Talk:Edward Tobinick

discussion

Rjwrjw100, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, please enter into a discussion here, putting forth your reasons, so that the issues can be resolved. I would like the opportunity to get other editors' opinions.

Proper Stranger (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 8 August 2014

Proper Stranger, thank you for your invitation to enter the discussion. I, too, would like to resolve the issues.

Specifically, I would like to discuss the two edits you made on August 8, 2014. I believe they lack a Neutral Point of View (NPOV).

Proper Stranger, NPOV is the second of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. It is a critical function of Wikipedia to present fairly all points of view. Anything less than NPOV is misleading, unfair to the Wikipedia community, and not the Wikipedia Way.

Your two edits of 8 August 2014 fail the NPOV standard for Wikipedia, and should be removed.

In your edit 16:27, 8 August 2014, you removed positive Random Controlled Trials supporting the doctor’s work. Yet you left other studies.

Proper Stranger, why have you cherry picked the evidence, and just removed the positive trial results? On what basis do you omit some of the studies, and not others?

NPOV requires that you represent “fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, ALL of the significant views.” (emphasis mine).

A scientific and objective way to discuss the doctor’s inventions is to list a complete set of evidence. Include all the observational studies and clinical trials, for those of us who want to have an objective and honest discussion.

Selectively removing only the positive trials is not impartial; it is not Wikipedia neutral point of view.

Your edit time-stamped 16:26, 8 August 2014, is with regard to a section you previously inserted entitled, “Disciplinary Action.”

This section also lacks a fair and balanced presentation. It does not present ALL the significant points. It is not NPOV.

You claim your newsletter source is “an accurate representation”. I am shocked. It is a one-paragraph summary of a 21-page Order; a summary by definition being incomplete, and non-comprehensive. On the Talk page you were clearly aware of the original document.

Why do you prefer a secondary source to the primary source? The secondary source fails verifiability (V) when the original document, titled, “Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order”, is publicly available online.

You failed to note the Board conceded Circumstances in Mitigation: "Published, peer reviewed scientific studies since May, 2002, have provided evidence that perispinal etanercept is effective for treatment of disk related pain."

I posted the above quote on this Talk page before you made your edit. You did not include it in your edit. You were clearly aware of the original document. Yet your presentation did not include both sides. Why were you were selective? Why did you present only part of the evidence? Your presentation did not include all sides, and was therefore not impartial (NPOV).

You failed to note that although there was an accusation, the parties agreed to a stipulated settlement, and therefore there were no findings by the adjudicatory body.

You failed to note the Stipulated Settlement makes it clear probation was successfully completed, and therefore no suspension was applied.

Lastly, you ignored that the Medical Board of California issued an Order Restoring License to Clear Status: “ordered by the Medical Board of California...Certificate be fully restored to clear status….”

Proper Stranger, NPOV is critical to Wikipedia. It is imperative to present fairly all points of view. Anything less is misleading, and unfair to the Wikipedia community.

Alzheimer’s Disease is a scourge to humanity, a pandemic of world proportions. It is critical to present these issues fairly, to the readers so concerned with treatments for these neurological disorders. Rjwrjw100 (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 August 2014

Please revert the protected page to the protected version from August 4, 2014.

The current protected page contains two recent edits by User: Proper Stranger that are in violation of NPOV. As noted on the Talk page, Proper Stranger cherry picked evidence. He removed positive clinical trial results, while leaving other results in. The results of his edits do not present all the significant points of view. His edits fail to conform to Wikipedia NPOV standards.

The doctor’s work with etanercept is an issue of public importance. It is unconscionable that evidence was removed, that all significant views are not presented.

The page without all the evidence should not be the protected page.

If this request to revert the protected page to the protected version from August 4, 2014, is denied, please unprotect the page to allow proper editing that observes NPOV. Proper Stranger’s edits of 8 August 2014, included in the current protected version, fail the NPOV standard.

