dinner parties is that there are actually more bacterial cells in our bodies than human cells. So you could ask the question who is controlling whom?).

If it were impossible to change that ecosystem then we would never have an infection from outside bacteria!! And as you know, everyone has gotten sick, such as food poisoning, at some point. In fact it only takes 10 bacterial cells of Shigella flexneri to completely disrupt the bacterial ecosystem of our gut with the outward disease manifestation know as bacterial dysentery, i.e. food poisoning to the likes of which you will never forget. But Shigella flexneri is special and so it goes to the nature of the specific bacterial strain that is added to the existing ecosystem as to what effects it may have on that ecosystem.

So since no one, except the makers of Zeobak, knows what bacteria are present in the product and therefore their “special†nature, they are just speculating as to whether there will be an effect or not by their addition. How can they say that the bacteria present in Zeobak won’t be able to out compete the existing populations because they have some unknown selective advantage?"

And now a quote from "Jakstat", another practising qualified microbiologist .

Quote - "As far as biology, I don't know much about Zeo. What I do know is that if one wants to introduce a new complement of bacteria to a closed environment, one would not want to do it quickly. A small inoculation would be adequate, especially considering that the inoculation is repeated every day or two, over weeks. It would be strange to me if Zeobak did contain a high concentration of bacteria. As I've said earlier, these are living organisms that need to adjust and grow into their new environment. You can't bring these populations up and into equilibrium overnight. This is basic biology".

And just to make sure you did not miss it, I'll repeat this little bit for you - "You can't bring these populations up and into equilibrium overnight". And - "to introduce a new complement of bacteria to a closed environment, one would not want to do it quickly. A small inoculation would be adequate, especially considering that the inoculation is repeated every day or two, over weeks".

Hope you can see your mistake. Because the only alternative you have to admitting you are wrong, is to claim that as well as knowing more than Thomas Pohl, you now also know more than both of these University trained, Qualified, Practising Microbiologists. ( Guys that know lots about bacteria )

I rest my case, I await your admission.

[AJL]

What if zeobac is not the critical part of the system?

But Layton, based on logic, you don't get to play that game. Your supposition is that dosing zeobac continuously can have no effect on the system. All I have to do is show you various environments in which continuing to dose bacteria might be necessary. Since you have no real knowledge of what is in zeobac, you can't say that the bacteria in the bottle don't act the way some of those other bacterial populations do.

And very specifically, you do not get to say things like "Well, what if zeobac is what I say it is? Then it won't work!" You don't know what it is, you don't know what bacteria it contains, and you know nothing about the life cycle of the bacteria found; you therefore have no way of saying that it must work the way the common nitrifying bacteria you're used to do, and not the way that some other bacteria do. Well, not rationally.

Sorry, but how can you summise that because the manufacturer recommends continual dosing, the metabolism of whatever bacteria is in zeobac is relatively slow?

I don't have to. I simply have to point out that there are bacteria that act that way. You claim that zeobac simply can't work that way; how do you come to that conclusion when there are obviously bacteria that do, and you don't know which bacteria is in zeobac?

The zeovit system claims to reduce nitrate and phosphate through a combination of biological and chemical processes. I am talking about bacteria which feed on these nutrients.

Which bacteria? You don't know what's in zeobac; are you now representing that you can categorically state that nothing in the bottle could possibly act the way the microbiologists describe other bacteria do, and thus zeobac can't work? How can you say that with any confidence?

LOL it MIGHT be true for a UNKNOWN bacteria which happen to use phosphate. Also how do you know that bacteria is responsible for dropping phosphates when using zeovit? How do you even know that phosphates actually drop?

I don't have to. It is incumbent on you to show why zeobac simply CAN'T work, since that is your supposition. Without knowing what's in the bottle, and knowing that there are bacteria out there that DO work in that way, how can you categorically state that the bacteria in zeobac DON'T?

You can't, of course. Or at least, you shouldn't, if you want to retain credibility in the discussion.

There is a reason why they would not be in your tank. The conditions are not suitable. If they aren't viable, then why are you trying to add them to your tank?

