Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[Jeeperz]

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

Not that peer review can always be trusted, depending on the reviewer, heck they don't even have to be from the same field of study. There have been tons of peer review that have been debunked over the years or retracted

 

[a.t.t.r]

Not that peer review can always be trusted, depending on the reviewer, heck they don't even have to be from the same field of study. There have been tons of peer review that have been debunked over the years or retracted

Yes that is how science works. Someone can hop in here and provide data as to why what is currently said is wrong. Heck even someone like @UWC could come provide data that could later be verified.

 

[rtparty]

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.


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.

To your first point, do you know who those scientists in here are? Not trying to be rude here, but you literally have the most decorated and well known "hobby" scientist in the world peer reviewing the data.

If Randy reviewing your data isn't enough of an endorsement, I don't know what to tell you. Just Google him and look at his resume. You don't need to believe me.

Then you have Craig as well?

(No offense to the other scientists I didn't name. Don't have time to go through the dozen of you...)

Partnership agreements between companies are completely null and void when one side is found completely misrepresenting their product and lying about what it is. The guilty party can not enforce any type of contract (rarely are there any serious contracts here unless you're the main distributor of a product.)

To your last point, this entire hobby is made up of commercially available items with a fish sticker slapped on them. Nothing new or crazy about that. What is crazy is slapping a false label on that commercially available product, telling a very extravagant story, and getting ticked off when others ask for proof of what you claim. Especially when that chemical you're selling is heavily regulated and has known side effects that kill the livestock you're treating.

There is nothing wrong with Vibrant taking an already known product, marketing it well, and doubling the price. We see this all the time. Where you draw the line is the mislabeling of the product you're selling because you know people won't use it if you tell them what's actually in it.

 

[GARRIGA]

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

Can only speak from my experience being this is not my field of study or interest. Therefore I'm open to being better educated on the matter.

What I recall about the Lacey Act issue that my side business faced in the late 90s was a document created by scientist paid for by PETA claiming that reptiles of concern would invade the upper 1/3 of the Continental United States. Argument being made by my industry being these papers weren't formally reviewed by other scientist and published. Hence my understanding of peer review.

Discussions by those of us with extensive knowledge in the field of herpetology including scientist was not a valid dispute against those claims. We were just a bunch of guys on a forum making claims against the claims. We did have and do have an organization that fights on our behalf called USARK and they employed lawyers and scientist to dispute the PETA papers that were created by scientist.

Therefore, I'm assuming that some formal process should be initiated where other scientist publish papers substantiating these claims and this might assist those seeking relief because they may have been wronged by using a product that contained a pesticide yet failed to follow EPA labeling requirements.

Based on your prior comment as well as others, it seems as validations on this topic in this forum by scientist constitutes peer review. Perhaps I assumed incorrectly and have no issue being corrected but until it is explained to me than I have no other choice but to go off my own experiences which are limited but then that can be said about many things for which one doesn't practice or learned before. What I never do is just accept something because another claims it is. Were that the case then I would just accept that Vibrant is a bacterial product as the manufacturer claims. By that same reasoning. I can't just accept it isn't because others say it is not. Can't question the doubter of doubters if all one is doing is asking for a more formal process than just a forum discussion.

BTW, not actually questioning anything. Just pointing out the potential hypocrisy in challenging one who challenges those that challenge others. hopefully that makes sense. Point being. An open mind best until all facts are known.

Most important part to grasp in my message. I've seen enough to convince me that Vibrant is not a bacterial product. Very likely hyped up Algaefix. From what I understand of the EPA, should be labeled as carrying a pesticide. Were I in need of a pesticide that kills algae than I'd be seeking the lower cost option. All of this however based purely on what I've gleaned off this thread. No clue if my assumptions are valid. Probably won't be until the EPA either slaps a label on it or disputes these claims. The latter we may never know.

