Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[ReefGeezer]

Yeah, that was my point. Not that "we should give vibrant a chance even if it's algaecide", but "we might consider give algaefix a chance as algaecide might actually work for some". And now with clearer label, we have clearer cautions.

Not at twice the cost of other algaecides. That's the rub. The lie allowed the manufacturer to charge more and I paid it thinking I was getting something better. I am not happy that some distributors I trusted perpetuated the lie. If I decide they knowingly did so, I will not buy anything from them again.

 

[Dennis Cartier]

If I may have a lil TOS latitude here, It maybe useful to revisit some older “Algaefix Marine” threads on other older forums, one in particular being quite lengthy.
Again, perhaps useful historical trends and even livestock reaction samples since these are perhaps essentially equivalent products
.

Lol, I read that thread back in the day. I imported a bottle of Algaefix after reading it. The bottle has sat on my shelf for more than a decade as I was too afraid to use it. I always considered it 'the nuclear option'.

However I have used Vibrant in the meantime, and based on how it affected my tank (not good), I was hoping that it would turn out that Vibrant wasn't the same as Algaefix. As it turns out, it is, and my 'nuclear option' has been deployed far and wide by the masses with both good and bad outcomes.

Time to move my bottle of Algaefix into the section reserved for strategic nuclear weapons, lol.

 

[taricha]

Several have asked what UWC has to say, why no response etc.

Less thorough and less definitive testing pointing to the same story was posted in @ScottB thread in the SPS forum as I worked through it, (along with distracting amounts of chemistry bickering about the tests).

you can see UWC's responses, starting after the detection of a quat-like color shift from Bromophenol Blue (far less from polyquats than simpler quats, I later learned):

in post 78
post 81
post 333
post 496
post 508
and post 533

I won't characterize them except to say they are inconsistent with the data in this thread, and frankly they were inconsistent with the data in the prior thread too. So they don't seem all that relevant at this point.

 

[ReefBeta]

Not at twice the cost of other algaecides. That's the rub. The lie allowed the manufacturer to charge more and I paid it thinking I was getting something better. I am not happy that some distributors I trusted perpetuated the lie. If I decide they knowingly did so, I will not buy anything from them again.

totally. no one who read this thread will go buy that again.

The distributors point is interesting, because it's not clear to me that whether they know about it before. It could be that they are also victim of the lie. I guess we will never know which way it was, unless they come out to accuse UWC for deception. For sure no one will admit they knowingly participate in this.

 

[jda]

Continuing to participate says all that you need to say. I am boycotting Saltwater Aquarium, BRS and anybody else who sells this stuff until they stop. I am actually a nice guy and can come up with a scenario where it is OK to put a product on your top recommendation list, make a video kissing their ***** and telling everybody how great it is, and all of that based on just on taking UWC at face value... but there is no no excuse now. Who does what will speak volumes about which vendors are into the hobby (and integrity) first or who is into profits first.

 

[Sean Clark]

The sad thing is that the majority of people in the hobby will never see this.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Several have asked what UWC has to say, why no response etc.

Less thorough and less definitive testing pointing to the same story was posted in @ScottB thread in the SPS forum as I worked through it, (along with distracting amounts of chemistry bickering about the tests).

you can see UWC's responses, starting after the detection of a quat-like color shift from Bromophenol Blue (far less from polyquats than simpler quats, I later learned):

in post 78
post 81
post 333
post 496
post 508
and post 533

I won't characterize them except to say they are inconsistent with the data in this thread, and frankly they were inconsistent with the data in the prior thread too. So they don't seem all that relevant at this point.

I'm disappointed that they have not yet responded.

IMO, this is also a Terms of Service issue at Reef2Reef. It needs to be addressed now.

The official UWC account has not made a post since December, but they are an active sponsor.

 

[rtparty]

The sad thing is that the majority of people in the hobby will never see this.

I don't think it will take much to get someone like the EPA involved when it is brought to their attention that a pesticide is being sold and not labeled correctly.

