The excess redness in his tail along with his behavior were signs of a bacterial infection setting in. Left untreated, it progressed and his tail begun rotting away. Then it spread and killed him. Acriflavine, formalin, methylene blue etc wouldn't have done him any good.
Colin has an extreme aversion to antibiotics and basically seems to believe they should never be used in aquatics. Even in situations like this - where even HE admitted that the fish was very very ill and that the tail was rotting away (things rotting are nearly ALWAYS caused by bacteria), he will not recommend antibiotics and even tells the user to NOT use them.
His views are fine and he is allowed to have them. Where my issue lies is that he seems to be the disease authority here, and that he is supposed to help people save their pets. His ethical issue with antibiotics directly clashes with his ethical duties to try and save these fish.
This fish died and really stood no chance at all with the advice offered. And I've seen that before. If the issue seems bacterial in nature, he offers alternatives or advises the user to euthanize the fish. I really don't agree with that. Imagine if dogs or cats were treated that way. Obvious bacterial issues left to fester because someone didn't agree with the use of antibiotics because the person giving advice/medical care didn't agree with the use of antibiotics on animals.
This fish suffered for no reason. Had the issue been addressed properly when the fish was first presented, there's a good chance the fish may have been able to be saved and wouldn't have ended up rotting away the way he did. This type of thing just really upsets me.
I generally don't say anything and because of Colin's views conflicting with mine - I never even post in the disease section at all... But it just hurt me to see how this turned out.