Perhaps filing a claim with the EPA will be that peer review that my mind seeks. Seems like a logical coarse of action. Would give vendors the likely out needed to cancel any purchase agreements made as well as support a recall of all products in inventory. The latter I am experienced with. Not a scientist. Not a lawyer. Finance professional I am. Have however worked with lots of lawyers. Some scientist. Both in a corporate setting to understand how something done or about to be done might impact my company or client's business strategy. This impacts how I perceive and react to threads such as this.

 

[nereefpat]

Really nice job, @taricha

I'm surprised the NMR is that clear. I mean, there is no doubt. Your other work had me convinced that is wasn't a bacterial product, and that it was remarkably similar to the algaecide in Algae Fix. Now we see Vibrant has the same structure, with the same carbon groups in the same place. It looks to be the same concentration as well.

It's pretty bold, what Vibrant has done here. If I bought jugs of 2,4-D, poured it into my own containers with the label "Biological Lawn Additive", told people it wasn't herbicide, and sold it for twice as much...I believe I would be locked up.

 

[moz71]

All I want to say is thank you @taricha. I really don't care about all this jibberish stuff going back and fourth. You just gave me information that I can use my OWN mind and OWN assessment on if I want to use this product and how I want to use it! Was it Dragnet years ago "give me the facts, just the facts" lol and I will be the judge!!

 

[GARRIGA]

To your first point, do you know who those scientists in here are? Not trying to be rude here, but you literally have the most decorated and well known "hobby" scientist in the world peer reviewing the data.

If Randy reviewing your data isn't enough of an endorsement, I don't know what to tell you. Just Google him and look at his resume. You don't need to believe me.

Then you have Craig as well?

(No offense to the other scientists I didn't name. Don't have time to go through the dozen of you...)

Partnership agreements between companies are completely null and void when one side is found completely misrepresenting their product and lying about what it is. The guilty party can not enforce any type of contract (rarely are there any serious contracts here unless you're the main distributor of a product.)

To your last point, this entire hobby is made up of commercially available items with a fish sticker slapped on them. Nothing new or crazy about that. What is crazy is slapping a false label on that commercially available product, telling a very extravagant story, and getting ticked off when others ask for proof of what you claim. Especially when that chemical you're selling is heavily regulated and has known side effects that kill the livestock you're treating.

There is nothing wrong with Vibrant taking an already known product, marketing it well, and doubling the price. We see this all the time. Where you draw the line is the mislabeling of the product you're selling because you know people won't use it if you tell them what's actually in it.

Other than Randy, I have no clue who the scientist are. How would I know that? How do I differentiate one from any other just posting their views? No offense to those who are but it's a reef forum. Not the science department at a university. Over time I'm sure that will become more apparent but no one joining this or any other forum knows all the background. To expect that from them is unreasonable. BTW, I normally just read the posts. I don't try to see who posted it unless I feel a reply is needed. Based on what I read I can often determine if what I read was worth absorbing. Much I just ignore because it might go against what I've experienced. It's the web. Can't take everything literally as being correct.

As for just accepting what another says just because of their credentials doesn't apply with my past experiences. Much of what was once fact is today proven to be wrong. Although I would weight their response greate than another's of lesser credentials yet I'll go verify it myself. Although on a public forum it's impossible to veridy who's credentials are less. This is important. I never just take another's word . Just who I am and how I've been trained in my chosen career as well as life experiences. Verify and confirm, always.

What I can speak to is your point about nullifying contracts which is my point about having verification that the vendor has been lied to. The latter being very difficult and could end up taking years to resolve in the courts. Vendor can't just call up the manufacturer and void their agreement because it was posted on a forum. Doesn't work that way. Could however discuss with the manufacturer that issue being observed and ask for a remedy both can accept. that's reality based on my past experiences.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Can only speak from my experience being this is not my field of study or interest. Therefore I'm open to being better educated on the matter.

What I recall about the Lacey Act issue that my side business faced in the late 90s was a document created by scientist paid for by PETA claiming that reptiles of concern would invade the upper 1/3 of the Continental United States. Argument being made by my industry being these papers weren't formally reviewed by other scientist and published. Hence my understanding of peer review.

