Are you suggesting that some of what is in the 2002 publication are no longer valid?
I'm stating (not suggesting) that the research data has been expanded and some of the speculation has been removed by that further research. Prefect example from your quote and the links is Gourami disease thought for years to be myco but now research has it as a virus.
From the 2002 linked work in no particular order:
"Mycobacteriosis in fish is a disease caused by certain bacterial species within the genus Mycobacterium."
Not all, certain bacterial species are threat concerns so it's all in how you interpret what you read.
"Many of the organisms in this group occur naturally in the aquatic environment. One report compared the prevalence of selected species"
Not all, again certain
"Three species believed to account for most incidences of mycobacterial disease in fish"
Now expanded to over twenty commonly found pathogenic strains including the crap I received thatís not on the list but is included in later papers.
"When present in a population, infection rates can vary from 10% to 100%."
Infection rates are projected as much higher on the low end in most all the studies now.
While 60-85% alcohol is mentioned as effective against myco whatís needed to achieve any value using in it?
(not mentioned at all) (Itís sixty seconds wet contact time with 70 Ė 91%)
"Little is known about the factors that influence the frequency and distribution of this pathogenic organism."
Greatly refined and expanded data on transmission is now available.
Not to lose sight of what should be important points it's actually not a single pathogenic organism so don't take any one sentence as literal. The topic is about a genus composed of individual bacterial strains that thrive within vastly different temperature and environmental conditions. Temperatures that will kill one form of myco will allow another to thrive. Not all micro bacteria are threats. See the leaf but not the tree? Ignore the snake in the tree? Are all snakes dangerous?
Do you really want to cloud the severity of the issue? You'll not get that from me. If you do bother please make special note every time you pass over the words; can, may, should, might, potential because they all point out speculation or 'best guess' for us layman.
What in specific value, treatments or protocols is gained reading the 2002 Paper?
The information is greatly expanded in detail in the second work and linked with practices of genuine value for dealing with myco. Still covers the basic information but ties it with the practical.
As stated in Diana's article, UV did allow her infected fish to recover. It also stopped the spread of the disease. This is a very important consideration for people like the OP who is contemplating having a UV sterilizer.
That's not what I read. UV use would improve the water quality but allow infected fish to recover from the infective bacteria? Secondaries and symptoms maybe. But how exactly would it be possible that it has any effect on the already infested? That literally flies in the face of all the science. It's clearly stated in all valid publications once infective myco is within an animal or system there is no cure. (false hope) Using UV might improve redox and reduce bacteria counts in the water column sure. Lacing years of study facts in with speculative statements to infer UV use effects any cure of myco infection on effected animals as you do pulling the statement from the overall information is false. Stating UV use halts transmission is complete crap flying in the face of the proven science.
"Results from the UV sterilizers were unexpected and amazing. Fish deaths stopped. A couple fish with symptoms actually recovered. Whether the UV sterilizers were killing the bacteria responsible for MB or were killing pathogens causing secondary infections was irrelevant to me. My fish were getting better!"
Reading that full report ultimately she reports additional problems and loss on the new fish as 80% overall.
Confusing best management practices, exclusion and control protocols is a mistake. What she wrote and your referring to is mostly speculative. At best a management practice. Threat myco remained within that system, within the fish. It continued at a slower infection rate to be transmitted within the population.
IOW, if you have to get fish from a LFS, you should treat all fish as carriers. Don't let the FALSE sense of security (that comes with sterilizing your tank) fool you into lowering your guard.
Exactly what is the "FALSE sense of security (that comes with sterilizing your tank)"? Entry quarantine protocols. Myco topic and even aside from it quarantine is still the first line defense. Every tank can be a 'clean' tank until contamination occurs. Yes I indeed have high expectations that my tested tanks are clear of it. That expectation is based on the best practices that are in place here. Based on the current science.
Better yet, unless you are dealing with a source that you are absolutely sure that their fish have not been exposed, treat all the fish as carriers.
No argument here on having concerns and exercising commonsense. Living should include learning.
Let's not forget animal life. Necropsy costs the life of a fish while a family dog comes out alive after the annual exam. Since necropsy requires killing the involved fish, I don't think it is reasonable to expect hobbyists (not breeders) to subject their fish to that kind of treatment, be it by a local vet or not. Most people who keep fish are animal lovers. They do not like to kill a healthy looking animal, let alone doing it just for monitoring.
Yes lets not forget the animals.
Enjoying our hobby we are mixing and matching. We create the exposure threats.
We humans are transporting animals globally. Animals that had no means of migrating from one population or geographical location to another to the extent of the modern day. Well beyond anything nature could do in a thousand years. Simply put it in a box and put the box on a plane. Transmitting things along with those animals globally that had no means of migrating from one population or geographical location to another. Again well beyond anything nature could do in a thousand years. Put it in a box and put the box on a plane.
Be responsible for your choices. Where does responsibility end? When a cute little fish gets to big do you pitch it into the local pond? This thread started with the OP saying he lost fish to what he believes to be myco related, do you want plants or animals from this system or fish from Diana's UV tank? Once infective myco is identified in a system or population the steps taken in maintenance and handling should be changed.
snakeman, I hopes some of this discussion helps further your understanding.