Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[ReefBeta]

And lose their business in the end. Also, confirming the findings here.

But they may avoid legal issues this way

They started as a maintenance company. And to be honest, unless they got sued to bankruptcy from this, their business will be fine back as a maintenance company.

 

[rtparty]

They started as a maintenance company. And to be honest, unless they got sued to bankruptcy from this, their business will be fine back as a maintenance company.

I doubt many, if any, of their clients would ever be aware of what's going on but if so, would you trust them taking care of your stuff ever again?

 

[GARRIGA]

Yeah, sounds like peer review really means nothing if those doing the review don't have to show their credentials. They could just be some schmuck with a degree or whatever but has zero experience or knowledge

To put this all in perspective. Most threads could be populated but mostly schmucks with no greater experience than a goldfish parroting what they've read.

I was under the assumption that peer reviewed actually had some formal basis to ensure it was validated by those not only having obtained the knowledge but also having had relative experience. For example, in my profession, there are generally accepted principles by which all must operate. Often requiring a review and then consensus to clarify grey areas to ensure all conduct themselves on equal ground. Those involved in laying the ground work for what others must follow carry the correct credentials and to some extent have the necessary experience.

Seems counterintuitive to realize that in science there can be so much latitude. I honestly assumed that in this area certainty would be demanded of not just the creator of an opinion but of those confirming or challenging said opinion. I am now woke.

 

[GARRIGA]

We both agree that one is in the clear if commenting on their experience. Notice how you now commented on losing your corals while using the product and not definitively because you used the product. That's the point I'm making and details you left out. Your comment to me advising me to go out and tell the world seem rather ambiguous as to what exactly I should tell the world. Wasn't being funny. Just lending some experience. Clueless to the dynamics of molecular science but well versed enough on corporate actions.

 

[jeffww]

I agree on the seawater issue and ionic materials. My line of work has also lead me to probe the strength of ionic materials in various salts (for a biological application in plants) But we arrived at our conclusion using first principles calculations of the gibbs energy of electrostatic forces and the thickness of the electric double layer of ions at surfaces. Basically, at salt concentrations much higer than physiological, surface interactions are dominated by vdw and depletion forces.

 

[JCOLE]

We both agree that one is in the clear if commenting on their experience. Notice how you now commented on losing your corals while using the product and not definitively because you used the product. That's the point I'm making and details you left out. Your comment to me advising me to go out and tell the world seem rather ambiguous as to what exactly I should tell the world. Wasn't being funny. Just lending some experience. Clueless to the dynamics of molecular science but well versed enough on corporate actions.

I understand the law. This isn't the first time I talked about using Vibrant and experienced coral loss. More than likely it won't be the last. Almost always, I have said I cannot 100% prove it was Vibrant. By me stating I lost corals while using Vibrant and that I didn't tell every detail of my crash is not against the law.

What I will tell the world is to check out this thread that has findings done by others and that is all I have done. Period.

 

[LRT]

We both agree that one is in the clear if commenting on their experience. Notice how you now commented on losing your corals while using the product and not definitively because you used the product. That's the point I'm making and details you left out. Your comment to me advising me to go out and tell the world seem rather ambiguous as to what exactly I should tell the world. Wasn't being funny. Just lending some experience. Clueless to the dynamics of molecular science but well versed enough on corporate actions.

For arguments sake let's imagine that the EPA, or any other independent lab study finds the same findings that Taricha found...
How hard do you think it would be for @JCOLE to prove, or be disproven that in fact Vibrant did cause his coral loss?

 

[Malcontent]

For arguments sake let's imagine that the EPA, or any other independent lab study finds the same findings that Taricha found...
How hard do you think it would be for OP to prove, or be disproven that in fact Vibrant did not cause his coral loss?

Well, it would be under a preponderance of the evidence standard so it wouldn't have to be proven either way. Just that it was more likely than not.

 

[LRT]

Well, it would be under a preponderance of the evidence standard so it wouldn't have to be proven either way. Just that it was more likely than not.

