This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Edward Tobinick includes a single article that was published in NewsOK on June 13, 2011. The Editor that placed that single article apparently neglected to notice that the single article accompanied a primary article on the same topic that was simultaneously published in the same news source. This article, by Sonya Colberg, titled "Oklahoma stroke survivor credits controversial treatment: An Oklahoma man suffered a severe stroke that left him debilitated. But he and his wife say a controversial treatment he received three years after the stroke, along with speech therapy, have given him back his life." is published and currently accessible at this hyperlink: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-stroke-survivor-credits-controversial-treatment/article/3576688 . If the secondary critical article merits inclusion in the Edward Tobinick Wikipedia page, obviously the primary article, to which it refers, also merits inclusion. InstituteBR ( talk) 22:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Above article added to provide balance in Tobinick's page. Again the apparently selective process of removing some news items which are postive towards Dr Tobinick's work and citing lack of scientific integrity and placing news items which are negative towards the treatment, and suggesting that they have credibility causes me concern. SKKB8 ( talk) 00:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The entry includes a lot more than a single article and to even suggest that there's a single article (or even a single article from NewsOK) seems misleading. I'm not sure what the question is about the primary/secondary article, as those terms don't really make sense to me. We use the terms primary and secondary to refer to specific types of sources, but I can't make out what you mean in this case. Can you clarify? EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 00:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This encyclopedia page is looking more like a list of articles which Tobinick has been featured in. While he may have media appearances either Television or Newspapers, we do not, and should not list each and everyone of those. It should be summarized such as 'Tobinick has had multiple media appearances it both Television and print media. Ref. Typically focusing on individual cases hyping the effectiveness of his procedure.' Can you imagine if we included every single media appearance someone like Deepak Chopra was featured in? The article would be useless to the reader. VViking _{Talk Edits} 01:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

As I have indicated above, it is important to provide balance in any discussion. The selectivity of what has been retracted is of concern and some articles which have a negative viewpoint would appear to be deliberately posted by some. SKKB8 ( talk) 03:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the challenges in something like this is that people with strong views on the subject (pro- or anti-) want to include all the tiny little details that support their "side". An encyclopedia article is a general summary, not a detailed exposition of everything that everyone said. We'll produce a better encyclopedia article if we try to keep it down to half a dozen paragraphs (or so). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

As you say, this is an encyclopaedia style article - and is therefore required to provide an accurate account of Dr Tobinick's background (education, medical specialisation, innovation, research etc) in relation to the work that he is noted for. What continues to concern me is the lack of balance in what is removed. In keeping with Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV it is important to all posted information is treated equitably. The repeated removal of particular information which demonstrates the success of Dr Tobinick’s work with Perispinal Etanercept and his research is of continuing concern. Again in keeping with Wikipedia protocol, WP:BLT the repeated removal of information which is positive towards both Dr Tobinick and his work could be viewed as malevolent. SKKB8 ( talk) 06:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean all information is treated equitably. It means we give due weight to what is found in Reliable Sources. For Medical claims these Reliable Sources need to be of a higher quality i.e., MEDR. These individual 'success' stories that Tobinick has been able to get into local media does not demonstrate the success of Tobinick's work. It demonstrates he is good at PR. Wikipedia is not being malevolent. We need to follow the rules and not give undue weight to unproven medical claims. We should not be giving a False Balance. VViking _{Talk Edits} 08:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point VViking and associates. I am not suggesting Wikipedia is being malevolent. It is the inconsistent approach of some Wikipedian editors that causes me concern and are deliberately misleading. I observe that all of Dr Tobinick’s publications have been removed despite many meeting WP:MEDRS secondary source guidelines. You also note that the use of newspaper or other media articles are inappropriate and lack scientific credibility, but can see that several articles which portray a negative view of Dr Tobinick and his work remain. Leaving these negative articles, and removing positive articles and then citing them as lacking credibility would appear be supportive of a very negative viewpoint and a gross misrepresentation of both Dr Tobinick and his work. On face value, this activity could be simply viewed as deceptive. What concerns me more is that this activity is blocking intelligent discussion and medical advancement in this area and deliberately portraying Dr Tobinick and his work in such a way that people who would benefit from the treatment that he is doing, are misled – that is malevolent. SKKB8 ( talk) 01:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We are not here to promote or advertise this person's ideas / treatments at however many thousands of dollars per injection. If they were proven we would have uptake by Cochrane / NICE and other major organizations.

