Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[GARRIGA]

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

I don’t know to what extent having the EPA validate there’s algaecide would do to any claims since Algaefix is marketed as reef safe. If we are claiming both are the same then how does one prove that one causes harm yet not the other. Unless others have sued API for losses due to using their product.

 

[GARRIGA]

I’m not a lawyer but I’d think one could use this as their defense. Not making light of the fact it was misrepresented and I’m guessing the EPA would impose fines but going after UWC for losing corals might be difficult to argue.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

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.

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!!

Carbon will likely bind some, yes, Other media such as GFO and aluminum oxide may also bind it.

 

[ReefBeta]

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.

If they are at the scale of Seachem, then sure. But they're not. Seachem is huge in freshwater side of things. You don't get to that level of success by just bending more rules than others. The popularity of Vibrant won't even touch that of Prime in just the saltwater side. I bet the profit of Prime alone can dwarf the total value of UWC.

 

[ReefBeta]

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

If this is the case, it can be a very convenient scapegoat.

 

[ReeferSamster]

The culmination of reefers coming together to call out bad business practice is great.

I am not here to troll against a business. But my interest in this is to evolve our hobby. If businesses rise or fall based on our opinions, so be it. Social and economic darwinism is a not nice, but its reality. Lets voice our opinions and our findings.

 

[LRT]

I’m not a lawyer but I’d think one could use this as their defense. Not making light of the fact it was misrepresented and I’m guessing the EPA would impose fines but going after UWC for losing corals might be difficult to argue.

I am also not a lawyer but think a good one would just lump that in to a class action. Not sure its been determined Vibrant is Algaefix but I'd be highly careful if i was any company claiming a product is reef safe especially if there are studies on materials in certain products that shows them to act as molluscicides.
I wouldnt want to be on either end of that one!

 

[ReefBeta]

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?

That's the point. Most of the client won't know. Some might still not even know corals are live animals. Also reviews seems quite irrelevant in the aquarium maintenance business. The biggest one in my area has 2.5 star on google map, yet they're many times bigger than any other competitors.

 

[ReefBeta]

I’m not a lawyer but I’d think one could use this as their defense. Not making light of the fact it was misrepresented and I’m guessing the EPA would impose fines but going after UWC for losing corals might be difficult to argue.

I think the angle of legal issue is not on losing animals, but on fraud on claiming the content of the product. Whether is cause damage to the animals or not is not relevant here IIUC.

 

[GARRIGA]

I am also not a lawyer but think a good one would just lump that in to a class action. Not sure its been determined Vibrant is Algaefix but I'd be highly careful if i was any company claiming a product is reef safe especially if there are studies on materials in certain products that shows them to act as molluscicides.
I wouldnt want to be on either end of that one!

I’m assuming API hadn’t been sued or settling has been more profitable than pulling this product off the shelves assuming it is toxic to corals. We are however claiming it appears that Vibrant is similar to Algaefix. Plus very artistic marketing to put it mildly.

 

[GARRIGA]

I think the angle of legal issue is not on losing animals, but on fraud on claiming the content of the product. Whether is cause damage to the animals or not is not relevant here IIUC.

But is it something an aquarist will pursue. Someone has to bring the class action. Not the first time a manufacturer was less than truthful about their products use.

 

[jda]

I think that everybody should calm down about the legal stuff unless a lawyer wants to chime in? I talked to an actual lawyer about this years ago when I got a threat about lawsuit if I did not stop saying that it was algaecide (never from UWC directly, to be fair). He is local and in the hobby, as well. He laughed. I am going off of memory of just one guy's opinions:

No company would likely ever sue over bad words, claims or opinions on a message board about what is in one of their secret products. If they did, they would have to give up their secret formula in discovery which would be public to see (if you did not settle). This does not mean that somebody might not file just to scare somebody, but getting too far likely would not happen.

Any lawyer who might want to take action on UWC would likely wait for EPA and FTC to get done with them. Even if there were anything left after this, a small company would have been looted and restructured beyond having anything left to give. The new company, Undyr Watyr Creatynz, would not be liable for the old company's issues.

All of this assumes that people are smart and/or follow the advice of their council.

 

[Malcontent]

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?

Well, people who wouldn't have purchased Vibrant but for the deceptive claims would get their money back. People who relied on false claims and lost livestock would be compensated accordingly.

I don’t know to what extent having the EPA validate there’s algaecide would do to any claims since Algaefix is marketed as reef safe. If we are claiming both are the same then how does one prove that one causes harm yet not the other. Unless others have sued API for losses due to using their product.

I'm not convinced that Algaefix is safe for fish. I haven't independently verified this but:

AlgaeFix active ingredient LC50 data

I frequently am asked in private messages to repeat the data found easily in the public PAN pesticide database on the tested aquatic toxicity of the active ingredient in AlgaeFix. So here it is in public to satisfy all those folks sending private messages asking for it again. This is why...

www.koiphen.com

Not to mention there are many tales of Algaefix causing mass casualty events in freshwater tanks including mine.

Even if Algaefix was safe, not disclosing the true ingredients in Vibrant still causes people to purchase it who wouldn't have had they known the truth. As well as people paying a premium for a product they think is safer than an algaecide.

I think the angle of legal issue is not on losing animals, but on fraud on claiming the content of the product. Whether is cause damage to the animals or not is not relevant here IIUC.

There are both product liability and deceptive advertising issues here and they're kind of interwoven since reliance on false claims likely resulted in livestock losses.

No company would likely ever sue over bad words, claims or opinions on a message board about what is in one of their secret products. If they did, they would have to give up their secret formula in discovery which would be public to see (if you did not settle). This does not mean that somebody might not file just to scare somebody, but getting too far likely would not happen.

