Talk:Edward Tobinick

message: 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)
thread_title: discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 10 August 2014 

message: 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)
thread_title: discussion

message: 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)
thread_title: Response

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: # 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. 
# 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
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
# 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)
thread_title:  “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.” 

message: 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
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New methods of treatment of neurological disorders 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. ) while signing a reply, thx 14:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Lead sentence

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed list of "scientific publications" 

message: 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. ) while signing a reply, thx 20:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: On neutrality, what specificially needs now to be done? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. ) while signing a reply, thx 20:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: See WP:SOCK. Alexbrn (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal details 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified