Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I wonder (not) If we will hear from the fan boys who endlessly defended them with wild ideas of how it might be possible.

 

[revhtree]

As per our TOS, talk of lawsuits and comments that are directed personally at people are not permitted. I realize you are frustrated but please abide by the TOS. Thanks.

Terms and rules

You must agree to these terms and rules before using the site.

www.reef2reef.com

 

[blaxsun]

I wonder (not) If we will hear from the fan boys who endlessly defended them with wild ideas of how it might be possible.

I for one was completely willing to throw them under the bus.
Then back up and pull forward again...

 

[jda]

As per our TOS, talk of lawsuits and comments that are directed personally at people are not permitted. I realize you are frustrated but please abide by the TOS. Thanks.

Terms and rules

You must agree to these terms and rules before using the site.

www.reef2reef.com

I think that this is a good policy for the most part since posts in this vein are ridiculous bluster. However, in this case of total fraud, I think that you should consider a separate thread for people to just put names and a quick summary of damages out there to be contacted if somebody wants to take this on. No discussion, fits, piling on or anything, just interest in being contact. If this board is about the members and stuff, then reef2reef is a place to do this if for nothing else then to show that this type of behavior from liars and fraudsters will not be tolerated in the future.

Otherwise, I fear that many will take this opportunity to just say that you were there when UWC was paying their fees and to let people shill and promote the product and now you are nowhere when damages to the members were done and reparations might be due.

IMO, this is good for the members and for you.

 

[jda]

No longer says safe for corals on the registered label either.

The proposed label does say that it will not harm corals on the label, but does say so in the Environmental Hazards for other things like snails, shrimp, clams, mollusks, etc. It does say that it will not harm clams either, but it is a known mulluskicide and the EPA part of the document says that it is . If this were a real deal, the way that I understand it is that this would be open to comments and stuff, so adding a warning about killing mollusks, snails, clams, etc. could be suggested and removed from the "will not harm" part. The document is incredibly inconsistent. In any case, no issue right now.

In the Environmental Hazards Precautionary Statement:

Concentrated product is harmful to fish and other aquatic organisms, please follow labeling directions carefully. Not safe for use with snails, shrimp, clams and other crustaceans, or mollusks.

In the directions:

For Marine / Reef Aquariums In Marine and Reef Aquariums this product will not harm corals, coralline algae, snails, shrimp, anemones, feather dusters, clams, scallops, sea cucumbers or other invertebrates.Will not affect the function of protein skimmers. Effectively controls a wide variety of marine algae.

 

[revhtree]

I think that this is a good policy for the most part since posts in this vein are ridiculous bluster. However, in this case of total fraud, I think that you should consider a separate thread for people to just put names and a quick summary of damages out there to be contacted if somebody wants to take this on. No discussion, fits, piling on or anything, just interest in being contact. If this board is about the members and stuff, then reef2reef is a place to do this if for nothing else then to show that this type of behavior from liars and fraudsters will not be tolerated in the future.

I will talk it over with the admin team. There are a couple of good reasons that we don't allow members to threaten lawsuits using our platform to do so.

Otherwise, I fear that many will take this opportunity to just say that you were there when UWC was paying their fees and to let people shill and promote the product and now you are nowhere when damages to the members were done and reparations might be due.

1. We removed them as a sponsors and cancelled their payments once we found out what was possibly going on. Even before it was verified as true.

2. We allowed these conversations to take place here without impeding.

We will discuss this next week. There are other platforms, venues and ways for people to do what you are suggesting.

 

[jda]

I wonder (not) If we will hear from the fan boys who endlessly defended them with wild ideas of how it might be possible.

I love salty Dr. Holmes-Farley. I think that we are going to get...

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The one thing that is in control of Reef2Reef is banning the UWC account for terms of service violations, and that is now done.

A sincere thank you from me personally to the folks who spent a lot of their own time and money to exposed this product, and to all who supported them with technical advice and encouragement.

 

[jda]

Now the question is whether or not they look at any other vibrant products like their flatworm treatment.

I am just going of off of memory, but Purge was likely just really strong wormwood, iodine, potassium and some other type of supposed tissue-healing type of things. At the time is seemed like a more concentrated version of Flatworm Stop from KZ, but you dosed it all at once for an immediate kill instead of using smaller portions over time like the KZ stuff. The worms that they tested it on were not even the right kind and it did not kill real AEFW. It did crash tanks. I cannot remember anybody testing it or anything. Of course, they argued with me about it and insisted that it contained no wormwood even though you could see fibers of something under a microscope. This seems like it was just an incompetent cash grab and not illegal.

