Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[jda]

Did you read the other thread? Have you seen UWCs own comments both there and over the years? There is no way to represent this in any way. They flat-out lied. They also sent PMs to some people admitting to various things and promising to make public comments - never happened. Some of those PMs were shown as screen shots. The threads in the past were not shut down or even issued a warning about saying so. The element of intent (lie) is too important to not speak about - they seem to get it here, to their credit.

 

[LRT]

I think that the general direction that this thread and the previous one move in. Was establishing that the product sold is a dangerous misrepresentation of what was actually in it.

Definition of lie (Entry 4 of 6)
1a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive. He told a lie to avoid punishment.
b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writerthe lies we tell ourselves to feel betterhistorical records containing numerous lies
2: something that misleads or deceivesHis show of remorse was a lie.

Given the above definition, what is the acceptable alternative that won't offend?

I like FIB
Plus at the end of the day its actually R2R who chooses to moderate certain threads and which not to moderate.
Thats been entirely super clear here.
Going to be interesting to see how this one plays out

 

[Chrisv.]

Because no sane reefer would use something that can kill without knowing what it is and we have been trained to think bacteria is safe

Knowing what's in vibrant, I would totally still use it. Not sure if I qualify as sane or not, but I've been doing this for two and a half decades, so at least I have been around, if not sane. I used it on a tank that went south fast. The results were... impressive. Within 6 weeks the tank looked immaculate. If I had another major issue, I would use it without a moment of hesitation.

The false advertising stuff is BS, but even with these revelations, I guess I'm not getting as upset. And it's not that I don't get upset about this stuff. I'm pretty furious about my salt mix these days.

The content of the product does not change the fact that in MY tank, it worked wonders.

 

[a.t.t.r]

Knowing what's in vibrant, I would totally still use it. Not sure if I qualify as sane or not, but I've been doing this for two and a half decades, so at least I have been around, if not sane. I used it on a tank that went south fast. The results were... impressive. Within 6 weeks the tank looked immaculate. If I had another major issue, I would use it without a moment of hesitation.

The false advertising stuff is BS, but even with these revelations, I guess I'm not getting as upset. And it's not that I don't get upset about this stuff. I'm pretty furious about my salt mix these days.

The content of the product does not change the fact that in MY tank, it worked wonders.

If it was just unlabeled product with the claim “kills algae reef safe” but absolutely no explanation as to how or what was in it would you have used it?

They didn’t want to admit what was in it and knew no label at all would be worse.

 

[mojo8427]

Your first sentence probably would have been enough. Possibly misrepresentation rather than the more aggressive word of lying. Your choice. I have no skin in the game other than enjoying the information the OP provided. It seems some are not able to have conversation though and the thread will get nuked.

In the prior thread, UWC said there was bacteria. Later said there wasn't bacteria. Then said the bacteria produced the quat.

That is three different versions representations of the product. The label adds another to make four and the website adds a 5th representation of what is in his project. I find it impossible that its a possible misrepresentation.

 

[Chrisv.]

If it was just unlabeled product with the claim “kills algae reef safe” but absolutely no explanation as to how or what was in it would you have used it?

They didn’t want to admit what was in it and knew no label at all would be worse.

I used it last summer. I read quite a few threads and understood that it likely wasn't a microbial product. I even centrifuged some down to see if visible microbes pelleted out.

I didn't know exactly what it was, but I knew that people thought it was algaecide and that it wasn't a microbe. I ordered it, waited a few weeks doubting the wisdom of using it... Then used it. And it worked.

 

[mojo8427]

I like FIB
Plus at the end of the day its actually R2R who chooses to moderate certain threads and which not to moderate.
Thats been entirely super clear here.
Going to be interesting to see how this one plays out

I don't think anyone argued that R2r aren't able to moderate their platform.

 

[Brian_68]

There are hundreds of reef "additives" that do not list ingredients and make dubious claims to say the least, just sayin......

 

[mojo8427]

There are hundreds of reef "additives" that do not list ingredients and make dubious claims to say the least, just sayin......

UWC said the exact same thing in his defense.

 

[Sean Clark]

Personally I always felt that it was highly unlikely that a small aquarium maintenance company "developed" a unique product to keep their clients tanks clean between visits.

There are far more experienced professionals out there with the education and skills in the relevant fields of expertise that would have capitalized on this product if it was well known enough for a small service company to do so. Or maybe they did...

I can change the Toll House Chocolate Chip Cookie recipe by 1% and call it unique and proprietary.

