Beware new Eco-Aqualizer filter

Hello WAMAS,

I'm back in utah for the summer and look forward to the next meeting.

There is a big scam being sold as "Eco-Aqualizer".

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=175135&perpage=25&highlight=eco%20aqualizer&pagenumber=1

There's an interesting thread here between Habib (from Salifert) and Carl (from Eco-Aqualizer) sorry some of it's in dutch:

http://www.zeewaterforum.net/forums/index.php?board=37;action=display;threadid=5968;start=60

Aside from Carl's exaggerations of who is using (and endorsing) his product, it appears that there is some evidence that if water is flowed fast enough through a very strong magnetic field, the dissolved oxygen can react with the water to form hydrogen peroxide.  This is not neccessary a good thing and is not the mechanism described on Eco-Aqualizer's web site...

Be careful here guys.  This is my first post to your forum and I don't run reef tanks but I do run planted tanks.  I received this email today regarding a comment I made about this product several months ago.  Just giving you guys a heads up.

Dear Mark,

We are writing to request that "SLANDER and DEFAMATION"
material be removed from the www.fins.actwin.com discussions web pages about our product, the ECO-Aqualizer.

Defined: "Slander and Defamation - are the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations meant to defame and damage another persons reputation. It is illegal."

After meeting we are our attorney, Trey Henderson, it has been
decided for the best interest of all parties involved, to cordially attempt and request that the following post be removed.

April 28, 2003 from Rex Grigg

April 23, 2003 from Jerry B

We request that these two post be removed immediately. Such remarks as "SNAKE OIL" is considered slander, especially when the author, publisher, printer, or party involved has willingly confessed that he or she has not tried, purchased, tested, or validated such defamatory remarks. But chooses to post remarks.

True we live in a society of f reedom of speech. But when such a defamatory remark is posted to the world via the internet and the business' sales ratio drops by a dramatic amount greater than proceeding months of sales, one must review the recorded statistics to determine the loss potential dated from this April 23rd and forward.

Since sales are generated solely by internet transactions, it is only obvious that search engine results are the main driver of this business. In the event of the above posts which appear on the front page of GOOGLE search engine , items 3 and 4, have been a significant main source of such defamatory issues and thereof.

In all civil actions for slander and libel the falsity of the
injurious statements is an essential element, so that the defendant is always entitled to justify his statements by their truth; but when the statements are in themselves defamatory, their falsity is presumed, and the burden of proving their truth is laid upon the defendant. The gen eral theory of law with regard to these cases is this. It is assumed that in every case of defamation intention is a
necessary element; but in the ordinary case, when a statement is false and defamatory, the law presumes that it has been made or published with an evil intent, and will not allow this presumption to be rebutted by evidence or submitted as matter of fact to a jury. But there are certain circumstances in which the natural presumption is quite the other way. There are certain natural and proper occasions on which statements may be made which are in themselves defamatory,
and which may be false, but which naturally suggest that the
statements may have been made from a perfectly proper motive. In the cases of this kind which are recognized by law, the presumption is reversed. It lies with the plaintiff to show that the defendant was actuated by what is called express malice, by an intention to do harm and in this case the question is not one of legal in ference for the court, but a matter of fact to be decided by the jury. Although however, the theory of the law seems to rest entirely upon natura
presumption of intention, it is pretty clear that in determining the limits of privilege the courts have been almost wholly guided by considerations of public or general expediency.

Papers published under the authority of parliament are protected by a special act, 3 & 4 Vict c. 9, 1840, which was passed after a decree of the law court adverse to the privilege claimed. The general rule now is that all reports of parliamentary or judicial proceedings are privileged in so far as they are honest. Even ex parte proceedings,in so far as they take place in public, now fall within the same rule. But if the report is garbled, the party who is injured in
consequence is entitled to maintain an action, and to have the
question of malice submitted to a jury.

As a cordial request, I ask that the po st be removed within 5 days. After speaking with the Editor, Mark Rosenstein, he has indicated that he would remove the post if contacted by the parties to do so. Otherwise, FINS will take no responsiblility due to the fact that these post are in the "mailing list archives". And authors of such post will be solely responsible.

If not removed, our attorney will have no other remedy but to see that justice is upheld and that such Slander and Defamation is valued in a court of law. If and when this takes place, we will sought after all parties involved, whether author, writer, publisher, and or moderators to be held fully liable for the valuation accessed by the courts.

I will add that the statements made by Rex Griggs, have not only been damaging to ECO-Aqualizer Corp., but also may have cost many deaths within the fish aquarium community. I strongly suggest that all parties should find out more about ECO-Aqualizer and our intent of saving fishes lives. Our product may be the biggest impact in this industry in saving marine fish with the introduction into captivity. As a fellow hobbyist, one must ask themselves, do I care about the fish?   Or do I NOT care about their well-being?

Please see APPMA statistical results about the percentage of fish deaths within the marine hobby. The numbers are mind-boggling. The intent of ECO-Aqualizer is to significantly decrease those numbers.

