Warning: Use Vibrant at your own risk

[Sean Clark]

It still could be. It says 3.5% is "other ingredients". This could be what the 3.5% is.

No. That is not how that works. Thank you.

 

[JCOLE]

Ouch! When did this happen? I looked for a thread by you talking about your crash or use of Vibrant that killed all of your coral, but couldn't find it.

End of 2020. It's on my build thread and another old post.

To be clear, I am not saying that Vibrant is 100% the reason for my crash. I dosed Chemiclean then Fluconazole right after the last dose of Vibrant. I didn't lose all of the corals until after Fluconazole.

However, I have dosed Chemiclean and Fluconazole many of times throughout the years with zero issues. I know how to run these treatments safely. Towards the end of Vibrant I noticed my Acro's appeared to look dry and like the life was sucked from them. The only way I can describe it is when someone takes Chemo and the look they have is what my tank was like. It looked sterile and the life was sucked out. It was on it's way out and I think Fluconazole was the final straw.

Again, this is why I cannot say that Vibrant is the reason my corals died. However, I did use it for two months at the recommended dosage up until the crash and I feel if I wouldn't of used Vibrant then my corals would have been healthy and would have survived during the Fluconazole treatment.

I have pictures of my corals and you can see that it wasn't normal STN/RTN where the flesh comes off and shows white skeleton until algae grows. They had STN and then Cyano started on the corals. Almost looked like they were bleeding. I have never seen anything like that before.

This is not normal STN.

 

[jcolliii]

How do you know if it's a violation of federal law? Do you have information other people don't have? Do you know what the concentration is?

I'm just interested in finding out the truth, and I don't find making claims without evidence to really be helpful towards that.

The concentration has been tested and found to be indistinguishable between the two products. I have exactly the same information you do (at least if you're following the other threads).

 

[mindme]

The concentration has been tested and found to be indistinguishable between the two products. I have exactly the same information you do (at least if you're following the other threads).

Thanks, there are so many pages I can't keep up with it all.

 

[DopamineKata]

I'm just interested in finding out the truth, and I don't find making claims without evidence

Sure you are. That's why you're ignoring the evidence and trying muddy the waters.

 

[DopamineKata]

Thanks, there are so many pages I can't keep up with it all.

So then, maybe don't comment accusing people of making claims without evidence?

 

[J1a]

Maybe you haven't read the question that I asked that started this mini tempest in a teapot. I asked RANDY - does NMR help tell the concentration - or only the content. I didnt ask for any of these side debates that you all want to have lol. Its an easy question. There should be an easy answer,

NMR itself is not meant to measure the concentration in the mixture. However, if multiple compounds show up in the nmr spectrum, then it may be possible to work out the ratio between the different compounds.

In this case though, there is only one compound. Therefore there is no proportion.

 

[MnFish1]

NMR itself is not meant to measure the concentration in the mixture. However, if multiple compounds show up in the nmr spectrum, then it may be possible to work out the ratio between the different compounds.

In this case though, there is only one compound. Therefore there is no proportion.

Thanks that was my assumption. The question was lets say there was 1.5 percent of x in product ABC and 4.5 percent of x in product DEF. My remembrance from chemistry - is that the NMR would be identical.

 

[IslandLifeReef]

End of 2020. It's on my build thread and another old post.

To be clear, I am not saying that Vibrant is 100% the reason for my crash. I dosed Chemiclean then Fluconazole right after the last dose of Vibrant. I didn't lose all of the corals until after Fluconazole.

However, I have dosed Chemiclean and Fluconazole many of times throughout the years with zero issues. I know how to run these treatments safely. Towards the end of Vibrant I noticed my Acro's appeared to look dry and like the life was sucked from them. The only way I can describe it is when someone takes Chemo and the look they have is what my tank was like. It looked sterile and the life was sucked out. It was on it's way out and I think Fluconazole was the final straw.

Again, this is why I cannot say that Vibrant is the reason my corals died. However, I did use it for two months at the recommended dosage up until the crash and I feel if I wouldn't of used Vibrant then my corals would have been healthy and would have survived during the Fluconazole treatment.