Discussions by those of us with extensive knowledge in the field of herpetology including scientist was not a valid dispute against those claims. We were just a bunch of guys on a forum making claims against the claims. We did have and do have an organization that fights on our behalf called USARK and they employed lawyers and scientist to dispute the PETA papers that were created by scientist.

Therefore, I'm assuming that some formal process should be initiated where other scientist publish papers substantiating these claims and this might assist those seeking relief because they may have been wronged by using a product that contained a pesticide yet failed to follow EPA labeling requirements.

Based on your prior comment as well as others, it seems as validations on this topic in this forum by scientist constitutes peer review. Perhaps I assumed incorrectly and have no issue being corrected but until it is explained to me than I have no other choice but to go off my own experiences which are limited but then that can be said about many things for which one doesn't practice or learned before. What I never do is just accept something because another claims it is. Were that the case then I would just accept that Vibrant is a bacterial product as the manufacturer claims. By that same reasoning. I can't just accept it isn't because others say it is not. Can't question the doubter of doubters if all one is doing is asking for a more formal process than just a forum discussion.

BTW, not actually questioning anything. Just pointing out the potential hypocrisy in challenging one who challenges those that challenge others. hopefully that makes sense. Point being. An open mind best until all facts are known.

Most important part to grasp in my message. I've seen enough to convince me that Vibrant is not a bacterial product. Very likely hyped up Algaefix. From what I understand of the EPA, should be labeled as carrying a pesticide. Were I in need of a pesticide that kills algae than I'd be seeking the lower cost option. All of this however based purely on what I've gleaned off this thread. No clue if my assumptions are valid. Probably won't be until the EPA either slaps a label on it or disputes these claims. The latter we may never know.

Perhaps filing a claim with the EPA will be that peer review that my mind seeks. Seems like a logical coarse of action. Would give vendors the likely out needed to cancel any purchase agreements made as well as support a recall of all products in inventory. The latter I am experienced with. Not a scientist. Not a lawyer. Finance professional I am. Have however worked with lots of lawyers. Some scientist. Both in a corporate setting to understand how something done or about to be done might impact my company or client's business strategy. This impacts how I perceive and react to threads such as this.

I think perhaps peer review isn't the best term to describe something more elaborate than was done here.

As I said above, peer review doesn't ever prove something is correct, nor is it a perfect process. That's why a very large fraction of peer reviewed scientific papers end up being wrong in some fashion. It requires efforts by others to reproduce the work to accept it as true.

Peer review can only look for obvious problems, experimental deficiencies, statistical issues, new interpretations of data, etc. None of these seemed apparent to me and a number of others. I spent as much time in looking at it as I would peer reviewing a paper (and as my peers have on my submissions).

Peer cannot find work that is fabricated, based on erroneous measurements, or just lies in the small chance of statistical fluke. If I test 1000 random people in the USA and find that 999 had blue eyes and drove honda cars, a correct statistical interpretation is that it is highly likely that people in the USA predominately have blue eyes and drive honda cars. But there is always the chance that the results are entirely a statistical fluke. Peer review cannot assess this, only that the paper correctly state the chances of it being a fluke.

As to the reptile issue you refer to, I'm not familiar but it sounds like more of a future prediction than a reporting of experimental observations (as taricha did). Predictions of future events is far more likely to be wrong than are reported observations (like an NMR ). The set of things that may be wrong in taking and interpreting an NMR is very, very short compared to what might be wrong in predicting the future.

 

[LRT]

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.

Couldn't disagree more with the fact no one will see this thread. I have this thread to link for all time now..
This is the biggest platform we have amongst reefing peers and until work is done to refute the work presented by @taricha in this thread, its the only work we have.


Id love to see this thread done in research subforum. Id love to see a thread format made in research forum where thread and research evidence can be posted and locked until real actual refutable claims by others can be verified through work for the reefing community to review.
What @taricha has done here is highly commendable. A real, stand up, class act of great value to us reefers in this community and can't wait to see more.

