Talk:Ernst Muldashev

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Medicine: Society / Ophthalmology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Ophthalmology task force.

[Untitled][edit]

This page needs updating, there are just some light criticisms of this guy who is a fairly benign scientist, wrote books and does research. --Massintel (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Scientific Theories"[edit]

Are we really taking this guy seriously? There's been no evidence other than his word to prove the validity of what he is saying, and his book is filled with logical fallacies. Why are his theories being presented as scientific? DoubleW2007 (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome to submit credible sources contesting the validity of his work, if such sources exist. Robincantin (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]