Because they perform a function for us. Is it not possible that at least one of the strains binds with phosphates, but only when its food source (zeofood) is available? Are you qualified to say that is not possible, when at least two microbiologists believe it is?

You already have bacteria to reduce phosphate in your tank. Why are your phosphate levels high?

You seem to be implying that all bacteria are the same. That seems to be the downfiall to your entire premise, and may be something you want to rethink.

Yip, because I have been talking about the insignificant effect of continual dosing on populations. Zeofood has no bearing on this.

You don't know what zeobac contains, you don't know what zeofood contains, you have no idea how they interact, and yet you feel qualified to make that statement? Amazing.

Quote:

Back in August you were quite convinced the zeolites did nothing, were inert.

In the traditional use of zeolites they don't.

That is unbelievably specious arguing. That is NOT what you said. You said in August, and I quote:

I believe that the zeolite addes nothing to the system. The same could be acieved by similar sized live rock in a reansonable flow environment.. perhaps even work better.

There is no qualifier in that statement. There is nothing that indicates you were thinking "in the traditional use of zeolites". It was a blanket statement, and it's wrong. You know it's wrong, because in January you said that the "key to the system" is "zeolites and zeofood", along with good maintenance. So which is it? Do the zeolites do nothing for the system, or are zeolites one of the keys to the system? Which one of your statements is wrong? I'm pretty sure you know it was your original statement, because there have been experiments showing that replacing zeolites with live rock, bio balls, etc., does not have anywhere near the same effect as using zeolites. If you were wrong then in your blanket, unqualified statement, why are you so certain now that you're right about zeobac?

Quite simple. All living things have requirements, if those are met they will live and reproduce.

But you don't know the living things involved, you don't know their requirements, and you don't know how they live and reproduce. How are you able to so solidly draw conclusions about the use of zeobac?

Arthur you shouldn't take peoples word for things. Do a bit of research to confirm and check what you are saying.

But Layton, you don't seem to have done any research at all. Your conclusion is drawn based on your limited understanding of standard nitrifying bacteria in a tank.

And also Arthur, I had enough of your stupid replies and reading comprehension problems on other boards. Don't be surprise if I don't bother replying to any other of your posts on this topic.

I won't be surprised that you can't.

There are several cases of users that stopped using zeobac in the system only to see their detected phosphate levels rise. About 6 weeks ago, my zeobac, nearly depleted, went bad unbeknownst to me. The only indication was a rise in phosphates...not huge, only to around 0.06 - 0.07 over a period of a week (I test twice a week). It was then that I found the last dregs of zeobac in the bottle had a funny smell, and replaced the zeobac. I did not replace anything else, and wasn't scheduled for a zeolite replacement for a few weeks, yet within a week of dosing the new zeobac, phosphates went back to their normally low levels. Nothing else changed.

But again, observations aren't even necessary in this case. Your blanket statement is that continually dosing zeobac can't have any effect. How can you possibly defend that statement given that there are environments where dosing bacteria continuously would have an impact, and given that you don't know what strains of bacteria are in zeobac?

Arthur

[lduncan]

when someone says: “Adding bacteria to an existing bacterial ecosystem will have zero effect on the present ecosystemâ€

Lucky I'm not saying that then.

because it will depend on the bacteria. The best analogy I can give, (I really like to use analogies), as to why this is not true is that people die from and get sick by bacterial infections. Our body, like our aquarium plays host to many different bacterial species. These bacteria set up an ecosystem in our body almost the moment we were born, and live in different niches through out... If it were impossible to change that ecosystem then we would never have an infection from outside bacteria!! And as you know, everyone has gotten sick, such as food poisoning, at some point. In fact it only takes 10 bacterial cells of Shigella flexneri to completely disrupt the bacterial ecosystem of our gut with the outward disease manifestation know as bacterial dysentery, i.e. food poisoning to the likes of which you will never forget. But Shigella flexneri is special and so it goes to the nature of the specific bacterial strain that is added to the existing ecosystem as to what effects it may have on that ecosystem.