Who do you think would win?

 

[Malcontent]

Who do you think would win?

I think it'd be a win.

This case settled and the facts of it aren't nearly as bad.

 

[Malcontent]

They started as a maintenance company. And to be honest, unless they got sued to bankruptcy from this, their business will be fine back as a maintenance company.

I suspect selling Vibrant was much more profitable than a maintenance business.

A popular or semi-popular product can be quite profitable and since hardly anyone ever gets sued in this industry it's basically no risk and all reward.

The Seachem co-owners have 8-bedroom houses and jet setting lifestyles. They like to think it's due to their management skills but in reality they were just willing to bend the rules more than other companies.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

UWC indicated in one of their last official posts in the earlier thread that they did not make Vibrant themselves. but worked with another "group" (my bolding below). Perhaps they are the victim of a scam by this group as much as users are:

You know what's odd. I've never seen any of you at the facility where Vibrant is made. I really don't need to spell anything out on a open forum. Maybe you all should research Algecide bacteria abstract. Where the bacteria are filtered out and discarded and the (edit) extract is used. All created by BACTERIA.

The group we work with has submitted into the ASM Microbe abstract and awards for early 2022. Once things have been presented. I will gladly post up a bunch of info on our site.

My speculation: Vibrant has some fluconazole in it...

“And we claim the opposite of what it really is so it’s all good”uwc But at least everyone likes it! Oh, and ps, remember we said it was 100% reef safe…yeeeaaaah…nothing is! Whoops!

www.reef2reef.com

 

[LRT]

UWC indicated in one of their last official posts in the earlier thread that they did not make Vibrant themselves. but worked with another "group" (my bolding below). Perhaps they are the victim of a scam by this group as much as users are:

My speculation: Vibrant has some fluconazole in it...

“And we claim the opposite of what it really is so it’s all good”uwc But at least everyone likes it! Oh, and ps, remember we said it was 100% reef safe…yeeeaaaah…nothing is! Whoops!

www.reef2reef.com

Thanks Randy this is what I hinged my hope for some kind of reasonable response from UWC on.
Having said that. I dont fully understand the chemistry behind this statement from that post-

"Maybe you all should research Algecide bacteria abstract. Where the bacteria are filtered out and discarded and the (edit) extract is used. All created by BACTERIA."

Trying to give the benefit of doubt here i wanted to ask is it even remotely possible to derive "from dead bacteria" an "extract" that resembles what's been shown in @taricha findings?

 

[GARRIGA]

For arguments sake let's imagine that the EPA, or any other independent lab study finds the same findings that Taricha found...
How hard do you think it would be for @JCOLE to prove, or be disproven that in fact Vibrant did cause his coral loss?

I think it would be extremely difficult. Does he have water samples from before, during and after treatment? Does he have studies showing his particular corals are affected by algaecides? Have others been successful with those same corals and treatments? So many variables that I don’t know how one quantifies and qualified the affects of algaecide.

Having said that. Didn’t someone sue McDonald’s for hot coffee? I think Red Bull was sued because it doesn’t actually give you wings. Fair to say the average person grasps hot coffee can burn you and a little blue and silver bottle can’t give you wings yet lawsuits were filed. I know with the coffee a settlement was made. If memory serves me well then so did the lack of wings or ability to fly.

Anything is possible. Do need cash and a lawyer. Latter likely easy enough. Former might not be worth the aggravation against potential settlement. How many sympathetic jurors can one hope to find towards corals. Preponderance of the evidence I believe requires 70%. Been a while since I had to brush up on civil lawsuits. Might be 51%. Point being you’d want good expectation of winning. Doubt any manufacturer accepts blame. That would be one can not worth opening.

