Warning: Use Vibrant at your own risk

[Lyss]

All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs!

This is not to anyone specific, but I think we need to wait for @UWC to get their tests back.

Why are you quoting me and tagging the company if this is not directed to anyone specific?

Chill, I gave the legal definition of a pest, to illustrate what a pesticide is, so IDK why the "all thumbs are fingers" stuff. There could be any number of other variables at play in this particular instance, but simply stated, an algaecide is a pesticide, and a natural algaecide is a biopesticide.

 

[reef_ranch]

of all the things at issue here, the 95% cultured bacteria blend isn't one (if it were accurate). It follows the same logic as every other product that has a blend/mxture/preparation in it. It didn't even occur to me that people would think that is supposed to mean pure bacteria. Did you expect a dry paste to come out of the bottle with only 5% liquid?

Bottles of bacteria blend are 100% bacteria blend. Not 95% bacteria blend and 5% water. But as you said, this is not the issue. If the bottle was a blend of bacteria, this thread would not even exist.

 

[CyberMyth21]

Thank goodness I finally found an algecide. I had been looking for one for a long time. I did try Vibrant once and it killed all my bubble alage. Now that I know that it is an algecide, I will use it more. I wish that I had known sooner, I would have used it sooner.

 

[DopamineKata]

Thank goodness I finally found an algecide. I had been looking for one for a long time.

There are several on the market so you couldn't have been looking too hard. The whole point of this product was that it wasn't supposed to be an algecide which is why it was priced higher than other products which we've learned it's identical to. If you'd like to pay them more for the same product as the others, go for it.

 

[BrianAnthony]

The marketing of vibrant with the dark blue bottles, the added components to sustain bacteria and the label are all fakeouts. There are no algae eating bacteria in the bottle. It's algaecide. This marketing attempt was to mislead everyone.

 

[Malcontent]

Defamation suits are notoriously difficult to win in the US.

Remember the Thai cave diver vs. Musk? Loss.

Palin vs. NY Times? Loss.

Melania Trump vs. Daily Mail? Win but in the UK.

The standard for "product disparagement" is intentionally and knowingly making false/misleading statements that harm profits. So incorrect statements believed to be correct don't count.

 

[Lyss]

I don't go to meetings anymore. Beauty of working for myself

Upon your return. What's your opinion on the use of Busan 77 which apparently the community has claimed is the active ingredient in Algaefix and apparently a match in Vibrant (still to be concluded).

What do you mean my opinion? I haven't formed an opinion of the Vibrant product based on claims that there is the same active ingredient as Busan 77 in it -- we are all waiting on more for that, though it looks damning.

I believe Busan 77 is a biocide -- that means it kills everything, like bleach. I feel like that's worse than a pesticide -- pesticides are at least somewhat selective and can have different classes like rodenticide, miticide, algaecide, etc, and can also be chemical or natural.

 

[GARRIGA]

What do you mean my opinion? I haven't formed an opinion of the Vibrant product based on claims that there is the same active ingredient as Busan 77 in it -- we are all waiting on more for that, though it looks damning.

I believe Busan 77 is a biocide -- that means it kills everything, like bleach. I feel like that's worse than a pesticide -- pesticides are at least somewhat selective and can have different classes like rodenticide, miticide, algaecide, etc, and can also be chemical or natural.

Just trying to confine it to the issue most seem to have which is the possible inclussion of Busan 77 based on matching data to Algaefix that still needs further review. Therefore, bringing clarity to any discussions about pesticides or algaecides as the main concern is Busan 77.

 

[Lyss]

Just trying to confine it to the issue most seem to have which is the possible inclussion of Busan 77 based on matching data to Algaefix that still needs further review. Therefore, bringing clarity to any discussions about pesticides or algaecides as the main concern is Busan 77.

I mentioned several times in my other posts that it was an aside to the main issue at hand, which I thought covered that. So I'm going to jump out from following this thread now, since it really is going in circles too much for me.

