Warning: Use Vibrant at your own risk

[WyoMt.Chef]

I had a common bout with it. Having used it for algae and immediately within 5 hours I saw the onset of dinos. I understand they were already in my tank but vibrant gave them the ability to thrive. Almost instantly... I used it on the idea it was bacteria as stated in the bottle. If id of known it was an algaecide I wouldn't have touched it.

 

[MnFish1]

Okay, if you're just going to be obstreperous and lazy, there is no point on further engagement. but a demonstrable incomplete grasp on the facts in this conversation at least demonstrates that you should probably not be chiming in on this thread without further educating yourself.

This is the exact opposite of the friendly discussion this forum is about - You are not the be all and end all on this or any other topic - nor am I or anyone else. calm down perhaps?

 

[MnFish1]

That is correct. NMR only tells you what not how much. Once you know the what you can use the other data to find out how much since you know can figure out the density.

Thanks

 

[MnFish1]

Maybe a question for moderators! Is there a way to request of “ remove certain members” when reviewing threads? I am getting so tired of reading pages of people bickering like my little kids just to get a real meaningful update on the topic!

You can report - posts yourself - you can also mute individual posters.

 

[IslandLifeReef]

And? That post was before my corals started to go south. What are you trying to prove? That Vibrant didn't have a long term affect on my corals? How do you know that?

This thread isn't about Chemiclean, Fluconazole, etc. It is about Vibrant. I am going to discuss Vibrant and what I experienced while using it. I can't help if people read and perceive things differently than what I am writing. Again, this is why I am NOT saying that Vibrant is the reason why I lost my corals. If I ever did then I will edit anything to not point the finger directly at Vibrant because I can't prove it either way.

And nothing. You said you weren't sure if it was Vibrant that killed your corals and I agreed. My reason for agreeing that it may not have been Vibrant was, based on your posts, the corals looked healthy and colorful 1.5 months after you stopped using Vibrant. There was no mention of a problem until 2.5 months after you stopped using it. Sorry if this offended you.

Your picture of coral skeleton stating "I can give you a list" in response to the question "which corals are annoyed by this stuff" initially made me think that you were stating that Vibrant had done that. You clarified and stated you weren't sure if it was the issue.

It seems like there is a lot of anger on this forum toward @UWC, possibly justified, and anyone who isn't holding a pitchfork waiting to take a swing at them is lumped into a group that must be supporting @UWC. I can say that I am still willing to wait for their testing to finish and the results to be posted. It would be nice if they chimed in and gave an update, but that would be like a spouse checking in on another spouse seeing how the divorce was treating them.

 

[otzhorse]

Off topic but I love all of you Zendaya Gifs.

 

[Sean Clark]

Off topic but I love all of you Zendaya Gifs.

I don't see how Zendaya could ever be off topic.

 

[JCOLE]

And nothing. You said you weren't sure if it was Vibrant that killed your corals and I agreed. My reason for agreeing that it may not have been Vibrant was, based on your posts, the corals looked healthy and colorful 1.5 months after you stopped using Vibrant. There was no mention of a problem until 2.5 months after you stopped using it. Sorry if this offended you.

Your picture of coral skeleton stating "I can give you a list" in response to the question "which corals are annoyed by this stuff" initially made me think that you were stating that Vibrant had done that. You clarified and stated you weren't sure if it was the issue.

It seems like there is a lot of anger on this forum toward @UWC, possibly justified, and anyone who isn't holding a pitchfork waiting to take a swing at them is lumped into a group that must be supporting @UWC. I can say that I am still willing to wait for their testing to finish and the results to be posted. It would be nice if they chimed in and gave an update, but that would be like a spouse checking in on another spouse seeing how the divorce was treating them.

No anger at all on my end. Just a little ill about this whole situation. Over the last 5 months people have been generally concerned about the product that they have dosed into their tank. All the company had to do was come out and just talk to everyone and explain why @taricha methods and NMR found what it found. Instead we get 5 months of silence and all of this back and forth bickering between hobbyists that doesn't need to happen.

Tropic Marin had an issue with their salt plant in Turkey and what did they do? They closed the plant down and is helping the hobbyists make it right. They have been vocal with the community the entire time. That is 100% respectable and commendable.

@taricha and other's have found legitimate things with Vibrant and again, all everyone has wanted was clarity on those results. I, and I am sure many of others do not care about the recipe or trying to steal it. We all just want to know why these tests show it seems to be similar to Algaefix.

 

[DopamineKata]

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.

There's a couple threads, including the one where the evidence is front and center. You could have asked for a pointer to them to get caught up to speed.

