Talk:CGK733 fraud

possible confusion?

This article states very clearly in the first sentence that the (claims of the?) discovery has been falsified.

However, the second paragraph uses language that seems to state (and so validate?) those claims? i.e. "which has remarkable properties" and "have shown that it can extend the lifetime ... ".

Would it not be more appropriate, given the claim of falsification, to prepend those statements with an implicit dislaimer e.g. "The now discredited research claims stated that ..." ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.106.97 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; forgot to sign in before the prev comment

--KingGeezer (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]