A timeless discovery

More than 80 years later, Nestlé Toll House's Original Chocolate Chip Cookies are a true classic and a go-to recipe for all occasions.

www.nestle.com

 

[a.t.t.r]

UWC said the exact same thing in his defense.

And most of us don’t use them as willingly or do more research prior.

 

[LRT]

I don't think anyone argued that R2r aren't able to moderate their platform.

My point exactly. Its which threads,users they choose to moderate and which ones get free rain to run amok with total immunity is whats most interesting to me lately.
If vibrant is Fibbing, which it absoloutely appears at the very least they have not been entirely truthful. Call it a FIB, trick, white lie, deceiving or whatever you want to call it. The shoe appears to fit.

 

[Brian_68]

And most of us don’t use them as willingly or do more research prior.

I actually see tons of people using coral nutrition products, Red Sea, Two Little Fishies, Tropic Marin......

 

[areefer01]

In the prior thread, UWC said there was bacteria. Later said there wasn't bacteria. Then said the bacteria produced the quat.

That is three different versions representations of the product. The label adds another to make four and the website adds a 5th representation of what is in his project. I find it impossible that its a possible misrepresentation.

As I replied to your follow up to my post what is calling them a liar bringing to the thread? Be it the manufacture, BRS content, social media content, or the 336 page 3,700 post thread below. Stay on the topic the OP created or watch the thread get closed. I provided a suggestion do with it what you will.

Vibrant Liquid Aquarium Cleaner * Discussion Thread

Anybody used this in LPS/softy-dominant tanks? How did your coral respond? I've got nothing major -- a hammer, GSP, superman shroom and clove polyps. I accidentally bought the saltwater version and not the reef version so planning on only dosing half the recommended amount once per week to...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[Malcontent]

For reference:

Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, a claim can be made against a defendant for false or misleading advertising. For a claim against a defendant for false advertising, the following elements are met and the plaintiff must show: (1) defendant made false or misleading statements as to his own products (or another’s); (2) actual deception, or at least a tendency to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience; (3) deception is material in that it is likely to influence purchasing decisions; (4) the advertised goods travel in interstate commerce; and (5) a likelihood of injury to plaintiff. However, the plaintiff does not have to prove actual injury.

false advertising

www.law.cornell.edu

I think a lot of companies in the aquarium industry need a wake up call.

 

[LRT]

So you think they are selling recalled collars? Source?
Walmart, Target, Costco? Them as well?

Here is a cut and paste from one of Hartz recalls:

• Reason for recall: EPA requires new label for package with the pesticide active ingredient in this product.

So, label appropriately so that people know the risks, etc.

Voluntary Recall: Hartz Ultraguard Rid Flea & Tick Shampoo for Cats 15 oz. - Buehler's Fresh Foods

Voluntary Recall: Hartz Ultraguard Rid Flea & Tick Shampoo for Cats 15 oz. Date of recall: 1/4/16 UPC code(s): 3270012599 / 3270096037 Manufacturer of item: Hartz Reason for recall: EPA […]

www.buehlers.com

For reference:

false advertising

www.law.cornell.edu

I think a lot of companies in the aquarium industry need a wake up call.

Only one real way to find out.

 

[Brian_68]

Only one real way to find out.

Interesting to see the Hartz recall was only voluntary not required for not labeled properly.

 

[mojo8427]

As I replied to your follow up to my post what is calling them a liar bringing to the thread? Be it the manufacture, BRS content, social media content, or the 336 page 3,700 post thread below. Stay on the topic the OP created or watch the thread get closed. I provided a suggestion do with it what you will.

Vibrant Liquid Aquarium Cleaner * Discussion Thread

Anybody used this in LPS/softy-dominant tanks? How did your coral respond? I've got nothing major -- a hammer, GSP, superman shroom and clove polyps. I accidentally bought the saltwater version and not the reef version so planning on only dosing half the recommended amount once per week to...

www.reef2reef.com

Maybe you don't get that the topic of this thread and the work the OP did he and in the prior thread was to disprove the assertions UWC made that were false and used to deceive consumers.

Wiki: A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false, typically used with the purpose of deceiving someone.[1][2][3][4] The practice of communicating lies is called lying. A person who communicates a lie may be termed a liar.

 

[LRT]

I digress. Great thread @taricha

 

[taricha]

Could y'all chill a little and let me post one more thing before you get this thread locked for too much amateur lawyering?
(I have no interest or knowledge of the legal stuff. I referenced EPA because they are a thorough resource for the chemical in question.)