But if the zeovit manufacturer is to be believed here, we are not talking about same random, obscure strain of bacteria, we are talking of those which include nitrifyiers, denitrifiers, along with ones which use sizeable amounts of phosphate.

they are just speculating as to whether there will be an effect or not by their addition.

Yip that's exactly what I'm doing, BUT based on the claims of the system. Maybe the system claims are wrong?

How can they say that the bacteria present in Zeobak won’t be able to out compete the existing populations because they have some unknown selective advantage?"

They may, but what happens to the other bacteria when they die? The decompose releasing phosphate and nitrate back into the system.

As for Jakstat's response, I find it strange. He says a small inoculation would be adequate, which I agree with, but then says especially if repeated over a couple of weeks, he then goes on to say

As I've said earlier, these are living organisms that need to adjust and grow into their new environment. You can't bring these populations up and into equilibrium overnight. This is basic biology.

Which is really the core of what I am explaining. You can't bring these populations up and into equilibrium overnight, so why continually does to try and accelerate it? All that is really required is a single does.

What is the point of the continual dosing?

Hope you can see your mistake. Because the only alternative you have to admitting you are wrong, is to claim that as well as knowing more than Thomas Pohl, you now also know more than both of these University trained, Qualified, Practising Microbiologists. ( Guys that know lots about bacteria )

I rest my case, I await your admission.

I don't see any proof yet. No admission until I understand why I may be wrong.

[AJL]

I don't see any proof yet. No admission until I understand why I may be wrong.

OK, let's make it simple.

You claim:

continually adding bacteria is pointless.

A pair of microbiologists propose at least a couple theories as to why continual dosing might be necessary. I'll let them put it in their own words:

First theory:

Remember, we are specifically dealing with chemolithotrophs (present in zeobak), therefore they may not be able to live with out a specific nutrient being available. When you begin zeovit, the aquarium keeper is doing so because he has high “bad†nutrients (for corals) present and wants to remove them. Setting up the zeobak bacteria in the tank will act to remove these “bad†nutrients, and over time, after the bacteria have done their job, they will be limited in their growth (and maybe die) because the nutrient they need has been removed. By adding zeobak continuously you are helping to maintain the equilibrium if one species disappears over time, and in the process, keep the nutrient limited environment created for the corals present (just in case the increased nutrient environment occurs again).

Remember, you are just using the bacteria as a tool, to help the corals!

Second theory:

Zeobak provides food for corals as stated in the zeovit guide. Constant replenishing of the bacterial populations will help in keeping this food source robust and available.

You could say that the bacteria present in the tank will provide the bacteria needed, and this may be correct. But the zeobak bacteria may be the "prime rib" that is not present in the tank normally? and we all know that eating prime rib everyday will make us grow and become big and happy!!!

And finally:

Maybe there are recombinant strains in there. For the non-biologists, this means that there may be strains of bacteria with multiple copies of certain metabolic enzymes. Increased copies of enzymes would result in greater rates of reaction. Or you could have a given bacteria doing a reaction it couldn't do before.

Totally "out there" in this context, but really not a very complicated or unlikely alternative, in my opinion.

This could possibly confound the results because although one could ID the bugs, you couldn't detect the transgene(s) unless you knew what you were looking for. I know it sounds wacky, but it's really not hard to make recombinant strains. It's actually pretty old technology.

So there are theories that indicate a need to redose bacterial populations. Are they true? I don't know. But they directly refute your assertion that bacteria would never need to be continually redosed.

It seems fairly simple to show that your assertion that there could be no reason to have to continually redose zeobac is incorrect.

Arthur

[lduncan]

Oh God.

All I have to do is show you various environments in which continuing to dose bacteria might be necessary. Since you have no real knowledge of what is in zeobac, you can't say that the bacteria in the bottle don't act the way some of those other bacterial populations do.

Limit this to the context of a marine aquarium and the claims of what the bacteria do (from the manufacturer) and then rethink. It really does narrow things down appropriately.

you therefore have no way of saying that it must work the way the common nitrifying bacteria you're used to do, and not the way that some other bacteria do. Well, not rationally.

