Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Tobinick

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Edward Tobinick

Fellow who owns a patent for using an expensive drug for back pain. No indication that this warrants WP:BIO. Delete. JFW | T@lk 11:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO, WP:PROF. Tevildo 12:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A couple of minutes of searching shows multiple non-trivial articles about him ( related to the drug ) numerous papers in what appear to be peer reviewed journals. Holds 17 US patents. Certainly more notable than most professors ( I searched for one I knew and the poor guy is almost anonymous ) - Peripitus (Talk) 12:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If so, the information needs to go in the article to bring him within the guidelines. Tevildo 13:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup to meet WP:BIO guidelines. Seems notable enough, per Peripitus. --Coredesat 13:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Patent holders are a dime-a-dozen. Pubmed shows three hits under Tobinick EL and four hits under Tobinick E. Of these seven, only the 1978 study involved collaboration with truly well-published researchers. The 1987 hit appears to be a review article and the 2004 hit appears to be a letter to the editor... neither are "research". Of the other four referring to etanercept, two were case reports (both n=2), one was a review of 20 charts, and the other was a review of 143 charts... all from his private practice. This is not impressive for someone who has been "actively involved in research and teaching for years" as some of the Google hits state. -AED 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)edited 16:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Searching reveals significant contributions regarding novel methods of use of anti-TNF therapeutics in Neurology, including a recent review article on the cerebrospinal venous system that was selected as a CME article, as well as a new article (accessible on Medscape) on TNF modulation for treatment of Alzheimer's Disease, a recent presentation at the Karolinska Institutet, and he is a selected speaker at the 7th Intl Conference on Alzheimer's Drug Discovery. Pubmed shows seven articles (search Tobinick). tnfinfo 05:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: First of all, there is obviously some dispute as to whether or not his contributions are significant. That is why the AfD exists. In the absence of a substantial body of research, a pilot study posted on webMD's online journal isn't convincing. Secondly, writing a continuing medical education (CME) review, or presenting one in person, is not a significant contribution. Plenty of non-notable people do this. Similarly, answering a "call for papers" to present a short lecture at a conference does not make a person notable. A Google search for "Karolinska Institutet" + "Tobinick" gets five unique hits (all appear to be PR generated from Tobinick's office) and "Alzheimer's Drug Discovery" + "Tobinick" gets none. -AED 17:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I get five hits for "Edward Tobinick" on Pubmed.[1] Non-notable. I agree with the comments (above) by AED. Nephron  T|C 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The agenda for the 7th International Conference on Alzheimer's Drug Discovery is online at www.aging-institute.org/i/isoa/c_20061012_agenda.pdf. His cancer work has been cited by researchers from the University of Minnesota (see Wacnik, et. al. PMID 15802198 and Anderson and colleagues from Centocor (two articles on Pubmed, "Therapeutic potential of cytokine and chemokine antagonists in cancer therapy, PMID 16524718, and PMID 15251122. His work on neuropathic pain has been cited in a review by Sommer "Mechanisms of Neuropathic Pain: The Role of Cytokines", Drug Discovery Today, Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2004 pp. 441-448. His recent study on TNF modulation for Alzheimer's was discussed in an editorial written by a Johns Hopkins researcher "Editorial: Cytokine Inhibition for Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease" MedGenMed Neurology & Neurosurgery, vol 8, issue 1, April 26, 2006. See also a search done at www.scirus.com for "Tobinick". A search on Pubmed for "Tobinick" gives 7 hits. -tnfinfo 11:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:BIO and WP:PROF are pretty clear on the relevant standards. Giving a 20 minute lecture at a conference does not make a person notable or verify notability; I've been to plenty of CME given by lecturers who regularly respond to a "call for papers". Similarly, having a study footnoted in someone else's study (or having it mentioned in an editorial) does not establish notability of the research or the researcher. All it establishes is that the study was at least remotely related to the research of others. -AED 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: With regard to WP:PROF, please note criteria 5: "The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory, or idea". With the revision of the biography, to include additional information, verifiable by search of the U.S. patent office and published articles, the WP:BIO, WP:PROF appear to be met. tnfinfo 08:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Per WP:PROF, "important" is the key word: "The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea." He is not. If he was, then it is likely that some of the other criteria in WP:PROF would be met, too! -AED 20:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)edited22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Is AED arguing that a radically new approach, based on a recombinant DNA therapeutic, for treatment of Alzheimer's Disease is not important? Please note that AED's statement above about the (non)importance of the study ("...having it mentioned in an editorial") may be interpreted to have mischaracterized the editorial - rather than "mentioning it" the editorial [2] appears to have been written solely to discuss this single study [3], most likely because of the importance of the scientific issues which were raised by publication of the study. With regard to originating this treatment method, the U.S. patents awarded (6,015,557; 6,177,077 [4]; and 6,982,089 [5]) verify that the identity of the inventor is known. Therefore this element 5 of WP:PROF is satisfied, and the WP:PROF guideline would appear to be met, because the guideline states "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, they are definitely notable". tnfinfo 08:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: First of all, your question contains a false premise: that the approach is important because it is radically new. Tobinick did NOT originate the idea that the suppression of cytokine activity may help Alzheimer's patients! Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that his approach has yet had a significant impact on the area of medicine and research concerned with treating Alzheimer's disease. One editorial in a relatively insignificant on-line journal does not suffice. Important concepts generate lots of buzz... and this one has not. -AED 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• 'Comment: Let's stick to the facts. Dr. Tobinick did invent the use of etanercept to treat Alzheimer's Disease, and the specific patented method of administration, perispinal injection, that was used in the recently published article which he and his colleagues (two professors of Neurology and a rheumatologist) authored. All of this information is verifiable, since the patents, and the article are all documented above. With respect to AED's comment that "this one has not (generated a lot of buzz)" what does he think the nearly full-page article which appeared in the Los Angeles Times on June 19, 2006 about Dr. Tobinick's new Alzheimer's treatment was [6]? With respect to verifying inventorship, the following is a direct quote from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: "In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: “(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,” or “(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . .”"[7].tnfinfo 09:19 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)edited 11:58 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I have stuck to the facts. No one is denying that the man holds patents for the use of etanercept to treat Alzheimer's, but the fact is that important concepts generate lots of buzz... and this one has not. The presence of an editorial in a relatively insignificant on-line journal and an article in the Health section of the LATimes.com is not "lots of buzz".