Thank you. ThirtyCat (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I don't think it's fair to characterise the edits in question as "[removing] positive clinical trial results, while leaving other results in". Proper Stranger's rationale for removing the information was that it wasn't relevant to the article's topic. This is fair enough, as this article is a biography of Tobinick; detailed information on the clinical trials of etanercept would probably be better off in the Etanercept article. This falls into the realm of content disputes, and we resolve content disputes by building consensus, and where necessary, undergoing dispute resolution. So reverting at this point would be premature. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, I respectfully disagree. The Johns Hopkins and Walter Reed Army Medical Center study that reported unfavorable results was left in, while five positive randomized clinical trials were removed (Cohen, Freeman, Ohtori, Sainoh, Sedger). Why was the unfavorable trial left in? Why is IT relevant to the article’s topic, and the other positive trials not so?! This is cherry picked, biased editing, not NPOV. As the article stands now it misinforms, it misleads, because NPOV is not being enforced. ALL the information, good or bad, needs to be presented with NPOV. Otherwise one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia is being tossed aside. ThirtyCat (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

My response:

Another important aspect of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. The reason that I left in the Johns Hopkins cite was simply an oversight. My intention was to remove all references to papers on which Tobinick was not an author. In looking through them, I missed that one, it's as simple as that. If we can agree that the only papers that belong on a page about Edward Tobinick are papers of which he is an author, I'll be happy to remove that one. I'm hesitant to just make that edit without consensus since this page has been edited and reverted too many times recently, so I'm asking for agreement on that point first.

As for the disciplinary action, the newsletter can reasonably be considered a secondary source (a newsletter is similar to a newspaper, there is some amount of editorial oversight, it is likely that in an organization like the medical board the newsletter would be written by people unconnected with actual decisions, etc.). The Wikipedia preference is for secondary sources. If you recall the history of this particular section, My first attempt included much of the information that you are now saying ought to be included. You reverted that on the grounds that the source I cited was biased, even though it was very clear that the information presented was thorough and accurate (that CaseWatch page, if you look at it, includes a copy of the actual decision, so you can easily fact-check it). You reverted it a second time on the grounds that it was a paraphrase. So, taking your own reasons for those reverts into account, my latest attempt cited an unbiased source and quoted it exactly. Now you are complaining that the reference should include information that you yourself earlier reverted. I will be happy to put back the more complete information if you will allow the CaseWatch site to be cited. The disciplinary action DID happen, it is part of Tobinick's history, I believe it belongs on his page; to leave it out would be inaccurate by way of omission. Is there some way that we can come to an agreement as to how to include it?

As for this comment, "Alzheimer’s Disease is a scourge to humanity, a pandemic of world proportions. It is critical to present these issues fairly," I agree with it. However, THIS page is not about Alzheimer's Disease nor is it about entanercept. It is not the proper place for general information about either.

Proper Stranger (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

A Response to Mr. Stradivarius

Mr. Stradivarius, I must beg to differ, specifically with two of the points you discuss.

Your suggestion that “detailed information on the clinical trials of etanercept would probably be better off in the Etanercept article” does not describe an issue with this biography. There has been no detailed information on the clinical trials discussed on this page.

This is the biography of a physician who is the inventor of new methods of treatment for neurological disorders. The inventions are why the doctor is notable. You can’t separate the doctor and his inventions. The inventions belong on the page.

While there have been no detailed discussions of clinical trials in this article, note of all trials and news stories should be listed, as they represent the response to these inventions. It is the comprehensive and objective listing that readers want, and expect. It is not NPOV to cherry pick which trials or news stories are included, as Proper Stranger has done.

How is the recent Daily Mail (UK) (this article having been removed by Proper Stranger), “Arthritis drug could also halt Alzheimer's: Treatment found to stop progression of memory loss and poor mood” article not relevant to the topic? The doctor’s invention for the treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease, first reported in 2006, has again been reported on by a major London newspaper, its efficacy being confirmed by a randomized clinical trial. This is not detailed information of a clinical trial that belongs on another page. This is news of the results of a randomized clinical trial, from a major news source, confirming the efficacy of a new method of treatment by the inventor. This is exactly the subject of this article.

The doctor is the holder of the following patents for his inventions: U.S. patents 6419944, 6537549, 7214658, 7629311, 8119127, and 8236306, and Australian patent 758,523. The reporting of all trials and news stories relative to these invented new methods of treatment is exactly the kind of comprehensive, objective evidence the reader wants and deserves, and which is required by NPOV.