There are common fundamentals which apply to ALL life forms.

You claim that zeobac simply can't work that way

Didn't say that.

how do you come to that conclusion when there are obviously bacteria that do

Do you have strain names?

how can you categorically state that the bacteria in zeobac DON'T?

You can't, of course. Or at least, you shouldn't, if you want to retain credibility in the discussion.

If this is the case then you should be asking the manufacturer why they are misleading you then.

Because they perform a function for us. Is it not possible that at least one of the strains binds with phosphates, but only when its food source (zeofood) is available?

If zeofood is REQUIRED by a particular bacteria, which it may be. Then conditions before using zeofood would not be conducive to whatever bacteria you may be talking about, so I would not expect to find it in your tank. Anyway this has nothing to do with what i'm talking about. Why continually dose?

Are you qualified to say that is not possible, when at least two microbiologists believe it is?

Reading comprehension.

You seem to be implying that all bacteria are the same. That seems to be the downfiall to your entire premise, and may be something you want to rethink.

Nope. You are still continually missing my point. I AM NOT SAYING CATEGORICALLY THAT THE BACTERIA IN ZEOBAC IS DOING NOTHING!

My issue is with CONTINUAL DOSING.

As I have stated many times. Now people may see why I question the reading comprehension of zeo users. Why they continually go round in circles chasing their tails over things which are never said.

You don't know what zeobac contains, you don't know what zeofood contains, you have no idea how they interact, and yet you feel qualified to make that statement? Amazing.

Zeofood could have three effects on the added bacteria:

1. It kills them. Making redoseing of bacteria necessary.

2. It has no effect.

3. It provides a food source which is limited in the tank. In which case bacteria populations grow naturally, making redoseing pointless.

So how do these three outcomes support your thinking that continual dosing is benificial?

I believe that the zeolite addes nothing to the system

Ok I admit I was wrong there. After further research on zeolite composition and sources, I have altered my position. Although I accept it's not at all evident, that statement was referring to the claim that zeolites are effective at ion exchange in saltwater. But as written, yes I now believe it is wrong. Also a lot of my postings do not include important qualifyers, for the simple fact that my posts would be 3 time longer than they already are, and I couldn't handle that.

because there have been experiments showing that replacing zeolites with live rock, bio balls, etc., does not have anywhere near the same effect as using zeolites.

Is this just a myth, or were these experiments carried out by independent people follow appropriate methods?

But you don't know the living things involved, you don't know their requirements, and you don't know how they live and reproduce. How are you able to so solidly draw conclusions about the use of zeobac?

ALL living things share a few common fundamentals.

But you don't know the living things involved, you don't know their requirements, and you don't know how they live and reproduce. How are you able to so solidly draw conclusions about the use of zeobac?

No, my statements are made from the context of a reef tank, and the manufacturers claims.

There are several cases of users that stopped using zeobac in the system only to see their detected phosphate levels rise. About 6 weeks ago, my zeobac, nearly depleted, went bad unbeknownst to me. The only indication was a rise in phosphates...not huge, only to around 0.06 - 0.07 over a period of a week (I test twice a week). It was then that I found the last dregs of zeobac in the bottle had a funny smell, and replaced the zeobac. I did not replace anything else, and wasn't scheduled for a zeolite replacement for a few weeks, yet within a week of dosing the new zeobac, phosphates went back to their normally low levels. Nothing else changed.

So bacteria is the only thing in the bottle, it must be bacteria right? This proves, or explains nothing.

Your blanket statement is that continually dosing zeobac can't have any effect.

reading comprehension.

Just like on other boards, you are continually not reading what I am saying. It got me annoyed there, and frankly I don't have the time to waste in writing long replies to you, when you do this.

[lduncan]

First Theory:

Umm, nitrifying bacteria are chemolithotrophs. And yes they will die reasonably quickly if the appropriate food is not available. Luck that there is always a continual supply of this food, otherwise your tank would be crashing randomly. I have explained this theory before. It's not wrong, it just doesn't happen this way with the nutrients the manufacturer is talking about.