Yeah, I brought this up in the Prime thread because it's even more relevant with Seachem's secretiveness. I would love for them to sue so someone could discover what's in Prime. They have written ridiculous demand letters when someone suggested it was sodium dithionite. All bark and no bite.

Any lawyer who might want to take action on UWC would likely wait for EPA and FTC to get done with them. Even if there were anything left after this, a small company would have been looted and restructured beyond having anything left to give. The new company, Undyr Watyr Creatynz, would not be liable for the old company's issues.

It'd probably be a good idea to wait and see what comes out of any gov't investigations. Something like the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act likely prevents escaping judgment through bankruptcy (lawyers have a very good lobby).

 

[Terence]

Yesterday I messaged both @taricha and @UWC both via PM to attempt to get them on this coming Sunday's 5PM livestream. So far @taricha responded and said he would get back to me. No response yet from UWC.

 

[ScottB]

I guess I skimmed the last 20-40 posts. When anything "law" popped I skipped. This is not a law forum. It is not a regulatory forum. It is not a business ethics forum. This forum is solely about how we can best keep our reef inhabitants healthy.

Somehow long ago I started this, but I don't care a hermit's behind about UWC and their behavior. It is a well known and used product rightly or not. Like other products, I have seen it work well and catastrophically fail. How do we advise the community when to use and when to avoid? What are our cautions? Should we advise other more cost effective solutions?

@taricha confirmed beyond doubt what is IN the product. For me that is enough. There are times when a grenade is optimal. Not many, but there are times (chrysopytes). Maybe not with anything stony and valuable in the tank, but other times it could be the short term ticket to staying in the hobby.

Last wine glass and going to bed. Thank you again @taricha for the work. I feel like we have what we need thanks to your work. Also appreciate the science that came from a handful of others who know who they are. I thought it was a cool value demonstration regarding this forum.

 

[LRT]

How do we advise the community when to use and when to avoid? What are our cautions? Should we advise other more cost effective solutions?

@taricha confirmed beyond doubt what is IN the product. For me that is enough. There are times when a grenade is optimal. Not many, but there are times (chrysopytes). Maybe not with anything stony and valuable in the tank, but other times it could be the short term ticket to staying in the hobby.
@taricha for the work. I feel like we have what we need thanks to your work. Also appreciate the science that came from a handful of others who know who they are. I thought it was a cool value demonstration regarding this forum.

Well put sir. I really was trying to get off that other stuff and stay on topic for a minute!
Agreed. Great points you bring up. I feel id caution anyone using real ocean rock with clams growing on it and such to stay clear of this stuff until its clear what's actually in it. Ive seen good results in dead rock start ups but I'm still not sure about using it if corals and especially clams are present and not knowing whats in it.

 

[JimWelsh]

Since the post I made a couple of minutes ago was unceremoniously deleted by the mods, I'll rephrase: The one thing I'm learning from this post is who the litigious jerks are.

 

[Doctorgori]

Vibrator Tank cleaner …contains hard working “Nanobots” and “scrubbing bubbles”
…..still working on the packaging tho, pm me for pricing
(yes I’m trolling, lighten up y’all)

 

[taricha]

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:

I'd thought about that.
And I'd give more weight to it if it weren't for the fact that @jda has been saying at least since late 2020 that he had Vibrant looked at by a lab and they concluded it contained algaecide, but he was not in a position to give details. JDA would say that hobbyists ought to compare it to Algaefix. Anyway UWC always was vocal in rejecting that claim (very next post after the one I linked), and that JDA didn't know what he was talking about etc.
It seems unlikely that UWC didn't think to ask questions of this supplier company or group or whoever before now. IMO, they've been aware that it tests like algaecide for plenty long enough to know what's up.

So in a sense, the data I've posted here from myself and the two labs I sent it to is the replication of the earlier work done by JDA and the lab he used.

 

[taricha]

I was thinking that this potential binding feature might explain why several (including me) witnessed a general LOWERING of nutrients -- and PO4 in particular. (Granted, there was no control testing, just a pile of anecdotes).

But in seawater, where very high sulfate concentrations (>2,000 ppm) will compete with phosphate (sulfate also has two negative charges with similar spacing) , I expect it is not going to appreciably export phosphate.

The polixetonium will bind to organic detritus, and might make that detritus more skimmable and hence may have a small phosphate and nitrate lowering effect over time, just like using GAC or Purigen. It may also act as a flocculant, make the water more clear.

I can think of four reasons, not of which I am sure of, for possible nutrient lowering effects from the polyquat (since carbon dose and direct PO4 binding aren't ones).

1. Placebo: as jeffww mentioned, some say PO4 went up. Also when you take the step to buy and use a product for an algae problem, you are probably in a frame of mind to care more about nutrients, and caring more about nutrients can make you do small things differently to cause them change. (I think the effect is larger than placebo - unlikely)

2. As a Flocculant, people report clearer water pretty regularly. The yellowing compounds in saltwater water are forms of DOM that are slow to break down, and these kinds have higher Carbon ratios. If the product is aggregating this stuff, then by making it more concentrated, it will probably be more digestible by bacteria than in the dilute dissolved form. (Read a paper on this mechanism by GAC just this week.) This would result in a high Carbon food source for bacteria - that could in turn help lower other nutrients.

3. The algae killed and damaged by the chemical should also be considered as to what the present nutrients are that are made available. I once took some GHA, did freeze/thaw to break up cells and discarded the liquid part, so basically just the husks of GHA and fed it to some bacteria. Most of the bacteria I fed it to lowered the N in the sample water, because the high C ratio of what was made available.

4. It's not impossible that the chemical interferes with test kits. This hasn't been shown to happen in aquarium concentrations, but it does happen at higher concentrations at least to the hanna PO4 test, and nobody has checked.