 

[GARRIGA]

I think perhaps peer review isn't the best term to describe something more elaborate than was done here.

As I said above, peer review doesn't ever prove something is correct, nor is it a perfect process. That's why a very large fraction of peer reviewed scientific papers end up being wrong in some fashion. It requires efforts by others to reproduce the work to accept it as true.

Peer review can only look for obvious problems, experimental deficiencies, statistical issues, new interpretations of data, etc. None of these seemed apparent to me and a number of others. I spent as much time in looking at it as I would peer reviewing a paper (and as my peers have on my submissions).

Peer cannot find work that is fabricated, based on erroneous measurements, or just lies in the small chance of statistical fluke. If I test 1000 random people in the USA and find that 999 had blue eyes and drove honda cars, a correct statistical interpretation is that it is highly likely that people in the USA predominately have blue eyes and drive honda cars. But there is always the chance that the results are entirely a statistical fluke. Peer review cannot assess this, only that the paper correctly state the chances of it being a fluke.

As to the reptile issue you refer to, I'm not familiar but it sounds like more of a future prediction than a reporting of experimental observations (as taricha did). Predictions of future events is far more likely to be wrong than are reported observations (like an NMR ). The set of things that may be wrong in taking and interpreting an NMR is very, very short compared to what might be wrong in predicting the future.

Not being a scientist. No clue what an NMR is but will google it. Hopefully something better than Wikipedia pops up.

I'm not questioning the results. I'm really not. As you sated. Perhaps peer review not the best words used. What I was thinking peer review meant was a process by which no doubt of the findings could be disputed. Such as would be needed to bring a lawsuit or file a claim against another.

Not understanding the scientific community or what is involved in coming to a consensus then perhaps what I'm thinking is the best action taken being to file a claim with the EPA. I'd think they'd replicate the same experiments or other means to come to the concussion that a pesticide is contained and thereby requiring a label added. This would also give vendors relief to return inventory, stop selling it and those who may have been injured by it's use can then perhaps seek financial relief. The latter from my experience more costly than the injury received. Unless a class action lawsuit is brought for which the lawyers get most of the relief. Have been part of a few of those. Something better than nothing.

 

[GARRIGA]

Couldn't disagree more with the fact no one will see this thread. I have this thread to link for all time now..
This is the biggest platform we have amongst reefing peers and until work is done to refute the work presented by @taricha in this thread, its the only work we have.

I wasn't speaking to just the reefing community. They aren't the only one's with algae problems. Reefing is just a segment of the aquarium trade. Might seem to us as a large segment but it's not. There's a reason Petco and other large chains exist yet LFS keeping failing.

 

[Duffer]

Couldn't disagree more with the fact no one will see this thread. I have this thread to link for all time now..
This is the biggest platform we have amongst reefing peers and until work is done to refute the work presented by @taricha in this thread, its the only work we have.


Id love to see this thread done in research subforum. Id love to see a thread format made in research forum where thread and research evidence can be posted and locked until real actual refutable claims by others can be verified through work for the reefing community to review.
What @taricha has done here is highly commendable. A real, stand up, class act of great value to us reefers in this community and can't wait to see more.

i get your point,but i also don't think this message will get out in the open...the last few days on social media platforms, someone will post i have bubble algea or GHA and most posts that follow state to use Vibrant..

for instance, when tropic marin recently had their issue there was a number of threads here at R2R about it, but it also was all over the social medias ...and looked what happened.

until its get out there and not only this site, it will be a minority...

 

[Jubei2006]

There's been a huge reaction to the tropic marin salt issue but this is 10 times worse because there was (and still is) a deliberate intention of the manufacturer to hide information about their product.

I used Vibrant in my tank and had I known that there was an algaecide in the product, I wouldn't have used it and I wouldn't have lost a few corals.

SO sorry for you loss, that was a magnificent colony

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yes that is how science works. Someone can hop in here and provide data as to why what is currently said is wrong. Heck even someone like @UWC could come provide data that could later be verified.