 

[Jeeperz]

Continuing to participate says all that you need to say. I am boycotting Saltwater Aquarium, BRS and anybody else who sells this stuff until they stop. I am actually a nice guy and can come up with a scenario where it is OK to put a product on your top recommendation list, make a video kissing their ***** and telling everybody how great it is, and all of that based on just on taking UWC at face value... but there is no no excuse now. Who does what will speak volumes about which vendors are into the hobby (and integrity) first or who is into profits first.

Has anyone actually notified these vendors and given them links to the research? Then again it may need verification by an independent certified lab before they pull the product. I'm not boycotting any vendors until that's been done as they may not know.

 

[Jeeperz]

Continuing to participate says all that you need to say. I am boycotting Saltwater Aquarium, BRS and anybody else who sells this stuff until they stop. I am actually a nice guy and can come up with a scenario where it is OK to put a product on your top recommendation list, make a video kissing their ***** and telling everybody how great it is, and all of that based on just on taking UWC at face value... but there is no no excuse now. Who does what will speak volumes about which vendors are into the hobby (and integrity) first or who is into profits first.

Amazon sells this, are you done shopping there?

 

[Jeeperz]

Maybe an inquiry to the EPA? But we know how fast the government acts.

 

[rtparty]

Continuing to participate says all that you need to say. I am boycotting Saltwater Aquarium, BRS and anybody else who sells this stuff until they stop. I am actually a nice guy and can come up with a scenario where it is OK to put a product on your top recommendation list, make a video kissing their ***** and telling everybody how great it is, and all of that based on just on taking UWC at face value... but there is no no excuse now. Who does what will speak volumes about which vendors are into the hobby (and integrity) first or who is into profits first.

I highly doubt any of them will carry it after seeing this. At least not with the current label and description. They may sell it again if UWC changes the label and tells everyone what the REAL ingredients are.

An algaecide obviously has a use in the hobby in some way. Companies just need to be honest that that is what they are selling you

 

[Malcontent]

FTC complaints are also a possibility.

 

[ReefBeta]

I'm disappointed that they have not yet responded.

IMO, this is also a Terms of Service issue at Reef2Reef. It needs to be addressed now.

The official UWC account has not made a post since December, but they are an active sponsor.

I would expect active sponsor to have certain level of responsibility here. Responding to a thread like this would be part of it. Otherwise they're just simply advertisers here.

 

[jda]

For years, UWC has been more than happy to post and try and ridicule me for posting that the product contained no bacteria and was an algaecide. They were somewhat relentless. They have gone dark likely from advice of their council? I would shut up if I were them. Besides, the narrative was turning and people were start to use their contradicting statements against them and not believing them anymore.

Even if they did say something, would anybody believe them? I guess that they could totally just come clean. If pressed, I would just expected a canned letter to the effect of "we appreciate the inquiry, but have nothing to offer at this time pending this-or-that."

Maybe I am just too conservative, but if there was ANY chance that a product with even a possible EPA violation was on my site, it would come down instantly so that if the EPA ever started to collect butts, then they would leave mine with me.

I have written several vendors myself and I know that others have been contacted as well.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I would expect active sponsor to have certain level of responsibility here. Responding to a thread like this would be part of it. Otherwise they're just simply advertisers here.

They have been asked to respond.

 

[Sean Clark]

I am confident that they are working on developing a response in the form of some kind of bacteria to put into the bottles that will survive. Clearly a simple case of a manufacturing anomaly. Nothing to see here.

 

[ReefBeta]

They have been asked to respond.

what's the consequence if they failed to do so?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

what's the consequence if they failed to do so?

I expect them to respond in some fashion. Let's just see what the response is.

 

[moz71]

I would bet that “all of a sudden” the product will out of no where state “new formula” and have bacteria in it and no algacide in it. And for that matter stop working on our tanks, good or bad. But there is a lot still left on shelves where EPA can test.