 

[LRT]

 

[taricha]

In one post by @taricha, it was stated that it was Vibrant Freshwater. These tests haven't been independently verified from what I have read.

I don't think I said this explicity, so just to be clear....
This is a reef forum so if I didn't specify otherwise, I used the reef / saltwater version of any product that had multiple. So "vibrant" means vibrant for reef or saltwater, "algaefix" means algaefix marine. If I used the freshwater version, I explicitly said Vibrant Freshwater. In my post in part 2 where I quantified the amounts comparing them across multiple products, I used both Vibrant (reef or salt) and vibrant freshwater.

It's all sort of a moot point because Algaefix explicitly says their marine, pond, etc labels are the same product, and the measurements of Vibrant generated the same measured concentration across fresh, saltwater, and reef labeled products.

 

[chicago]

how are the vendors still pushing it.....

 

[Sean Clark]

how are the vendors still pushing it.....

That video is a year old. Produced way before this data was posted.

We should only hold others to the level that we hold ourselves.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Greg that came on Terece’s video said, that would be a nutty way to go to make an algaecide.

@Terence
We all know why Randy does not take PMs, he would be bombarded.

I'd state it far more strongly than nutty, if your goal is to make what was actually found. It's like a moon shot project.

One can only engineer bacteria to make something that some organism somewhere actually makes, or that would take some unnatural material and munch on it a bit to make something else.

One cannot just engineer a bacteria to make novel, man made chemicals, like the algaecide found by taricha.

Certainly, some bacteria make their own kinds of algaecides. They are not chemically similar to the material that taricha found, and no known organism makes those.

In the vein of random speculation....

Perhaps someone approached UWC with a product idea that was a crude bacteria and bacterial algaecide product. It ended up being not very active or too expensive or too hard to make, and someone decides to swap in a true man made algaecide, but keep the unique marketing "explanation" of the product. Might be UWC, or the "group" they mention working with.

IMO, this is the most likely scenario that I can think of where UWC may not be knowingly deceiving people.

 

[Seneca]

IMO, this is the most likely scenario that I can think of where UWC may not be knowingly deceiving people.

Considering the comments from UWC over the years I'd give the odds that UWC was not knowingly deceiving people as very close to zero. This speculation on how there's some remote possibility on how it's not UWCs fault is a distraction and is mostly irrelevant. Their product is a scam in any case and they should go out of business.

 

[tvan]

I guess I don't understand......
If your names on the bottle and you know the contents you are responsible.
vs
If your names on the bottle and you don't know the contents you are still responsible.
There is no difference to me. Especially when money changed hands based on the hype of the label of the contents of the bottle.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I guess I don't understand......
If your names on the bottle and you know the contents you are responsible.
vs
If your names on the bottle and you don't know the contents you are still responsible.
There is no difference to me. Especially when money changed hands based on the hype of the label of the contents of the bottle.

I don't think I said they would not be responsible. But In my opinion, being scammed by a contract manufacturer is different than being the originator of the scam. In a perfect world there would be release tests, preferably done by someone other than the contract manufacturer. But low cost products may not get that sort of quality assurance.

Anyway, I'm just allowing for possibilities since we (I) have no info on who actually makes Vibrant.

 

[tvan]

I don't think either one of us would put our name on something, and let it go sideways. Customer service in this hobby continually gets kicked in the teeth. Yes, UWS is a customer if they farm out the manufacture of their product, but not keeping your finger on the pulse of your business, falls squarely on UWS. Vibrant is their business. The simple answer to this is change the label or manufacture or both.

 

[jda]

@Randy Holmes-Farley, can you send me a PM? I would like to ask you a few questions that are best private at this point. I promise that it is relevant and worthwhile.

 

[dank reefer]

Anyway, I'm just allowing for possibilities since we (I) have no info on who actually makes Vibrant.

Maybe API makes the product for @UWC