Nope, what email?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nope, what email?
This thread was trending on Yahoo yesterday..
Tell me about it... We need someone to put a hippo tang in a nano QUICK!
yahoo is still around?!?!This thread was trending on Yahoo yesterday..
I think this thread can actually close now ..(these gifs are big might take a moment to load)
Can't close it now. Open is the only way it'll work out.I think this thread can actually close now ..
They aren't coming back.
@polyppal wins the internet today
You just won the thread!!! I love this for all of us!(these gifs are big might take a moment to load)
I was giving UWC some benefit of the doubt, assuming they had little to no scientific background and did not understand their product well enough to intentionally deceive their customers, but now like all of you I await their response. Claims that are made by the owner in the video are totally unsupportable.
(these gifs are big might take a moment to load)
He was testing the effectiveness of the product taking the vendors claim of ingredients as a true statement. He was not trying to verify the actual components of Vibrant. I see no wrong doing other than falling for the same ruse we all did.I revisited my decision to use Vibrant in my tank. As I said before, I based that decision on a BRSTV study done by Randy at BRS. He basically repeated the mfrs claim that it was bacteria. He even went so far as to run his experiment with and without UV sterilization to see if UV reduced the effectiveness of the treatment. The study showed that UV had a visible negative effect, probably because it killed the bacteria. I purchased a bottle and dosed it with my UV off feeling confident that I wasn't adding anything harmful to my tank.
Did anyone else come away with that same impression from that video? Is it possible the study was flawed or manipulated?
(these gifs are big might take a moment to load)
Bacteria can not make this algicide. And previous testing has shown no bacteria in the bottle. So that would be a no on both accounts.If they use cultured bacteria that produce the active ingredient in algaefix the packaging would be misleading yes but not blatant fraud. I'm sure in 81 pages someone has said this but I cant read through that many pages of back and forth. Another possibility is bioaccumulation use bacteria that bioaccumulate the algaecide then sell it as a bacterial culture.
Haha thanks, My gif swan song for this thread. I’m done trolling them now
Still don't have the emojis to convey my admirations for your work here.
Haha thanks, My gif swan song for this thread. I’m done trolling them now
That wasn't my point. He showed UV reduced the effectiveness of Vibrant, which implies UV is killing the active ingredient. Bacteria. If there is no bacteria in the bottle then the UV effect didn't exist or it was a result of an unidentified cause.He was testing the effectiveness of the product taking the vendors claim of ingredients as a true statement. He was not trying to verify the actual components of Vibrant. I see no wrong doing other than falling for the same ruse we all did.