Intractable spinal pain is a major public health problem around the world. This page discusses a doctor and his new methods of treatment for this health problem. Is there evidence of the efficacy of these inventions? Yes, there is. Four randomized clinical trials (their listings removed by Proper Stranger) report on the efficacy of these treatments.

Proper Stranger removed the listing of trials and news stories that speak to the efficacy of these inventions. He did not remove detailed discussions of the trials themselves, which he argues belong on another page. But mentions of the results of these trials, as a reflection of the inventions, belong on this page. And they must not be selectively edited out.

Regarding your statement that you “don’t think it’s fair to characterize the edits in question as “[removing] positive clinical trial results, while leaving other results in.”” I can’t help but think that’s exactly what was done. Why leave a trial with unfavorable results (Johns Hopkins Walter Reed), but remove the positive trials? Why does the unfavorable trial remain? How is it different?! If the stated purpose is to remove what is relevant to the article’s topic, how is this trial more relevant to the topic than the positive trials? The selective removal of positive trial results appears to be simply because they were positive. This is not NPOV.

The cherry picked version of this article, as edited by Proper Stranger, should not be allowed to mislead and misinform readers for a minute more. Please revert this page to the protected version of 4 August 2014.

Thank you. Rjwrjw100 (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

response:

Rjwrjw100, as I said, leaving the Johns Hopkins trial was a mistake on my part, it was not intentional. Let's remove it, agreed?

And I again maintain that including papers on a bio page where the subject of the page is not among the authors of the paper is just not appropriate. Unless, perhaps, the papers specifically talk about the subject (in this case Tobinick) as a person, as opposed to simply being a trial of something that relates to the subject.

Also, what about the disciplinary action section? If you are ok with using the CaseWatch page as the source, we can include all of the additional information that you believe was missing from the medical board newsletter.

Proper Stranger (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

discussion

Rjwrjw100, I would still like to have a discussion. I will remove the Johns Hopkins trial as soon as the protection is lifted. Do you agree then that papers not authored by Tobinick will remain off the page? Can we cite the CaseWatch page about the disciplinary action and include complete information? Proper Stranger (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Response

Proper Stranger, the Disciplinary Action section is inappropriate, WP:BLPPRIMARY. “Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.”

A brief description of all randomized clinical trials and studies relevant to these inventions of new methods of treatment is warranted. These are not In-depth discussions. Likewise, articles relevant to these inventions, no matter the author, belong here, too. Rjwrjw100 (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is making medical claims based on primary sources. Fixed some of the issues but their are more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

“Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately.”

1. Source article utilized by Proper Stranger is improper and violates WP:BLP and WP:RS. As but one of several factually false allegations is the article’s quote, “I can tell you this stuff is nonsense”. This statement is false and defamatory in light of four favorable randomized clinical trials of etanercept for these disorders that have been reported since this article, thereby negating the article’s statement that “this stuff [etanercept for sciatica, Alzheimer’s disease and stroke] is nonsense. The source is outdated. See Scientific References(1-4) below; etc.
2. The source article, reference 18, used by Proper Stranger, is additionally inaccurate; factually false; falsely defamatory, and omits important material facts. The example above is but one of multiple examples, but this is sufficient to require its immediate removal as per WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS: “Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately.”

References

1. Freeman BJ, Ludbrook GL, Hall S, Cousins M, Mitchell B, Jaros M, et al. Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled, Trial of Transforaminal Epidural Etanercept for the Treatment of Symptomatic Lumbar Disc Herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(23):1986-94. Epub 2013/10/30.
2. Holmes C, Butchart J, Wolfe L, Davies L, Dodge S, Lewsey I, et al. The Safety and Tolerability of Etanercept in Alzheimer's Disease (STEADI-09): a phase II double blind randomised placebo controlled trial. 2014 Alzheimer's Association International Conference; 16 July 2014; Copenhagen, Denmark2014.
3. Ohtori S, Miyagi M, Eguchi Y, Inoue G, Orita S, Ochiai N, et al. 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. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(6):439-44. Epub 2011/10/25.
4. Sainoh T, Orita S, Yamauchi K, Suzuki M, Sakuma Y, Kubota G, et al. Intradiscal Administration of Tumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha Inhibitor, Etanercept, Clinically Improves Intractable Discogenic Low Back Pain. Global Spine J. 2014;04(st3.06).

