Warning: Use Vibrant at your own risk

[Cell]

what the heck it's just a residential home...

 

[Cell]

I should go return my bottle directly...

 

[roggy23]

I used it to fight some Algae and thinking it was aiding in biodiversity. Instead I got a plague of Dino’s as soon as I stopped it’s use since it killed off all competition additionally a few sps slowly died.

Same

 

[Potatohead]

It’s interesting that 2 years ago, @Bulk Reef Supply w
seemed to advertise/talk about vibrant frequently; but I haven’t heard them talk about vibrant for some time…

They pump and dump stuff like no tomorrow

First it was HW salt, then Red Sea, now TMP

Aquaforest, then Triton...

Skimz skimmers...

Remember the vertex controller? lol


I could go on

 

[blaxsun]

Thanks to whomever has been involved with this (Randy especially). I threw out the remainder of my Vibrant and won't resume use of this product. Ever. I've been fortunate in that I haven't had any massive system crashes or wipe-outs, but I have had more than a few unexplained coral deaths. I'm not saying Vibrant was definitively the culprit, but it's something to consider.

 

[LRT]

They pump and dump stuff like no tomorrow

First it was HW salt, then Red Sea, now TMP

Aquaforest, then Triton...

Skimz skimmers...

Remember the vertex controller? lol


I could go on

No different than any other retailer in any other industry. You get bad products in every industry.
Brs has done no wrong. This is purely a manufacturing problem before it gets to distribution.
Home depot has to trust vendors have done due diligence and are telling the truth about whats in the paint or weed killer they sell. They are not expected to run labs on said products.
No different than Brs in this instance.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Has anyone tried calling or emailing them about this? If they won't respond on here, maybe we should reach out for an answer.

Yes, UWC is aware and doing their own testing of products, old and new. I told them that, IMO, the most critical test was an NMR done is a way similar to taricha did.

 

[Lyss]

IDK why BRS is in this? The thread is about whether or not Vibrant has false/deceptive advertising and labeling. If it's true, then it's illegal. There are federal and state laws for this, and then there's also the FTC. So my feeling is that rn this is about the company that makes this product. That said, and someone who is in law should correct me if I'm wrong, I do believe that anyone in the chain of distribution of a false product may face equal liability to third parties or customers (so like in a class action suit). So the allegation here is a big one and could have a big effect if true.

 

[Ghost25]

Yes, UWC is aware and doing their own testing of products, old and new. I told them that, IMO, the most critical test was an NMR done is a way similar to taricha did.

Aware and doing their own testing makes it seem like there was a contamination. Why would they need to test their own product to determine what is in it?

 

[damsels are not mean]

IDK why BRS is in this? The thread is about whether or not Vibrant has false/deceptive advertising and labeling. If it's true, then it's illegal. There are federal and state laws for this, and then there's also the FTC. So my feeling is that rn this is about the company that makes this product. That said, and someone who is in law should correct me if I'm wrong, I do believe that anyone in the chain of distribution of a false product may face equal liability to third parties or customers (so like in a class action suit). So the allegation here is a big one and could have a big effect if true.

My understanding is that this only applies to products meant for human, cat, and dog consumption, which allows companies to basically make whatever claims they want. Maybe that doesn't quite apply here due to the nature of the claim.

 

[Lyss]

My understanding is that this only applies to products meant for human, cat, and dog consumption, which allows companies to basically make whatever claims they want. Maybe that doesn't quite apply here due to the nature of the claim.

Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I don't think it has to be a product for consumption, just in general false advertising and labeling is illegal. I work in advertising and consumer branding, and I switched from products to politics a few years ago when I changed jobs -- I had to wrap my head around why political ads can just say whatever, and it's b/c they fall under political speech in 1A. Products are regulated for consumer protection.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Aware and doing their own testing makes it seem like there was a contamination. Why would they need to test their own product to determine what is in it?

Pure speculation? They may not make it themselves. They refer to a "group" they are working with in one post. They may be a victim too.

In any case, testing your product in the exact way that someone else does to show an issue is the first step to prove if the data is fabricated, bad lab techniques, post manufacture contamination, etc.

 

[a.t.t.r]

Yes, UWC is aware and doing their own testing of products, old and new. I told them that, IMO, the most critical test was an NMR done is a way similar to taricha did.

The “new” product will magically have bacteria added to it from something like mb7 just to mess with any further testing is my guess.

ofcoursw that is after they shift the blame to the manufacture and claim all the old stuff was “fine”.
Anyone taking bets?

 

[Karen00]

Has anyone tried calling or emailing them about this? If they won't respond on here, maybe we should reach out for an answer.

There was a comment further back in this thread by a member that contacted them about the claim of bacteria in the product and how it appears it contains an algaecide. Their reply was less than professional and very confrontational. They went on a rambling rant claiming there is bacteria (but they kept contradicting themselves) and they never addressed the query about an algaecide being detected via analyses. Based on their reply I would never use any of their products again.

 

[Karen00]

The “new” product will magically have bacteria added to it from something like mb7 just to mess with any further testing is my guess.

ofcoursw that is after they shift the blame to the manufacture and claim all the old stuff was “fine”.
Anyone taking bets?

I thought the same thing. Keep those old bottles to have as proof.

 

[Karen00]

Well said. I'll add that the supposed nature of the product helped justify the premium price. If that was a lie, consumers have been severely ripped off in a what seems like a clear case of price gouging and deceptive advertisement.

I totally agree. If it turns out this is a mislabeled/misrepresented product then at minimum I would expect to get money back for at least the difference between it and API's product. For anyone that lost livestock from this product (which is the most awful of outcomes) deserves full compensation for those losses (IMO) but of course proving the losses were due to the product is a different story.

 

[Garf]

I thought the same thing. Keep those old bottles to have as proof.

Just watched an episode of BRS (it’s a Friday thing) where Ryan put vibrant in his 360 and the “Gook” “Slothed off” ALARM ALARM ALARM, lol

 

[Spare time]

So can anyone actually confirm that it doesn't have bacteria? I am a bit confused on that as that would be the most blatant lie since its apparently "95%" of the product lol

 

[Spare time]

I believe UWC's claim is that the product they are selling is the byproduct of bacteria and so it's a naturally produced algaecide.

That would be interesting. I would love to know the mechanism of the product if this is the case

 

[Atrumblood]

Just watched an episode of BRS (it’s a Friday thing) where Ryan put vibrant in his 360 and the “Gook” “Slothed off” ALARM ALARM ALARM, lol

Link?