Second Theory:

Completely misses my point. And has nothing to do with continual dosing.

Third Theory:

Um, am I missing something? Did I say that bacteria is useless in a tank or something? This doesn't address the continual dosing issue.

Arthur, I'm not going to go round in circles on this, so consider this my last response to you, until you come up with something worth responding to.

Layton

[wasp]

As I suspected.

Some people would rather say anything than admit they are wrong.

[AJL]

Limit this to the context of a marine aquarium and the claims of what the bacteria do (from the manufacturer) and then rethink. It really does narrow things down appropriately.

No, it doesn't. You have no idea what bacteria are in the bottle, and unless you want to present credentials showing otherwise, you have no idea what all marine bacteria are capable of. As such, simple examples explaining why bacteria might need to be periodically redosed in various situations completely refutes your claim that zeobac redosing could never be necessary.

I AM NOT SAYING CATEGORICALLY THAT THE BACTERIA IN ZEOBAC IS DOING NOTHING!

My issue is with CONTINUAL DOSING.

And that's the point I have refuted, with examples where continued dosing of bacteria may be necessary under a variety of circumstances.

Zeofood could have three effects on the added bacteria:

1. It kills them. Making redoseing of bacteria necessary.

2. It has no effect.

3. It provides a food source which is limited in the tank. In which case bacteria populations grow naturally, making redoseing pointless.

That 3rd one completely refutes your point. If it provides a food source which is limited in the tank, and bacterial populations die because of a lack of that food source, periodic redosing of the bacteria would be necessary. Just adding food periodically would ignore the fact that the population may have already died off, and we have no way of testing for the presence of the bacteria in question. The only way to ensure a continued presence of the bacterial population is to redose zeobac when dosing zeofood.

Seems quite obvious, really.

Ok I admit I was wrong there.

Oh. My. God.

I expect we'll see more of these types of admissions going forward. Feels good, doesn't it?

Luck that there is always a continual supply of this food

You have no idea what strain of bacteria we're dealing with, or what it considers food. How can you possibly make this claim?

Arthur, I'm not going to go round in circles on this, so consider this my last response to you, until you come up with something worth responding to.

I don't think many are surprised by your inability to answer the question. It's fairly straightforward: without knowing the bacteria involved, their food source, or their life cycle, how do you have any credibility in determining that zeobac does not need to be periodically redosed? In order to answer the question, you need to provide the specifics of how the bacteria survive, flourish, and potentially die out, based on multiple factors within a closed marine environment. For every species of marine bacteria. A single example otherwise is sufficient to refute your argument that there is no species in zeobac that would ever need to be redosed.

Good luck.

Arthur

[wasp]

Absolutely solid case AJL.

As I said, some people would rather say anything than admit they are wrong...

[lduncan]

LOL your chasing your own tail. Read what you have said. I refuse to point out the stupidities in it any longer.

Layton

[lduncan]

I really do not have the time at the moment to be continually posting this stuff. But it's difficult not to when it may well appear to others that Arthur has any sort of a case.

I'll shut up now, but not for the fact that his response is not challengeable, but for the fact that I'm beyond caring what deluded zeo users think on this subject now.

Layton

[AJL]

Jeez, Layton, seriously, just admit you can't back up your claim; it'll be simpler in the long run.

You have NO IDEA what the bacteria in zeobac eat, how they live, or why they might die. You therefore cannot claim that redosing is not necessary, especially when you yourself indicate it might be possible that they need zeofood to live in our tanks; misdosing zeofood, or having a bacterial bloom that consumes it all before the next dosing resulting in a dead bacterial population, could leave the tank with no population of the bacteria, meaning periodic redosing is necessary along with the zeofood. It's only one theory, but it fully explains why redosing of zeobac might be necessary. As such, it keeps you from claiming that there is no possible reason for zeobac to have to be redosed. Where is the flaw in that one, lone discussion point?

Look, you've already admitted once today you were wrong; that first time is always the hardest.

Arthur

[lduncan]

Jeez, Layton, seriously, just admit you can't back up your claim; it'll be simpler in the long run.