Rjwrjw100 (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

New methods of treatment of neurological disorders

Jmh649, aka Doc James, aka James Heilman MD is a “Canadian ER doc”. You have made many changes to the page, including your 03:54, 17 September revision when you replaced the word “new” with the word “potential” so that the lead sentence to the article read: “Edward Lewis Tobinick is an American physician who is the inventor of potential methods of treatment of neurological disorders.” Your edit is incorrect, in that it implies that there is not published, peer-reviewed evidence that etanercept is effective for any neurological disorder. See Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of “potential”: 1. Existing in possibility: capable of development into actuality i.e. potential benefits; 2. Expressing possibility. This definition denies the existence of published peer-reviewed evidence. As detailed in References 1-4 below, and as detailed in the scientific publications of Tobinick and colleagues and others (see http://www.tobinick.com/tnf-brain-syndrome/ ; http://www.tobinick.com/tobinick-scientific-publications/ ) there exists reliable, published, peer-reviewed scientific studies, including double-blind, randomized studies that negate Heilman’s false imputation. Tobinick has indeed invented new, innovative, patented (e.g. U.S. patents 6,419,944; 6,537,549; 6,982,089, etc.) methods of treatment utilizing etanercept for treatment of neurological disorders. Dr. Heilman, please be advised that this is not simply a typical article about a simple medical topic. This is an article about a living human, and WP:BLP gives specific guidance, as follows: “Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies…. the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.” In addition, etanercept is being utilized for indications with significant unmet medical need. Please edit accordingly.

References

1. Freeman BJ, Ludbrook GL, Hall S, Cousins M, Mitchell B, Jaros M, et al. Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled, Trial of Transforaminal Epidural Etanercept for the Treatment of Symptomatic Lumbar Disc Herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(23):1986-94. Epub 2013/10/30.
2. Holmes C, Butchart J, Wolfe L, Davies L, Dodge S, Lewsey I, et al. The Safety and Tolerability of Etanercept in Alzheimer's Disease (STEADI-09): a phase II double blind randomised placebo controlled trial. 2014 Alzheimer's Association International Conference; 16 July 2014; Copenhagen, Denmark2014.
3. Ohtori S, Miyagi M, Eguchi Y, Inoue G, Orita S, Ochiai N, et al. 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. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(6):439-44. Epub 2011/10/25.
4. Sainoh T, Orita S, Yamauchi K, Suzuki M, Sakuma Y, Kubota G, et al. Intradiscal Administration of Tumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha Inhibitor, Etanercept, Clinically Improves Intractable Discogenic Low Back Pain. Global Spine J. 2014;04(st3.06).

Rjwrjw100 (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

We do not use primary sources to make medical claims per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

With respect to make more definitive claims rather than stating “potential”, would like to see inclusive in a major medical guideline, approval by the FDA or a positive Cochrane review. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Have changed the lead sentence to "Edward Lewis Tobinick is an American physician who is known for the study and promotion of etanercept as a potential treatment for neurological disorders." What are peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead sentence should be restored to: Edward Lewis Tobinick is an American physician who is the inventor of new methods of treatment of neurological disorders. This is evident from many secondary sources, as well as high quality literature reviews, as per WP:MEDRS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horseman49 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

High quality secondary sources? You mean like a Cochrane review? Or position statement by a major medical organizations? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the first sentence currently looks good because it cites scientific journal articles for a biographical summary. So to me it reads as original research because it lacks WP:Text-source integrity. That said, it could be that other sources (I haven't read them) say as much. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree those sources never supported the first sentence thus removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed list of "scientific publications"

Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for lists of articles people happen to have written. Search engines can be used to get that kind of thing; it is not encyclopedic. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have made an edit to the page to remove the description of Tobinick's legal action as an "attack". My general concern is that this article simply adopts the critical tone of Novella of Science Based Medicine. I have tagged the article as needing neutrality work. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