 

[GARRIGA]

UWC indicated in one of their last official posts in the earlier thread that they did not make Vibrant themselves. but worked with another "group" (my bolding below). Perhaps they are the victim of a scam by this group as much as users are:

That’s a twist I didn’t consider.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thanks Randy this is what I hinged my hope for some kind of reasonable response from UWC on.
Having said that. I dont fully understand the chemistry behind this statement from that post-

"Maybe you all should research Algecide bacteria abstract. Where the bacteria are filtered out and discarded and the (edit) extract is used. All created by BACTERIA."

Trying to give the benefit of doubt here i wanted to ask is it even remotely possible to derive "from dead bacteria" an "extract" that resembles what's been shown in @taricha findings?

Cryptic and not very useful.

Bacteria themselves can make algaecides, but not the one detected by NMR here.

Here's a very recent published example:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ange.202114022

 

[Malcontent]

Anything is possible. Do need cash and a lawyer. Latter likely easy enough. Former might not be worth the aggravation against potential settlement. How many sympathetic jurors can one hope to find towards corals. Propensity of the evidence I believe requires 70%. Been a while since I had to brush up on civil lawsuits. Might be 51%. Point being you’d want good expectation of winning. Doubt any manufacturer accepts blame. That would be one can not worth opening.

51%.

These class actions are done on a contingency basis. No money is required. All that's needed is a few people willing to go on public record as lead plaintiffs. At most you'd have to go downtown and be deposed on video where you'd be asked fairly basic questions.

Defendants often want to admit no liability in exchange for a larger settlement.

 

[LRT]

I think it would be extremely difficult. Does he have water samples from before, during and after treatment? Does he have studies showing his particular corals are affected by algaecides? Have others been successful with those same corals and treatments? So many variables that I don’t know how one quantifies and qualified the affects of algaecide.

Having said that. Didn’t someone sue McDonald’s for hot coffee? I think Red Bull was sued because it doesn’t actually give you wings. Fair to say the average person grasps hot coffee can burn you and a little blue and silver bottle can’t give you wings yet lawsuits were filed. I know with the coffee a settlement was made. If memory serves me well then so did the lack of wings or ability to fly.

Anything is possible. Do need cash and a lawyer. Latter likely easy enough. Former might not be worth the aggravation against potential settlement. How many sympathetic jurors can one hope to find towards corals. Preponderance of the evidence I believe requires 70%. Been a while since I had to brush up on civil lawsuits. Might be 51%. Point being you’d want good expectation of winning. Doubt any manufacturer accepts blame. That would be one can not worth opening.

Keeping it totally real. Out of all examples listed here. The last thing I'd want to be involved in would be the epa involved issue. I think we would all agree there is nothing frivolous in the matter of putting known algecides in reef supplements that act as molluscicides if that is determined.
Not even same arena

 

[ceaver]

Such cationic polymers will bind to all negatively charges surfaces, which includes detritus and whole organisms(e.g.,. So export of either of those (by skimming, for example) will export the polymers too.

Or it is removed at some rate by foam fractionation. This may have already been mentioned, but I haven't made it through the whole thread yet.

QACs are surfactants, and polymeric ones should be removed via FF even more efficiently.

Follow-up question on this. I am one of the weirdos without a skimmer on my tank. Given that case, is vacuuming detritus out during a water change the only way to remove it? Would carbon have any effect? Any other method you can think of to export vibrant?

Thanks in advance!!

 

[GARRIGA]

51%.

These class actions are done on a contingency basis. No money is required. All that's needed is a few people willing to go on public record as lead plaintiffs. At most you'd have to go downtown and be deposed on video where you'd be asked fairly basic questions.

Defendants often want to admit no liability in exchange for a larger settlement.

Not every lawyer going to take such a case on contingency. Seems like a costly court case with little relief to cover their 40%.

Class action lawsuit I can see occurring but then the lawyers are the ones getting paid. Rest will get leftovers divided amongst all who join the claim.

Do we really believe a maintenance company would bother trying to settle versus just filing bankruptcy and going back to cleaning tanks? Especially if moving forward they can no longer claim super bacteria and struggle competing against API which has a bigger industry foot print and likely considerable materials savings since they buy in greater bulk?