 

[jda]

@taricha deserves a ton of credit. He did a test that seemed to show that bacteria grew from a bottle of vibrant and included the a chart with other products. UWC posted this graph a bunch there for a while as proof of something. In an extreme example of emotional intelligence, and regular intelligence, @taricha considered what I was saying when I asked people to compare this to AlgaeFix, with the reasoning, when lesser folks would have just stood by their first impression and cussed me out with most of the rest of the crowd. He found and did a bromothymol blue test for QAC and then was off and running.

I cannot stress how rare and important it is for people to have these kinds of personality traits. These folks get things done in the world.

 

[JCOLE]

@UWC Still waiting. Sure would be nice to find out what was in the product I used.

 

[a.t.t.r]

@UWC Still waiting. Sure would be nice to find out what was in the product I used.

They are banned according to post above

 

[rennjidk]

I wonder (not) If we will hear from the fan boys who endlessly defended them with wild ideas of how it might be possible.

You sir, have the patience of a saint. Just remember that even saints got tired of people's stupidity.

 

[JCOLE]

They are banned according to post above

How convenient

 

[taricha]

Here is the registration. Lists 3.5% polyquat lol

That is really funny to me.

I had to lol. "RO/DI Water"

Back to the chemistry stuff, this is really small potatoes, but.... the Vibrant bottles I got my hands on from 2020-22 for the testing in post 16 were all much closer to 4.5%.
By which I mean they were indistinguishable in concentration from Algaefix that lists 4.5% on the label and about 20% lower than the Fritz and Tetra products that list 5.4%. This result held regardless of method, and I feel pretty confident about it.

What does that mean? I don't know.
Maybe 3.5% was what they intended, but the bottles had more. Maybe the comparison products I used were all a little weak - possible the chemical might have the same source supplier/manufacturer for all those products. Maybe 3.5% is what the bottles tested by EPA actually measured - EPA probably doesn't need to rely on other aquarium products as comparison like I did. Or maybe 3.5% indicates their future intentions, a slightly different concentration than other products.
no idea.

 

[rtparty]

Polyquat. RODI. Same but different

 

[MnFish1]

Got a call and Vibrant is now a registered pesticide with the EPA with a conditional approval as of July 13th.

This means one of two things, but my guy said that it is mostly likely the first step in a settlement or trial by admitting what is in the product by registering it retroactively and agreeing on the contents. It also could mean that they intend to sell the product again, but these type of registrations are just approved normally.

https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/101854-00001-20230713.pdf

The way that he explained it, the conditional approval is key. Conditional approval is for special circumstances only. Each State has 1 year to take action with of some sort of a plan for enforcement of or else the product goes to disapproval. Conditional approval is not usually a path to approval.

If you want to read more about what conditional approval means, it is here:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-07/documents/procsip.pdf

In any case, it is now even beyond totally clear that everybody in the testing was correct about nearly everything that they said from the product to the amount - not that he needed it but @taricha and the crew should feel even better for their hard work and the garbage takes and posts that they had to endure. It also is consistent with the path that some have laid out that something is happening, that the process is slow and that we will really know nothing until it is all done.

Just to remind you - it says nothing about the contents - though I think many here have accepted its the same as algae fix. Even a product containing bacteria that kills algae is a pesticide according to the EPA. Agree - you know nothing until it's done (me either). BTW - I'm fully willing to accept that it is an algaecide ie polyquat - its just funny reading your comments - which prove in fact nothing - as compared to others in the thread.

 

[elysics]

Just to remind you - it says nothing about the contents - though I think many here have accepted its the same as algae fix. Even a product containing bacteria that kills algae is a pesticide according to the EPA. Agree - you know nothing until it's done (me either). BTW - I'm fully willing to accept that it is an algaecide ie polyquat - its just funny reading your comments - which prove in fact nothing - as compared to others in the thread.

Did you write that before reading the pdf, or despite it?

 

[a.t.t.r]

Just to remind you - it says nothing about the contents - though I think many here have accepted its the same as algae fix. Even a product containing bacteria that kills algae is a pesticide according to the EPA. Agree - you know nothing until it's done (me either). BTW - I'm fully willing to accept that it is an algaecide ie polyquat - its just funny reading your comments - which prove in fact nothing - as compared to others in the thread.

…. Please read the first link. They provide the ingredients list on page two.

 

[rtparty]

Just to remind you - it says nothing about the contents - though I think many here have accepted its the same as algae fix. Even a product containing bacteria that kills algae is a pesticide according to the EPA. Agree - you know nothing until it's done (me either). BTW - I'm fully willing to accept that it is an algaecide ie polyquat - its just funny reading your comments - which prove in fact nothing - as compared to others in the thread.

Tell us you didn’t read any of the links or following posts without telling us you didn’t read the links or following posts



Give it a rest. Vibrant is polyquat. Vibrant is AlgaeFix. Vibrant is Busan 77. They’ve admitted it. Game over. You can stop protecting UWC. Facts are facts. Listen to them.