On neutrality, what specificially needs now to be done? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

As I allude to/mention above, I think the first sentence is off/misleading and lacks WP:INTEGRITY by citing those two academic papers. And the second sentence is concerning as well. I'm not sure if we should be using the "rather than" construction. Taken together, the first two sentences look juxtaposed to debunk the reliability of the individual, which doesn't seem appropriate. I also think it's likely we're giving undue weight to the Science Based Medicine coverage, which is highly critical of the subject. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed the bit that he is not a neurologist. Anything further? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia Core Principles

Jmh649, aka James Heilman, MD, has edited this “biographical page”, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tobinick), more than 20 times, since 2:55, 17 September 2014. His most recent edit, as of this writing, is 5:45, 18 September 2014. That is more than 20 edits in approximately 27 hours.

Jmh649 edits with a negative tone (see 5:45, 18 September 2014). He removes arguments, rather than fairly explaining both sides. He uses improper sources. He has not participated on the Talk page. He has taken an informed, well-researched biography, and reduced it to a critical, negative, one-sided, poorly sourced diatribe.

Biographies of Living Persons “must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.” (WP:BLP) They “must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.” (WP:NPOV) Contentious material about living persons…that is unsourced or poorly sourced…should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” (WP:BLP)

“Questionable sources are those that…have an apparent conflict of interest…Avoid self-published sources….” (WP:V)

Edward Tobinick and Steven Novella are opposing litigants in a current lawsuit. It is taking sides (a violation of NPOV) to use Novella’s self-published blog, specifically a webpage that directly attacks Tobinick (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/enbrel-for-stroke-and-alzheimers/ ), as a source in the biographical page, as Jmh649 does. Jmh649 also uses a defamatory CaseWatch page targeted at Tobinick as a source in the biographical page; it, too, is a one-sided, defamatory self-published blog, with which Novella is affiliated.

Further, the biographical page, as constructed by Jmp649, has had placed into it yet another source, an article in The Oklahoman (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-doctors-question-a-california-physicians-treatment-for-strokes/article/3576689 ) that also falsely targets Tobinick. This source is also defamatory and contains false and/or misleading statements of fact and/or opinion. It is also outdated, dating from 2011 and omits material facts; for example, it does not take mention nor take into account four randomized, double-blind clinical trials of etanercept, one for Alzheimer’s, three for neurological spine pain, that showed statistically significant clinical results in subjects who received etanercept vs. controls, all of which were completed after this source was published and have been detailed in my previous post on this Talk page. Jmh649 reverted (removed) the page edited by me that excluded this defamatory, outdated, and improper source. His improper reversion was clearly in violation of WP:BLP (Contentious material about living persons…that is unsourced or poorly sourced…should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” (WP:BLP))

Positive articles about the subject of the biographical page (Tobinick) from leading news sources such as the BBC, or the International Business Times, have been removed by Jmh649 from the biographical page. Likewise, he has removed nearly all of the more than 20 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were formerly mentioned, and all reports of favorable placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials from the biographical page. What is left is negative opinion, poorly sourced on self-published blogs, and outdated, defamatory news items.

What is Jmp649’s justification for removing all of Dr. Tobinick’s professional affiliations, medical board specialty certifications, and relevant professional medical presentations from his biographical page? What is Jmp649’s justification for highlighting in the biographical page the webpage of another physician (Novella) who is the subject of a lawsuit by Dr. Tobinick specifically alleging the inclusion of false and defamatory statements of fact on the very webpages that Jmp649 highlights and hyperlinks to on his altered version of the biographical page?