• Comment: Perhaps you just have not been aware of the facts. Follow-up articles have been published regarding Dr. Tobinick's new discovery for Alzheimer's in newspapers around the country, including Baltimore (Baltimore Sun), Washington state, and Florida, just to mention a few. And this does not even include Dr. Tobinick's other published work, which is being cited by an increasing number of researchers around the world. Just as an example, his original concept of using TNF-inhibition for treatment of avian influenza (see U.S. patent 6,419,934 from September 2000) is now supported by publications from the CDC in 2005 [8] and is cited in a new publication just this week [9]. He has also co-authored a well-received medical textbook [10] and [11] tnfinfo 18:38 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)edited 23:10 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: 1) "Published" in newspapers is not the same as being published in academic journals. 2) As discussed earlier on this page, he has very little published work. 3) As discussed earlier on this page, having your study appear as a footnote in someone else's study doesn't make you notable. 4) You're manufacturing claims. Tobinick was not the first to conceptualize the role of inhibiting TNF in treating viruses, so its disingenuous to imply that others were following his work. I certainly don't see his TNF-inhibition work cited in the CDC publication. In fact, I don't see any published research by him regarding TNF-inhibition for treatment of avian influenza on PubMed or in his patent . 5) Contributing to a textbook doesn't satisfy #4 of WP:PROFTEST. -AED 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)edited 06:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Meets another criteria for WP:BIO: "Published authors... who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work", see two reviews cited above [12] and [13] and a third review [14]. Please note that Dr. Tobinick is one of four authors of this textbook, see [15]. On another point, #4, AED is wrong also, Dr. Tobinick's TNF inhibition article on SARS specifically discusses avian influenza; this is verifiable by just reading the article, available at: [16]. Since AED has now given an incorrect opinion on so many points here, there seems little point to correct him further. (He was, however, right about patent 6419434; this was a typo, which should have been -934, and has been corrected). On another note, Dr. Tobinick has individually been awarded 17 U.S. patents (compare all faculty at Caltech combined, who were awarded 139 patents in 2003 [17]. By this criteria alone he meets WP:PROF. tnfinfo 23:30 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: 1) So now he's a notable author on the basis of his contributions to a medical textbook on skin surgery?! 2) You claimed that Tobinick was the first to conceptualize the role of inhibiting TNF in treating avian influenza (which is false), so I wrote: "I don't see any published research by him regarding TNF-inhibition for treatment of avian influenza". As I pointed out in my first post here, Tobinick's "article" is a letter to the editor! 3) Yep... CalTech faculty combined for 139 patents in a year and Tobinick has 17 in his life. Probably for good reason, there is no "patent criteria" on WP:PROF, though. -AED 07:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Examination of U.S. patent 6,419,934 [18] (see claim 14: "A method for inhibiting the action of TNF in accordance with claim 1, wherein the step of administering said dosage level is for treating influenza") verifies that Tobinick originated the concept of TNF inhibition for treatment of influenza. AED appears to be violating WP:NPOV by posting verifiably false statements. In addition, the Caltech press release [19] states that "Caltech ranks No. 2 among American universities in number of patents awarded in 2003" with 139 patents awarded to a total of 345 faculty members, equivalent to 0.4 patents per faculty member per year. To return to TNF inhibiton for influenza, a concept Dr. Tobinick originated, is AED arguing that this is of no importance, even after publications from the CDC [20] and others [21] [22] have documented the important role which TNF plays in the Acute respiratory distress syndrome which is responsible for the high mortality in H5N1 influenza avian influenza. Is AED saying that the concept that Dr. Tobinick originated, as documented above, which may, as described, potentially reduce H5N1 mortality, is not important, when the world is facing a possible H5N1 epidemic? tnfinfo 06:00 PDT, 02 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep as per Peripitus. --Merovingian {T C @} 19:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Historically speaking, after avian flu hits America (thats a when and not an if) this person could end up being as notable as Louis Pasteur. No reason currently to delete this, but it does need quite a bit of expert attention and cleanup towards layperson speak. Ste4k 06:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.