 

[jcolliii]

This is the exact opposite of the friendly discussion this forum is about - You are not the be all and end all on this or any other topic - nor am I or anyone else. calm down perhaps?

No worries, mate - I am rarely flustered. I've reviewed papers for Nature, Science, and although none of my papers have been published in ether of those journals (as yet, still working on that), a reviewer of one of my papers suggested withdrawing it from the journal it was submitted to (he actually said this in the review that the journal editor had to send me!) and resubmitting to Nature. I have taught grad level courses on aqueous geochemistry, and I was just informed that my NIH grant examining nutrient cycling and heavy metal accumulations from anthropogenic sources in a large freshwater lake has been funded. Want to see some fun factoids - look up the funding rate for NIH.

As a scientist, I find a willful lack of educating ones self prior to engaging in a discourse about a topic ignorant and insulting. Now, before you go off and report this post for being unfriendly, I am correctly using the word ignorant in its main definition here and in the proper context, and not as an appraisal on anyone's character. I have a low tolerance for obfustication, and an even lower one for misinformation. I am direct, and as succinct as possible. That can come across to the thin-skinned as negative.

MODS (@revhtree; @Peace River), is there a way to post a sticky within a thread? Wondering if perhaps the links to the first page of this thread and the first page of the other thread could be linked automatically at the top of the thread?

 

[JimWelsh]

I didn't realize that the phrase "Government Fiscal Year" was a violation of the rules around here. Learn something new every day. Those who have been paying attention will know what I mean. What a weird place R2R is!

 

[GrimReefer51]

Because returning it should directly impact uwc when the store returns it to their supplier. While there is nothing “wrong” with the product. Hobbies should not tolerate lies in the industry especially risky ones like drastically mislabeling a product in order to sell a basic already existing product at a huge markup while using the lie to make people feel safer using it. Especially when that chemical is known to kill mollusk in low doses.

I can only agree with your suggestion as a justified course of action. Unfortunate are the times we live in, for loyalty is a fading art amongst human beings.

Unfortunately, UWC broke the seal of trust, breaching one of the 5 basic principles of ethics...Transparency.
While withholding the true nature of its contents in order to sell an inferior product with the sole intention of profiting from its supporters.

Not only is this act malicious in nature, but punishable in the world we live in. It carries legal and ethical ramifications beyond what UWC had anticipated and must now face jury.

Humans often forget the value of Time, for time is the teller of All truths. Not only on this plane but many others. In this particular case it has spoken and ruled against the agressor. That is and will be their true demise. Returning it seems like a plausible idea but remember old friend, in order to kill a boar you must not cut off its tusks, but rather the entire head. We need not do much to bring this beast down for the their day is near and it comes full force. A day we all must face.

 

[Sean Clark]

I didn't realize that the phrase "Government Fiscal Year" was a violation of the rules around here. Learn something new every day. Those who have been paying attention will know what I mean. What a weird place R2R is!

Well, we should all probably refocus on the science provided. That was my bad.

 

[GrimReefer51]

No worries, mate - I am rarely flustered. I've reviewed papers for Nature, Science, and although none of my papers have been published in ether of those journals (as yet, still working on that), a reviewer of one of my papers suggested withdrawing it from the journal it was submitted to (he actually said this in the review that the journal editor had to send me!) and resubmitting to Nature. I have taught grad level courses on aqueous geochemistry, and I was just informed that my NIH grant examining nutrient cycling and heavy metal accumulations from anthropogenic sources in a large freshwater lake has been funded. Want to see some fun factoids - look up the funding rate for NIH.

As a scientist, I find a willful lack of educating ones self prior to engaging in a discourse about a topic ignorant and insulting. Now, before you go off and report this post for being unfriendly, I am correctly using the word ignorant in its main definition here and in the proper context, and not as an appraisal on anyone's character. I have a low tolerance for obfustication, and an even lower one for misinformation. I am direct, and as succinct as possible. That can come across to the thin-skinned as negative.

MODS (@revhtree; @Peace River), is there a way to post a sticky within a thread? Wondering if perhaps the links to the first page of this thread and the first page of the other thread could be linked automatically at the top of the thread?

Science is a way of thinking, rather than a body of knowledge just as
the Art of communication is a sign of
Leadership.

You my friend have conquered both in one lifetime. Remember that He who speaks diligently can conquer the world.

Gratifying to see there are thinkers still left in this world.

 

[mindme]

There's a couple threads, including the one where the evidence is front and center. You could have asked for a pointer to them to get caught up to speed.

I did ask. Someone else was kind enough to answer.