The biographical page, as it stands in its current revision, is not an objective article, and the biographical page as revised by Jmp649 flagrantly violates Wikipedia guidelines for composing the biography of a living person. As a veteran Wikipedia administrator, Jmh649 should know better; this is intentional and reckless behavior. This is not compatible with core Wikipedia policies, including WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, etc. For these reasons Jmh649 should refrain from any further participation on this page, and I plan to revert all of his edits and restore the version that was in place prior to his participation. Additionally Jmp649 should be blocked from further reverts, edits, etc. by the WP:3RR rule. Rjwrjw100 (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A "neutral point of view" does not mean "even-Steven treatment for all sides". The WP:GEVAL section of the NPOV policy is the most relevant section. Specifically, when we're writing articles about a disputed medical treatment or scientific idea, and the current mainstream scientific or medical viewpoint is skeptical or outright hostile to the idea, then the Wikipedia article must (to comply with NPOV and Wikipedia's principles) also give the reader a skeptical or unfavorable impression of the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Current mainstream opinion is positive

It is UNTRUE that prevailing mainstream opinion is skeptical or outright hostile. An example of current mainstream opinion follows: Redacted copyvio from here. Gotham1234 (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

An op-ed published in the same journal does not establish mainstream opinion. We need to find multiple high quality sources per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or statements from major medical associations saying positive things before we can say mainstream opinion is "positive". The only sources I have found that have been published about this topic have been published by Tobinick himself and cannot be used as a judge of what independent medical researchers and practitioners think about it. Yobol (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That was an editorial by an independent scientist on a different continent, who is one of the most respected scientific authorities in his field.Gotham1234 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Editorials are not considered as high quality compared to reviews in the literature, per WP:MEDRS. Please review this guideline. Yobol (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Usually, if mainstream opinion is positive, then the pharma company that stands to profit from it (and without lifting a finger or paying a dime to increase their sales, even) doesn't have a note on their website saying that it is "biologically implausible" and that they want nothing to do with it. Usually, if mainstream opinion is positive, the practitioner doesn't have his medical license threatened, nor do research universities make a point of saying that they have nothing to do with him, nor does he move to a state whose regulation of physicians' actions is notoriously lax. I'm therefore dubious of this claim that mainstream current opinion is actually positive. (Perhaps it should be positive, but my WP:CRYSTAL ball is broken, so I'm going only by what I see in the sources.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is sort of my take aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

"Ideal sources...include...position statements from nationally or internationally recognized expert bodies...." WP:MEDRS The Alzheimer's Research UK is the UK's leading dementia research charity, not a news source. They are making a position statement, "Arthritis drug shown to slow Alzheimer's down". Rjwrjw100 (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

As it says on the page "You are in: > Home > News > Latest news > News". Using flimsy sources like this to contradict stronger ones is exactly what MEDRS say we should not do. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree that this is not a position statement. The people quoted in this news article can't really take a position, other than one saying something about encouraging early results, because the primary data had not even been released to them yet. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 14:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The report is taken from the University of Southampton. Neither the University of Southampton or the Alzheimer Research UK can be called "flimsy" sources. This is reliable secondary source.Rjwrjw100 (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The source doesn't even mention Tobinick. See WP:COATRACK, WP:SYNTH. (As an aside, I agree that a news release by a charity does not meet MEDRS - the original trial results do not even appear to have been published yet in any peer-reviewed format - though I submit this source has no place here because it also doesn't even discuss Tobinick). Yobol (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

press releases are not position statements Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

A new article, demonstrating further efficacy of Perispinal Etanercept in treatment of stroke patients at Dr Tobinick's Institute of Neurological Recovery clinic has been added. http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/southland/316690/stroke-treatment-has-dramatic-effectSKKB8 (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The popular press does not demonstrate the effectiveness of anything. A review article may do that when published by a high quality source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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) 05:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. Claims about health have particular sourcing requirements. What is it otherwise that you think may currently be improperly sourced? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I would add that right now the article focuses on facts that are already related in reliable sources. It avoids making conclusions. For example, it tells the story about the Cedars-Sinai study, but it avoids drawing conclusions about the therapy or about Tobinick. Any attempt to draw such conclusions would not meet WP policies. If there's another side to that story or to any of this stuff, it can be told too, as long as it has appeared in a reliable source.

