Talk:Calvin A. Grant

Untitled
As of the end of May 2008 this article seems to be an advert/vanity article combo. Restepc (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't really understand this "Additionally, Grant has demonstrated a significant decrease in the number of treatments of anti-vascular endothelial cell growth factors by the addition of bromfenac in the treatment of choroidal neovascular membrane associated with age-related macular degeneration. There was a significant reduction in the number of injections of anti-VEFG agents that were given within a six months window.[2] This observation is important in that intravitreal injections are often associated with risk of bleeding, infection, loss of vision, and retinal detachment." part....he gave people less injections and used bromfenac instead? is that really important enough for the article? possibly should be clarified. Restepc (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Petition for Deletion
This article really IS a vanity puff piece with little if any outside reliable articles backing up any of its information. Due to Grant's dubious accomplishments and tenuous, at best claims, I believe that it should be deleted.

reliability of citation number 2
At first glance, you'd just might think, that citation 2's, worth its weight in mink but don't be fooled, look some closer, and you'll see, the source's a poser for you see, the linked-to piece, is nothing but, a press release so should it stand, the claims atop, this doubtful source, upon which its propped? I propose, it be be resetted, untill such times, the claims be vetted with a source, that clears some hurdles:, evidentiary burdens, in a journal, cuz right now, all that is there, s'but a mere claim, completely bare65.185.93.86 (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(west side, represent... ñ Õ õ Ỹ ỹ  Ç ç Ģ  Ķ ķ  Ņ ņ Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ   Đ đ   Ů ů   Ǎ ǎ  )  <--- secret code for my homiezz

Changed section on bromfenac which is supoprted by the press release, to reflect that the information is from a company who issued a press release for a product that they have a signifigant interest in. Also added that the company states the treatment is not currently approved for that purpose and that it needs verification. Additionally narrowed the language to refrence what the news release also said rather than the broader language in the original article. Feel free to clean up or clarify.

I don't really see how you can make such claims premised only upon a press release, see prior post above for my take, but I'll let someone else decide whether to delete that until a proper source is found.65.185.93.86 (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

garbage
The subject is vane, coming to rain, all his self confience, on this page of no consequence, I see no large matterrs, tis just what flaters, mr grant himself, needs to get shelfed, stop making his page, it's quite low on the gauge, of what's of import, this's none of the sort —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.93.86 (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)