You have NO IDEA what the bacteria in zeobac eat, how they live, or why they might die. You therefore cannot claim that redosing is not necessary, especially when you yourself indicate it might be possible that they need zeofood to live in our tanks; misdosing zeofood, or having a bacterial bloom that consumes it all before the next dosing resulting in a dead bacterial population, could leave the tank with no population of the bacteria, meaning periodic redosing is necessary along with the zeofood. It's only one theory, but it fully explains why redosing of zeobac might be necessary. As such, it keeps you from claiming that there is no possible reason for zeobac to have to be redosed. Where is the flaw in that one, lone discussion point?

Read what you wrote, the flaws are evident. If you can't see them, you never will, and i'm just wasting my time. The manufactures claims limit the possible bacteria genre quite significantly. Of course if what the manufacturer is saying is false, then some of my statements may well not be appropriate.

Look, you've already admitted once today you were wrong; that first time is always the hardest.

Previously saying something which is wrong in no way undermines what I am saying now though.

Layton

[wasp]

I have been known to be wrong . And have no problem admitting that when the time comes.

(Layton)

............Yeah Right!! (Tui)

[lduncan]

Just when you thought this thread couldn't get any more ridiculous... it just did.

Layton

[wasp]

Well perhaps Layton it is time to face facts then.

Just front up and admit your claims where mistaken.

Do that, and this whole sorry mess you are in will go away for you

[lduncan]

But they are not.

[wasp]

I see.

It looks like we are just going to have to do this the hard way then.

To start out, I have presented you with statements from two Qualified Practising Microbiologhists, that directly contradict what you have been saying.

Any other rational person, having been corrected by these eminently qualified scientists, would have accepted it.

I really don't want to use the word "mental block", but I am afraid that your position is untenable. Sorry, but I just don't see how you can continue to defy logic and keep arguing.

[AJL]

Read what you wrote, the flaws are evident.

Cripes. Please, quit dodging the question. For the benefit of all, here is just one of the possible theories, in 4 simple parts. Please show where the flaw is.

1) At least some of the bacteria in zeobac could be nutrient reducers/binders that require a food source or other limiter that is not generally in our tanks.

2) Their food or limiter is provided in zeofood, kept in a separate container and dosed simultaneously with zeobac.

3) If zeofood is dosed, the bacteria could flourish for a brief time, binding with or reducing the nutrients and getting skimmed out, until their food source/limiter (zeofood) is exhausted, causing the population to die off. This would be especially true early in the dosing process, when the nutrient they also use is prevalent in the tank, possibly causing a bacterial spike every time it's dosed and quicker depletion of whatever food source/limiter is in zeofood.

4) Dosing zeobac and zeofood together ensures that if #3 happens, the population of bacteria has a chance to rebuild, using the food source/limiter in zeofood.

Please, Layton, in the above 4 steps, which is so impossible or unlikely that the entire thing is ridiculous? No fluff, no "I answered that already", just pick a number, any number, and tell me why it's simply not possible. Because if you can't, if 1-4 above are possible (as I think even you know is true), there is a viable theory as to why zeobac would have to be redosed periodically. It doesn't even matter if it's the right theory, because it completely refutes your assertion that there is no conceivable reason for having to redose zeobac periodically; if there is one such theory, there are likely others, and you'll have to admit that your assertion is not supportable, as painful as that might be.

Pick a number.

Arthur

[wasp]

I have been known to be wrong . And have no problem admitting that when the time comes.

It is time...

[lduncan]

The fact is they haven't contradicted anything.

Layton

[wasp]

If that is not a mental block, nothing is.

Your previous post is nonsense.

To paraphrase it for you in the simplest way I can,

you said continuous dosing is a waste of time.

They said continuous dosing is the best way to do it.

If you cannot see the contradiction you need some new glasses.

[AJL]

Which of the 4 parts to the theory I spelled out for you is inconsistent, impossible, or unlikely? If you can't answer that one question, I think it's best you concede that you just hadn't thought of every aspect, and are once again incorrect.

Arthur