The popular press is not good enough to make medical claims. It however is good enough to discuss the controversy surrounding an individual person which is what we do here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Why Science-Based Medicine (SBM) should not be used as a source for the Wikipedia article Edward Tobinick

Science-Based Medicine (SBM) is a self-published blog. “Never use self-published sources as third party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer” WP:SPS Furthermore, and very worrisome, SBM has an obvious conflict of interest. “Questionable sources are those that… have an apparent conflict of interest…Avoid self-published sources…” (WP:V) Steven Novella is the founder and Executive Editor of the Science-Based medicine blog. The very same pieces that Science-Based Medicine has published, and that are central to a current and contentious lawsuit between Tobinick and Novella, are being used to cite criticism of Tobinick within the Tobinick biography! This is an obvious conflict of interest, and grossly inappropriate. Science-based Medicine should never be used as a sources for the Wikipedia article Edward Tobinick while the current lawsuit remains unresolved. SKKB8 ( talk) 06:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What "criticism of Tobinick" is sourced to SBM? SBM's critical take on perispinal etanercept injections , and Tobinick's counter-claim, are noted - neutrally it seems to me. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 06:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. SBM as a source does not meet Wikipedia policy WP:SPS quite apart from the conflict of interest issues noted. SKKB8 ( talk) 08:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a very good source—a site with expert editorial oversight—for fringe medical topics (such as etanercept promotion) in line with WP:PARITY and our requirement for neutrality. I see you have just edit-warred your preferred text back into the article, which is not good. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 09:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree with Alex. What is concerning is a bunch of brand new accounts came to Wikipedia and tried to write a promotional piece. Now that the article has been made neutral they supported it deletion. And now that that has failed they wish to make it positive again. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Two new recent articles show improvements in New Zealand Stroke patients treated by Dr Tobinick treated with Perispinal Etanercept added. http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/southland/321186/call-approve-etanercept-nz ; http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/southland/321187/us-treatment-pays SKKB8 ( talk) 11:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS; these sources are too poor to use. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 11:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

To those editors altering the content in Edward Tobinick: please be responsible. The Institute of Neurological Recovery does not offer or promote perispinal etanercept treatment for patients with Parkinson's disease, as the current article states and/or implies. It would be irresponsible to state and/or imply otherwise, as it would mislead the reader. An immediate change of Edward Tobinick is mandated. InstituteBR ( talk) 22:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a place that addresses treatments offered or promoted by the Institute of Neurological Recovery and I don't think that a reasonable person would make that inference just based on the institute's connection with Tobinick. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 00:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the content of UCLA's press release on January 11, 2008, available at http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-headlines-jan-11-2008-43001.aspx, which is the UCLA Newsroom site, accessed on January 12, 2008: New Drug May Help Combat Alzheimer’s Research by Dr. Edward Tobinick, assistant clinical professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, on a new drug that may help reverse some of the early symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease was featured Thursday by FOX News, BBC News, Bloomberg, the Times Online (U.K.), the Daily Telegraph (U.K.) and Asian News International and Wednesday by United Press International. Tobinick was quoted in the Bloomberg article. The previous edit was erroneous. Tnfinfo ( talk) 22:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)TNFinfo.

THis articles current state is appallingly bad. Midgley 12:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding: "He is an Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and in full-time private practice." Although Tobinick's PR material claims that he is affiliated with UCLA, his name does not turn up during a search of the faculty roster at the David Geffen School of Medicine: http://dgsom.healthsciences.ucla.edu/research/institution/search-faculty/. - AED 08:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

AED has searched the wrong database. Dr. Tobinick is listed as a member of the UCLA Clinical Faculty in the UCLA Department of Medicine's Clinical Faculty database at: http://www.clinfac.med.ucla.edu//. - tnfinfo 13:37 EDT, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Not my fault that the proper link was not originally provided. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources, whomever made the assertion should have cited it properly in the first place. - AED 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding: "For these novel treatment methods he has been issued multiple U.S. patents, including 6,015,557 (Tumor necrosis factor antagonists for the treatment of neurological disorders) [3]; 6,177,077 [4]; 6,419,934 [5]; and 6,982,089 [6]." This is poorly written and needs to be clarified. In context of the article, the antecedent of "these novel treatment methods" appears to be patents 6,982,089 and 6,419,934; therfore, the article reads as though he has been issued multiple U.S. patents because he was issued other patents. - AED 05:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please address this comment or the statement will be removed. - AED 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"These novel treatment methods" refers to anti-TNF treatment for neurological disorders, including Alzheimer's Disease, and anti-TNF treatment of influenza, with or without the addition of oseltamivir, and all three patent references are therefore appropriate (this addresses the comments immediately above and below) - tnfinfo 18:30 EDT, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it still doesn't make sense. If "these novel treatment methods" refers to patents X and Y, then the sentence read as such: "For patents X and Y he has been issued multiple U.S. patents, including patents A, B, C, and D." - AED 22:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If one reads the patents carefully, it will be apparent that the claims overlap, and, therefore, the wording as used makes sense. For example, the 6,015,557 patent claims anti-TNF treatment for neurological disorders; the 6,177,077 patent specifically claims anti-TNF treatment of Alzheimer's Disease, and the 6,419,934 patent claims anti-TNF treatment of myasthenia gravis, both of which are subsets of the larger universe of neurological disorders which are amenable to treatment with biological anti-TNF molecules, such as etanercept, the specific concept which was originated by the patent holder. Thank you for pointing out the link, which has been corrected. - tnfinfo 19:30 EDT, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