I have pictures of my corals and you can see that it wasn't normal STN/RTN where the flesh comes off and shows white skeleton until algae grows. They had STN and then Cyano started on the corals. Almost looked like they were bleeding. I have never seen anything like that before.

This is not normal STN.

Yeah, looking at your build thread it isn't clear that the Vibrant was the cause, especially since you didn't start seeing all of the corals die until 2.5 months after the last dose. It sucks though to have a big loss like this.

 

[mindme]

Sure you are. That's why you're ignoring the evidence and trying muddy the waters.

I didn't ignore evidence of anything, nor did I muddy any waters.

 

[mindme]

So then, maybe don't comment accusing people of making claims without evidence?

Sorry I didn't read the 100 pages of people feigning outrage to find the 1 post of actual information in it in the middle of those pages. I would have expected such information to be in a new thread rather than buried in the middle of 50 pages.

 

[a.t.t.r]

Thanks that was my assumption. The question was lets say there was 1.5 percent of x in product ABC and 4.5 percent of x in product DEF. My remembrance from chemistry - is that the NMR would be identical.

Correct but the other test once you know that chemical is the same can show concentrations. Ie specific gravity and several of the demand test from the original thread.
If chemical is the same (it is) and the sg is the same it can be concluded that the concentration is the same.

 

[Karen00]

Maybe you should just kiss my butt, how's that? Sorry I didn't read the 100 pages of people feigning outrage to find the 1 post of actual information in it in the middle of those pages. I would have expected such information to be in a new thread rather than buried in the middle of 50 pages.

Are you referring to not being able to find the evidence of Vibrant being an algaecide that was provided in the first comment of this thread by Randy? Or are you looking for something else?

 

[areefer01]

Maybe you should just kiss my butt, how's that? Sorry I didn't read the 100 pages of people feigning outrage to find the 1 post of actual information in it in the middle of those pages. I would have expected such information to be in a new thread rather than buried in the middle of 50 pages.

Well that was a bit escalatory and uncalled for. Be that as it may the problem with internet forums is that the treads are typically living and have a lot of churn. So even if there was such information in a new thread it too could contain a lot of noise to wade through. Possibly missed.

I do not know how long an OP (message creator) has to edit posts (time to edit life) so it could be the information you are looking for quickly can't be updated or applied on post 1. I believe that is sort of the issue you are describing. I hear you though - popular threads have a lot of churn and the few important nuggets are lost sadly.

 

[mindme]

Are you referring to not being able to find the evidence of Vibrant being an algaecide that was provided in the first comment of this thread by Randy? Or are you looking for something else?

I was unaware of the additional tests that were done. I saw the initial test when it was first posted. Then I came back and there is like 40 pages. I didn't realize the additional tests were done, but someone was kind enough to point me to it.

I still think the person I was talking to was a bit extreme in their claims. Like saying it was impossible to dose correctly without the EPA. But it's good to know there was more proof it's the same as algaefix.

 

[mindme]

Well that was a bit escalatory and uncalled for. Be that as it may the problem with internet forums is that the treads are typically living and have a lot of churn. So even if there was such information in a new thread it too could contain a lot of noise to wade through. Possibly missed.

I do not know how long an OP (message creator) has to edit posts (time to edit life) so it could be the information you are looking for quickly can't be updated or applied on post 1. I believe that is sort of the issue you are describing. I hear you though - popular threads have a lot of churn and the few important nuggets are lost sadly.

I didn't think the person I was responding to needed to make their post, but they did.

I think the time varies based on membership level. I know I get only 15 minutes to edit, but I know higher levels of membership get longer. Not sure exactly how long. That said, I probably wouldn't have re-read the OP at any rate, unless the title had alerted me to the fact there was no information. I'd checked in on the thread a few times, and it was always the same conversation so I didn't realize new information had come.

 

[Karen00]

I was unaware of the additional tests that were done. I saw the initial test when it was first posted. Then I came back and there is like 40 pages. I didn't realize the additional tests were done, but someone was kind enough to point me to it.