Mark Rosenstein has given ECO-Aqualizer these email addresses as a correspondence of contact. Please RESPOND back to avoid further complications.  Please respond to Mark Rosenstein, Editor of FINS, as well to update and remove such unvalidated remarks.

Sincerely,

Carl Denzer , President

Or in other words "Don't knock it till you've tried it."

But the idea (whatever it might be) has to make some sense.  Not everyone wants to be a pioneer.  Utah sand makes sense on some levels and and doesn't on others.  Magnetically treating water has never made sense.  This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of most (if not all) of the real scientific community.  Would you spend $50 on a fishing lure just because somone on TV said it worked (ohhh wait, I've done that )....

I'd personally be leary of Rex Grigg's post.  It sounds to me like someone trying to get people to stop making negative comments about this thing out of fear.  I've been on about 5 boards where he has posted this message and it is the only message he's ever posted there.  Furthermore, I can't bring up any of the links he's posted even to a main page.  For that matter same goes for H2)polars message.  Anyone with time to find and respond to every thread on the internet either has something to gain by it or needs to get a life.

Also, Mark, I don't remember ever seeing any of the pioneering techniques that you ascribe to coming with a price tag.

I really didn't want to respond to this thread because I think the whole thing a waste, but as others have responded to it and since out of curiosity I did a fair amount of reading on this subject I figured "What the Heck."

If We Can't Speak Our Minds Whats The Point of This Message Board, And Club For That Matter?...And Whats With The Scare Tactic?...The Big Legality Of The Middle Paragraph?...Well I Looked That Up And In The Utah State Constitution It Says That Our Opinions Are Perfectly Legal If They Were Made With Good Intentions...So Basically We Are All Fine Here Under Freedom Of Speech And Press...Beware

 I don't know who H20Polar is.  If you search the Aquatic Plants Digest with the term Aqualizer you will find I did have a post deleted there.  I saved that post if anyone is interested.  The reason I posted here was to let people know what is going on in the world.  If you doubt me then fine.  But on other forums people know what I say is true.  I'm not sure if any of you are familiar with the Petswarehouse law suite but this is much like that.  And just for your info I have a static IP of 63.105.27.xx I won't give you the exact number but if it's logged then your admins will back me up on this.

  I want people to speak their mind on this product.  Hell I did and look where it got me.  Funny thing is though is that Mr. Denzer will not respond to my emails which I will be more than happy to post here if you wish.

Rex, I personally think H2OPolar's post was a shill.  But the fact that you've come back here and post again lends some credibility to your posts.  I hope you can remember to keep us updated with what happens (if anything). 

I don't know what you posted on the fins website and I don't know anything about the petswarehouse law suit, but I find it difficult to believe that a PRODUCT can be defamed.  You defame a persons charactor, not a companies product.  And isn't slander a spoken defamation while LIBEL is written.  The charges should be "LIBEL and DEFAMATION".  It might be interesting to see Carl try to prove his product in a court of law .

  Well so far Carl has not been responsive to my emails.  I have requested repeatedly that he send me a published peer reviewed scientific study that validates his claims.  I have a whole list of sites that blow the claims out of the water.  The only email I have received from Carl since the one I posted was this:

Rex,

Go to the USPTO for Patent information.

I will prove to you it works!  How about a $5,000 wager?  You seem to be a smart guy - put your money where your mouth seems to hide behind.

One simple test, will prove the results - are you up for it?  Then you can post the TRUE validated results to the world.  But as it stands, you are in high waters already.  SLANDETR!

You should have tried it first, and at least your name would be in our accounting record database of customers.  At the present, you have the no validation and bare complete burden of proof. 

Tis.........Carl

Carl tells me I should have tried it first.  But you know, I don't have to jump off a bridge to know that the sudden stop at the bottom is really going to hurt.  I don't have to drive my car head on into a wall to know it's going to damage the sheet metal.  I don't have to live next to the Cache Valley cheese plant to know it has a distinct smell, well I cheated on that one because I used to live right across the parking lot for that very place.  I think that since he is making the claims he should bear the burden of proof.  If I offer up a device that turns dog **** into gold should I tell Carl to buy it and try it before it doesn't work?  Or should I have to prove that it works? 

Carl really reminds me of a farmer selling a pig in a poke, assuring the buyer that the pig is healthy and well.  But that if the buyer really wants to find out if the pig is healthy he has to buy it first.  Carl has the whole idea wrong.  Normally the seller has to prove that the product works.  Can you imagine having to buy the TV before you knew the screen size, and even if it was color or black and white?  Well enough.  I could go on all night and it would, might be already, get repetitive.

http://www.chem1.com/CQ/magscams.html blows the magnetic field idea out of the water

and

http://www.chem1.com/CQ/aquacrack.html#LIGHT blows the far-infrared claim out of the water.

Anyone that was awake during their high school science classes should have no problems seeing right though the claims.  The one that strikes me as funniest is the claim that the device emits photons but requires no power.  And the product life is reputed to be 20 years.  Now, if they have something the emits photons for 20 years why are we all still paying the power company to keep our lights on?

BTW, some of my high school science classes were taken in Utah.  But that was a long time ago.