 

[MnFish1]

No worries, mate - I am rarely flustered. I've reviewed papers for Nature, Science, and although none of my papers have been published in ether of those journals (as yet, still working on that), a reviewer of one of my papers suggested withdrawing it from the journal it was submitted to (he actually said this in the review that the journal editor had to send me!) and resubmitting to Nature. I have taught grad level courses on aqueous geochemistry, and I was just informed that my NIH grant examining nutrient cycling and heavy metal accumulations from anthropogenic sources in a large freshwater lake has been funded. Want to see some fun factoids - look up the funding rate for NIH.

As a scientist, I find a willful lack of educating ones self prior to engaging in a discourse about a topic ignorant and insulting. Now, before you go off and report this post for being unfriendly, I am correctly using the word ignorant in its main definition here and in the proper context, and not as an appraisal on anyone's character. I have a low tolerance for obfustication, and an even lower one for misinformation. I am direct, and as succinct as possible. That can come across to the thin-skinned as negative.

MODS (@revhtree; @Peace River), is there a way to post a sticky within a thread? Wondering if perhaps the links to the first page of this thread and the first page of the other thread could be linked automatically at the top of the thread?

There is a research forum on R2R, Taricha and everyone else who has done a study has the mechanism present to put that information there - to be linked everywhere. As of now - I do not believe thats been done

 

[MnFish1]

I can only agree with your suggestion as a justified course of action. Unfortunate are the times we live in, for loyalty is a fading art amongst human beings.

Unfortunately, UWC broke the seal of trust, breaching one of the 5 basic principles of ethics...Transparency.
While withholding the true nature of its contents in order to sell an inferior product with the sole intention of profiting from its supporters.

Not only is this act malicious in nature, but punishable in the world we live in. It carries legal and ethical ramifications beyond what UWC had anticipated and must now face jury.

Humans often forget the value of Time, for time is the teller of All truths. Not only on this plane but many others. In this particular case it has spoken and ruled against the agressor. That is and will be their true demise. Returning it seems like a plausible idea but remember old friend, in order to kill a boar you must not cut off its tusks, but rather the entire head. We need not do much to bring this beast down for the their day is near and it comes full force. A day we all must face.

I don't disagree with anything you've said - but - I will say - that you're a new poster - and other new posters were held to some standard that they were somehow 'shills'. I have no clue what your agenda is - or if you have one - I'm just pointing out the obvious

 

[GrimReefer51]

I don't disagree with anything you've said - but - I will say - that you're a new poster - and other new posters were held to some standard that they were somehow 'shills'. I have no clue what your agenda is - or if you have one - I'm just pointing out the obvious

I understand your point of view and respect it in its totality. I am neither a ruling judge nor an active jury to question your mis-judgment. After all, we All possess the right of free will.

And although a normal practice these days to assume malevolent motives are at play when crossing paths with an unfamiliar face, I can assure you that I have No agenda. For that would be acting against one of the five principles of Ethics; The principle of Transparency. A ruling force which I must abide by at all cost, for that is the nature of my work.

I am here no other than to participate in open dialogue and an exchange of information. Much like every other living being on this platform.

May I ask what led you to believe anything other than the above? I ask out of curiosity seeing that I did not fully understand your use of the word "shills". I don't believe you meant to offend me in any way with that statement therefore, no offense given, none taken. Still, I am curious as to what led you to believe the notion of deceit. For that is not my intent.

Sincerely,

The GrimReefer

 

[shwareefer]

I didn't realize that the phrase "Government Fiscal Year" was a violation of the rules around here. Learn something new every day. Those who have been paying attention will know what I mean. What a weird place R2R is!

Well, we should all probably refocus on the science provided. That was my bad.

I thought I had turned something crude into something funny but my posts got nuked too. I guess anything connected to that stream of thought had to go. Made me mad but then I got over it, lol.

 

[Lyss]

So you want me to show you the bottle where is says 3.5% is other ingredients? You claim to have used the product, but you don't have a bottle of it?

And even with the data I've found since the first conversation, nothing came close to justifying your hysteria and remarks that people wouldn't know how to dose without the EPA regulations, or the other things you were claiming. Which again, I find remarkable since you knew the dose was the same as algaefix already.

I just felt compelled to jump in here b/c “people wouldn’t know how to dose without the EPA regulations” is not at all what was being said, and the actual concept was explained more than once, but you are definitely continually misinterpreting and misrepresenting the concept. No big deal in the grand scheme of this issue but just wanted to chime in there. The concept is simply that folks are much less likely to ad lib a dose with an EPA warning on it, that’s all.