Talk:Poly-MVA

Notability
I have flagged this article for notability. As far as I can tell, the only references are to sites run by the subject. The only other reference I can find suggests that Dr. Garnett's main contribution might be to a product called Poly-MVA, which the cited article states:
 * Available scientific studies do not support these claims.

numerous times. D3z (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Thanks for flagging this article for improvement. I am hoping to satisfy the need for adequate scientific citations, references (etc.) by inclusion of links to abstracts and papers given over the past decade by Dr. Garnett and his research associates, both at conferences held under the auspices of national and international science research organizations including The Electrochemical Society and The American Physical Society, as well as papers published in peer-reviewed science publications and scholarly journals. Note: Garnett's main contribution to date is theoretical (and revolutionary in terms of this esoteric branch of chemisty); The American Cancer Society non-technical descriptive entry ("Poly-MVA") cited above regarding the practical applications ( a pharmaceutical "product") of a portion of this research is incomplete and out of date.

I have also removed the latter portion of this article, which reads like it was cut and pasted from a website that distributes Poly-mva, a compound produced by Garnett McKeen Lab and distributed by a variety of entities. The biographical material I removed was not inaccurate per se, but poorly worded and of little academic or scientific interest, hence it detracted considerably from what I believe to be the sought-after wikipedian quality of the entry. Please advise if more editing is needed.

Underbelly02 1:18, 28 December 2007 (EST)

What are those photos of?
The pictures need captions! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing sourced content
User:Underbelly02, please explain why you are repeatedly removing sourced content, as you did here and here, and the similar edit here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, Jytdog. I've removed the word "ineffective" and replaced it, just now, with "unproven/disproven", which is more accurate, as well as a more precise reflection of the page cited. Unproven is the operative word. Please tell me why you are bent on adding a word that qualifies with such finality when an equivocal adjective would be more accurate. Thanks! PS: would agree that the article needs improvement. Not about to add/revert/etc any further.
 * When someone is promoting X as effective to treat cancer, WP needs to make it clear that that there is no evidence for that, per WP:PSCI, which is policy. There are discretionary sanctions in WP with regard to PSCI; I will provide you notice to make sure you are aware of them. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

"Helps the body/Mitochondria to produce energy"?
eg in https://polymva.com/about/ ? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)