Yes, that is my hope that UWC will come on and clear this up in some fashion.

 

[jeffww]

Peer review isn't some magical process by which the truth is divined. I have peer reviewed many papers and even an NIH grant (that I was wholly unqualified to do at the time) and have been involved with several publications for which I did reviewer experiments. The process is just like this (1): Authors submit manuscript,
(2)editor passes manuscript to 2-3 reviewing labs,
(3) labs will read the paper (either the investigator of the lab or their employees) and draft a list of comments anywhere from 3-5 sentences rejecting the paper or suggesting new experiments to clarify muddy points to even a bulleted list of things as minor as a missing comma or parentheses
(4) The editor receives these comments, curates them and passes it back to the authors for correction
(5) this might repeat once or twice depending on the claims made and the journal's culture.
(6) when major comments are revised the preprint is accepted and published, then follows about a month of the worst part which is typesetting and copywriting.

 

[Jeeperz]

Other than Randy, I have no clue who the scientist are. How would I know that? How do I differentiate one from any other just posting their views? No offense to those who are but it's a reef forum. Not the science department at a university. Over time I'm sure that will become more apparent but no one joining this or any other forum knows all the background. To expect that from them is unreasonable. BTW, I normally just read the posts. I don't try to see who posted it unless I feel a reply is needed. Based on what I read I can often determine if what I read was worth absorbing. Much I just ignore because it might go against what I've experienced. It's the web. Can't take everything literally as being correct.

As for just accepting what another says just because of their credentials doesn't apply with my past experiences. Much of what was once fact is today proven to be wrong. Although I would weight their response greate than another's of lesser credentials yet I'll go verify it myself. Although on a public forum it's impossible to veridy who's credentials are less. This is important. I never just take another's word . Just who I am and how I've been trained in my chosen career as well as life experiences. Verify and confirm, always.

What I can speak to is your point about nullifying contracts which is my point about having verification that the vendor has been lied to. The latter being very difficult and could end up taking years to resolve in the courts. Vendor can't just call up the manufacturer and void their agreement because it was posted on a forum. Doesn't work that way. Could however discuss with the manufacturer that issue being observed and ask for a remedy both can accept. that's reality based on my past experiences.

Yes, in peer review papers the scientists list there credentials, at least the ones I read in college did.

 

[Jeeperz]

Yes, that is my hope that UWC will come on and clear this up in some fashion.

I really think that is the only option at this point, or they volunteer to pull the product until it's relabeled. But I think the damage is fine to their reputation now, at least here. They may be not coming on due to their lawyers advice, which would probably be in their best interest until it's solved

 

[GARRIGA]

Yes, in peer review papers the scientists list there credentials, at least the ones I read in college did.

But not on a forum. Hence my not knowing who's who and why one should get more belief than another. I'm sure with time that will come yet i'm still skeptical of what I read regardless who wrote it. Just how I'm wired. I'm most often going to do my best to do my own due diligence.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yes, in peer review papers the scientists list there credentials, at least the ones I read in college did.

The author of the paper does list credentials, but peer reviewers are most often anonymous to the author and eventual readers.

Peer Reviews

Everything you need to prepare and review manuscripts for ACS journals. Log in to view the status of your submitted work, manuscripts you are reviewing, and performance of published articles.

publish.acs.org

"How it works: ACS journals engage in single-anonymized review. Authors will not know who is reviewing their manuscript, but reviewers will know who has authored the manuscript."

 

[jda]

I once had a worldly well-respected professor in college who raised something like 10 million a year for research (or something really high value) tell us that he could commission a study that could prove that your dad was your mom and your mom was your dad and also get it past peer review. His whole point is that it all has value in the process, but it is a process and is not perfect in all cases, but you need to do it... and that exposure and ability to accept criticism, questions and other angles from smart folks is most important... of which Taricha has gone well beyond. Lastly, he was very cautious to discount suggestions and review from people who did not have immaculate credentials because some of the best work was done and found by those...