AED's changes have again required rewording due to his apparent bias. For example his wording "his website claims that the patented methods are original concepts" is unnecessary and improperly demeaning, since claims which are patented are a priori original, since novelty (originality) is a necessary prerequisite to obtain a patent. . - tnfinfo 08:26 EDT, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cease with the personal attacks. If you think my edits are improper or changes are necessary, then make them. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Autobiography prior to leveling charges of bias. - AED 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding: "In addition, he originated the concept of the potential utility of etanercept, alone or in combination with oseltamivir for treatment of influenza (U.S. patent 6,419,934, filed September 5, 2000 [2]), including H5N1 influenza (avian flu)." The citation for this statement does not refer to oseltamivir or influenza. The proper link needs to be supplied. - AED 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the link. First of all, United States Patent 6,419,934 mentions influenza but not specifically "H5N1" or "avian flu". I don't doubt that the patent covers this, but as written it suggests that he had the uncanny ability to foresee way back in 2000 that H5N1 would be a problem in 2003. His letter to the editor regarding SARS does mention avian influenza but again it was written after well after the outbreak. - AED 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is ostensibly the Bio page of Edward Tonbinick, however the vast majority of the subject matter covered on the page involve that of pharmacological trials, most of them unsourced or poorly sourced. Per. the WP:BLP guidelines any unsourced or poorly sourced claim should be deleted immediately. That would be the vast majority of this article. However, most of the claims are not personal in nature (in fact the majority of papers cited do not pertain to Dr. Tobinick at all), and seem to rather fall in under WP:MEDRS. I consider this a medical, rather than biographical page, in which case WP:MEDPRI and WP:EXCEPTIONAL apply (see also WP:SCIRS). There are clear guidelines as to what constitutes appropriate WP:MEDRS sourcing, and this article fails to live up to it.

Unless medical claims are sourced appropriately according to WP:MEDPRI, or the claims are removed from the BLP page, i propose adding a Medref template until such times as claims are sourced appropriately.

-- SwampRaccoon ( talk) 16:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I think the Medref is warranted.

Proper Stranger ( talk) 19:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"Disiplinary Action"

Is it possible to get consensus on the "Disiplinary Action" section? The information is factually correct, does the fact that it comes from someone with potential bias make it unusable?

I also found a citation for it on the website of the California Medical Board itself: http://www2.mbc.ca.gov/PDL/Image.aspx. But since that includes an address, I am not sure if it's allowed.

Proper Stranger ( talk) 21:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Original source for disciplinary action?

Perhaps a link to the Medical Board of California's Newsletters (PDFs) would be a more objective reference for information on disciplinary action?

2007 newsletter

2007 Hot Sheet

Unvandalizor ( talk) 17:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"Newsletter - summary inaccurate and misleading"

No suspension, stayed. No admissions, no findings of guilt. Settlement agreed to by the Medical Board of California. No mention Board cited mitigating circumstances: "Published, peer reviewed scientific studies since May, 2002, have provided evidence that perispinal etanercept is effective for treatment of disk related pain." No mention “ordered by the Medical Board of California...Certificate be fully restored to clear status….” Rjwrjw100 ( talk) 11:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The author is his work. Edits remove four randomized double-blind placebo studies that support Dr. Tobinick's invention of etanercept for disk pain relief, and one randomized double-blind placebo study that supports Dr. Tobinick's invention of etanercept for Alzheimer’s Disease:

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-response, and preclinical safety study of transforaminal epidural etanercept for the treatment of sciatica. Cohen SP, Bogduk N, Dragovich A, Buckenmaier CC 3rd, Griffith S, Kurihara C, et al. Anesthesiology. 2009;110(5):1116–26. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=cohen+transforaminal+etanercept

Epidural administration of spinal nerves with the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor, etanercept, compared with dexamethasone for treatment of sciatica in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective randomized study. Ohtori S, Miyagi M, Eguchi Y, Inoue G, Orita S, Ochiai N, et al. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2012;37(6):439–44. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=ohtori+dexamethasone+etanercept

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trial of transforaminal epidural etanercept for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. Freeman BJ, Ludbrook GL, Hall S, Cousins M, Mitchell B, Jaros M, et al. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2013;38(23):1986–94. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=freeman+transforaminal+etanercept

Sainoh T, Orita S, Yamauchi K, Suzuki M, Sakuma Y, Kubota G, et al. Intradiscal administration of tumor necrosis factoralpha inhibitor, etanercept, clinically improves intractable discogenic low back pain: a prospective randomized study. In: International society for the study of the lumbar spine 40th annual meeting; Scottsdale (AZ); 2013. http://www.issls.org/wp-content/themes/isslsweb/issls_pdf/oral%20and%20special%20posters.pdf

Dr. Tobinick's invention of etanercept for Alzheimer's Disease is supported in a recent double-blind placebo trial at the University of Southampton in the UK:

Arthritis Drug Shown to Slow Alzheimer’s Down http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-07-arthritis-drug-shown-alzheimer.html Rjwrjw100 ( talk) 11:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)