Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[MnFish1]

As always, nice work with huge dollop of cleverness. Your persistence is amazing.

I really enjoyed watching this story unfold. I hope everyone appreciates your transparency. You put everything on the table for us to review and critique. And though there might be a bias against the work of the non-affiliated scientist, I feel your work would fair well in a peer review.

OK, what’s next? How long do we have to wait for the next episode? Will it be another product Investigation? Will an aquarium “rule” evaporate? Hurry, the suspense is killing me.

Dan

Hopefully - next time you will post in the experiment forum - so that everyone can see

 

[MnFish1]

@taricha are you doing an experiment - or on a crusade? Everyone agrees with you

 

[LgTas]

@taricha are you doing an experiment - or on a crusade? Everyone agrees with you

Hopefully this doesn't go down the same digression path you took the last vibrant thread.

I look forward to the UWC response.

 

[jda]

My prediction is along the lines of "We have no further comment pending the outcome of this or that (probably EPA). We look forward to full vindication and will comment at that time."

In all honesty, after Boyd had similar issues more than a decade ago about lying about product contents, I have started to open my ears when people make suggestions about reefing products. Perhaps we all could do more of this. I am not saying to go all in conspiracy theory and take things at face value, but just be objective and think a bit. I knew what was in this product, but why so many could not connect the dots with 1). developed a new bacteria that NOBODY ELSE knowns about that only ate algae that needed to be continuously dosed since it could not reproduce in saltwater while at the same time could not be found in the bottle and needed cultured to have large enough amounts to work, 2). did not have an expiration date, 3). did not need refrigerated, 4). if it was some new/tricky/alien bacteria, how that was not a possible bio contaminant that could really wreak havoc on life, 5). was perfectly clear and 6). had very similar instructions to many other known algaecides. I know that there could be some edge case reasoning for any of these, but even at 10-20% times 6, those odds deserve a critical eye, right.

I really want to give credit to @traicha since UWC was happy to flout around his chart with bacterial growth to propagate their lie. A individual who was not as stand-up might have never come off of that position and investigated all of this. That took some integrity that needs to serious appreciation.

 

[moz71]

I also wonder at the least if BRS pulls down their YouTube videos praising them!!

 

[ReefBeta]

My prediction is along the lines of "We have no further comment pending the outcome of this or that (probably EPA). We look forward to full vindication and will comment at that time."

In all honesty, after Boyd had similar issues more than a decade ago about lying about product contents, I have started to open my ears when people make suggestions about reefing products. Perhaps we all could do more of this. I am not saying to go all in conspiracy theory and take things at face value, but just be objective and think a bit. I knew what was in this product, but why so many could not connect the dots with 1). developed a new bacteria that NOBODY ELSE knowns about that only ate algae that needed to be continuously dosed since it could not reproduce in saltwater while at the same time could not be found in the bottle and needed cultured to have large enough amounts to work, 2). did not have an expiration date, 3). did not need refrigerated, 4). if it was some new/tricky/alien bacteria, how that was not a possible bio contaminant that could really wreak havoc on life, 5). was perfectly clear and 6). had very similar instructions to many other known algaecides. I know that there could be some edge case reasoning for any of these, but even at 10-20% times 6, those odds deserve a critical eye, right.

I really want to give credit to @traicha since UWC was happy to flout around his chart with bacterial growth to propagate their lie. A individual who was not as stand-up might have never come off of that position and investigated all of this. That took some integrity that needs to serious appreciation.

AKA the "I'm sorry you find out" respond.

 

[Jeeperz]

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.

Or contacted a lawyer and going off their advice so the lawyers can deal with it directly

 

[MnFish1]

Hopefully this doesn't go down the same digression path you took the last vibrant thread.

I look forward to the UWC response.

Are you ok?

 

[MnFish1]

Hopefully this doesn't go down the same digression path you took the last vibrant thread.

I look forward to the UWC response.

I said everyone agrees with him lol

 

[Sean Clark]

Or contacted a lawyer and going off their advice so the lawyers can deal with it directly

 

[Jeeperz]

Did I say something I wasn't supposed too?

 

[Sean Clark]

Did I say something I wasn't supposed too?

No, that was a hypothetical manufacturer response.

 

[reefiniteasy]

What a fantastic read! Not a fan of chemical remedies. Can’t wait to see a response, if any.

 

[jeffww]

Maybe we'll get to see what abstract they "submitted" to the american society of microbiologists they're talking about.

 

[Doctorgori]

Maybe we'll get to see what abstract they "submitted" to the american society of microbiologists they're talking about.

 

[taricha]

OK, what’s next? How long do we have to wait for the next episode? Will it be another product Investigation? Will an aquarium “rule” evaporate? Hurry, the suspense is killing me.

Dan

hah!
Thanks, Dan. Now that I've emptied my lab notebook on Vibrant, I can get back to that interesting report on ICP vendors we've been working on.

 

[GARRIGA]

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.

That was my point about peer review. Guys on a forum don’t constitute that regardless of their pedigree or background. Can’t see a vendor removing a product just because we say they should. There might be legal ramifications from the manufacturer for competitive advantage. Although I’m not a lawyer so not clear on the latter. At a minimum there’s like partnership agreements that might not be easily broken.

Best coarse of action is to present these findings to the EPA. If it’s a pesticide and EPA requires that those product
be labeled as such than I think it’s a fair assumption they will conduct their own evaluation and take appropriate actions.

Not intending to offend anyone’s hard work but the masses will likely never see this thread. Vendors will likely keep selling it. Not like it would be the first time someone slapped a fancy label on a cheaper product and charged extra for it.

For example, I’ve seen no evidence Matrix isn’t anything other than Pumice. Although when questioned Seachem did acknowledge as much but claim they go through rigorous processes to ensure their product is aquarium safe. To what extent that adds value will be up to the consumer. I buy my bulk pumice from orchid garden suppliers. Assuming they go through rigorous processes as well to ensure their products are safe for orchid growers. Good enough for me yet I also own Matrix and will continue buying it when I need a small quantity. My choice.

Are we going to fault a vendor for selling overpriced pumice? I’m not. I’ll just buy other products from them. Just like I’ll buy AlgaeFix should I find the need for an algaecide. Fact they sell Vibrant is of no concern to me. They are here to make a profit. That which if not made won’t keep them around. LFS are becoming extinct. Does anyone really think Petco cares what any forum claims about any product they sell? Not going to stop them.

Just keeping it real.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

That was my point about peer review. Guys on a forum don’t constitute that regardless of their pedigree or background.

Other issues aside, what do you believe would constitute peer review?

 

[a.t.t.r]

Other issues aside, what do you believe would constitute peer review?

Paying ridiculous money to publish it in a journal that doesn’t actually do any fact-checking or making a website that says research paper?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Paying ridiculous money to publish it in a journal that doesn’t actually do any fact-checking or making a website that says research paper?

lol

I ask because peer review is typically by anonymous scientists, sometimes direct competitors for grants or even products and jobs, short, and frequently uninformed about details. There is rarely any chance to clarify anything.

This thread has a variety of expert scientists not hiding behind an anonymous shield wall, having a chance to ask questions and debate details as needed. No one here (that I am aware of ) has any conflict of interest to a true scientific search for truth.

Peer review never proves something is true. Only that it is worthy of publication or funding.