Along the same line, when we talk about an article that covers a patient who got better under Tobinick's care, we don't say that that is evidence of the effectiveness of the treatment or anything like that. Only a reliable source could come to that conclusion. It's also normal for an encyclopedia to write in summary style and not to list great detail of every news article covering a subject. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 05:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: One of the problems with normal people understanding MEDRS is that it's filled with medical jargon. A "position statement" is something like a white paper published by an organization that tells their views on a subject. This link will take you to an official position statement from the World Health Organization about mosquito nets. Any organization can publish one; the Flat Earth Society could publish a position statement saying that they hold the position that the Earth is flat. But reputable organizations normally put a lot of work into these, so they're very useful sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Legal details

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In an attempt to restore some balance, I have just now reinserted a short paragraph providing an unadorned factual record of a verifiable and relevant recent court case. Specifically, "In late 2014 and early 2015 the rationality of Tobinick's treatment method for neurodegenerative disease with etanercept were tested in court via the Medical Board of California (Case No. 04-2012-222007). In summing up his findings, which were adopted by the Medical Board of California in May 22 2015, Judge Samuel D. Reyes concluded that despite claims to the contrary there were sufficient data and research about the drug's safety and potential effectiveness to support the treatment espoused by Dr. Tobinick. There were no findings of guilt, wrong-doing, or negligence."

This material had been removed overnight, presumably by someone who had hoped the judgement had gone the other way. Monitors should allow it to remain.Strathfieldcattle (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The above has been removed again, within a few hours. It is simply accurate reporting of a relevant recent court case, and as such must not be suppressed. I will replace it as required, and keep reporting this removal activity at this site until such times as someone honest within the Wikipedia organisation sees it and takes appropriate actionStrathfieldcattle (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

The above has been removed again. I have been advised: See WP:5P as an encyclopedia we deal in accepted knowledge - generally that which has been digested, analyzed and reported on in good secondary sources. We do not offer "news" or running commentary based on primary documents. The legal case in question is already covered more than adequately. Feel free to discuss further on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This above advice from Alexbrn contains an inaccurate response to new information I am attempting to add regarding the outcome of a verifiable, high relevant, court case. I am not changing information already there, but providing additional relevant information not presently referred to. The phrase "the legal case in question" five lines above was held on the East Coast, and was about whether Novella, in writing his blog, stood to gain financially. Clearly, despite Alexbrn's claim, above, it does not at all cover the case I have been attempting to add to the page. This was held on the West Coast through the Medical Board of California. It questioned the legitimacy of Tobinick's treatment, and was lost. The page as it now stands does not cover this West Coast case, or refer to it. This deficiency is what I have been attempting to correct. It is instructive to see that editors are determined that the page should not refer to the West Coast case. The page already refers extensively to the an unrelated East Coast court case, so the presence of material from court cases is evidently regarded as reasonable content.Strathfieldcattle (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I mixed my cases up. Would still want to see a secondary source on this however. Alexbrn (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Strathfieldcattle, thanks for trying to write something that focuses on plain, unadorned facts. I really appreciate the fact that you were trying to be as impartial as possible. However, that material cannot be accepted with that source. A lot of editors aren't aware of it, but there are special prohibitions on using trial transcripts, court documents, etc. to make claims about living people, and they are strictly enforced (read the basics at WP:BLPPRIMARY). This sometimes makes our work harder or requires us to have "incomplete" articles, but it exists because of serious abuses of these documents in the past. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This debate interests me clinically. We see on this TALK section of this page the consequences of an misleading set of, or use of, exclusion rules that lead to confusion. On the one hand, we see the inclusion of the outcome of a court case about the trivial matter of whether someone who has never observed a particular treatment, yet writes a negative opinion of it, has received a financial advantage. This information is included on the grounds that a journalist, in unrefereed writing, has generating a secondary source for this material, albeit its clear irrelevance to advancing knowledge on possible therapy for the disease in question. Yet the outcome of another court case, much more weighty because it involves a State Medical Board, and which determined, based on depositions from many people who have actually observed effects of the treatment, that this therapy is safe and promising, is excluded from the record because no journalist has, through writing a commentary, created an secondary source. On the face of it, this reasoning is a seriously flawed way to arrive at factual accuracy and potential clinical importance of material available to readers. This exclusion policy may be poorly written since it is open to misuse, and warrants further discussion within Wikipedia.Raisondetre2 (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SOCK. Alexbrn (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward Tobinick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019230623/http://www.amgen.com/media/rapid_cognitive_improvement.html to http://www.amgen.com/media/rapid_cognitive_improvement.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)