I still think the person I was talking to was a bit extreme in their claims. Like saying it was impossible to dose correctly without the EPA. But it's good to know there was more proof it's the same as algaefix.

It would be nice to have a magic unicorn in a bottle but sadly this doesn't look like it. Somebody really needs to find/create algae eating bacteria (which is what I thought this was). I was about to buy a bottle but thankfully read this thread first. I must admit I am bummed it isn't what it claims to be. We need safe alternatives.

 

[mindme]

It would be nice to have a magic unicorn in a bottle but sadly this doesn't look like it. Somebody really needs to find/create algae eating bacteria (which is what I thought this was). I was about to buy a bottle but thankfully read this thread first. I must admit I am bummed it isn't what it claims to be. We need safe alternatives.

I would still use it if the need comes up. I'm not throwing mine away. If I run out and need it, seems like I will just buy algaefix next time, since I know it will apparently work as well. Certainly easier to get.

However, I found the need for it to be extremely limited already, so I'm not bummed. The first time I used it, I thought - wow this stuff works great. But then I started to realize - that algae kind of serves a purpose. And I found myself with rising nutrients. The algae only grows because it's trying to balance your tank.

But not algae are equal and some I don't want. So I'd use it again for that purpose.

I always thought it strange that the bacteria would need to be redosed when it should be eating a food source. Guess this explains why. Getting the population up I can understand, like with starter bacteria.

Would love a bacteria that just ate the nutrients. I'd be all over that. However, I wonder if such a bacteria would be bad for the environment if it even could exist.

 

[jcolliii]

I was unaware of the additional tests that were done. I saw the initial test when it was first posted. Then I came back and there is like 40 pages. I didn't realize the additional tests were done, but someone was kind enough to point me to it.

I still think the person I was talking to was a bit extreme in their claims. Like saying it was impossible to dose correctly without the EPA. But it's good to know there was more proof it's the same as algaefix.

Apology accepted, incidentally, for your incorrect assumption. However, you are either mischaracterizing what I said, or misunderstanding it. Our initial exchange was about dosing levels and folks perceptions of what they were dosing.

Algaecides are considered pesticides and are EPA-regulated substances, and dosing them according to a specific application is regulated by the EPA - read the Algaefix label I provided for you. Bacterial products are unregulated, and are considered much safer products - with squishier dosing guidelines. The context was this: Someone dosing Vibrant thinking that it is a bacterial product (again, because the manufacturer lied about what it is) might be inclined to think 'bacteria=safe' and go above the recommended dosing when in reality they were in fact dosing an EPA-regulated algaecide.

 

[Karen00]

I would still use it if the need comes up. I'm not throwing mine away. If I run out and need it, seems like I will just buy algaefix next time, since I know it will apparently work as well. Certainly easier to get.

However, I found the need for it to be extremely limited already, so I'm not bummed. The first time I used it, I thought - wow this stuff works great. But then I started to realize - that algae kind of serves a purpose. And I found myself with rising nutrients. The algae only grows because it's trying to balance your tank.

But not algae are equal and some I don't want. So I'd use it again for that purpose.

I always thought it strange that the bacteria would need to be redosed when it should be eating a food source. Guess this explains why. Getting the population up I can understand, like with starter bacteria.

Would love a bacteria that just ate the nutrients. I'd be all over that. However, I wonder if such a bacteria would be bad for the environment if it even could exist.

Out of curiosity... Don't you feel betrayed/deceived that the company flat out lied about what's in it? (Having said that we are still waiting for UWC to respond with their testing). I didn't even buy the product and I find this deception to be very disturbing. That's the main purpose of this thread given the fact people thought they were dosing bacteria and it turns out to be an algaecide and an algaecide can gravely impact some aquatic inhabitants (even if dosed correctly). Most people don't care if it worked or not in this thread. It's the deception. It's like a food company not listing that there are nuts in their product (and knowing how many people have deadly nut allergies).