Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Edward Tobinick - Knowledge

Source 📝

493:? 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 . . .”" 309:. 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. - 564:: 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 614:. 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 536:
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
535:
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
639:
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
210:
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
231:
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
666:
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
112:
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 ) -
333:
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
409:
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
659:(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 640:
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
483:
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)
190:
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
354:, 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 657: 569: 417: 420: 288:: 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. 518: 451: 683:. 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? 211:
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).
416:, 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; 6,177,077 486:
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
334:
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. -
611:. 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: 187: 183: 179: 762:) 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. 227:: 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 450:
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.
175: 513:
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
171: 430:
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".
295:
and Anderson and colleagues from Centocor (two articles on Pubmed, "Therapeutic potential of cytokine and chemokine antagonists in cancer therapy,
237: 261: 676: 738: 488:
the nearly full-page article which appeared in the Los Angeles Times on June 19, 2006 about Dr. Tobinick's new Alzheimer's treatment
568:. In fact, I don't see any published research by him regarding TNF-inhibition for treatment of avian influenza on PubMed or in his 17: 522: 491: 195:
impressive for someone who has been "actively involved in research and teaching for years" as some of the Google hits state. -
599:: "Published authors... who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work", see two reviews cited above 233: 741: 272: 609: 446:: First of all, your question contains a false premise: that the approach is important because it is radically new. 781: 36: 780:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
673: 766: 746: 648: 580: 462: 448:
Tobinick did NOT originate the idea that the suppression of cytokine activity may help Alzheimer's patients!
434: 394: 366: 338: 313: 276: 244: 215: 199: 154: 132: 120: 104: 83: 53: 236:(all appear to be PR generated from Tobinick's office) and "Alzheimer's Drug Discovery" + "Tobinick" gets 735: 600: 543: 494: 65:
Fellow who owns a patent for using an expensive drug for back pain. No indication that this warrants
723: 117: 573: 78: 671: 606: 386:, theory or idea." He is not. If he was, then it is likely that some of the other criteria in 303: 296: 289: 268: 232:
does not make a person notable. A Google search for "Karolinska Institutet" + "Tobinick" gets
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
540: 730: 720: 454:
in a relatively insignificant on-line journal does not suffice. Important concepts generate
680: 664: 615: 59: 128:. If so, the information needs to go in the article to bring him within the guidelines. 668: 660: 641: 618: 565: 537: 427: 423: 387: 379: 359: 351: 330: 167: 151: 114: 97: 596: 355: 326: 163: 147: 93: 74: 66: 684: 622: 548: 497: 431: 363: 310: 264: 212: 129: 101: 603: 546: 422:) verify that the identity of the inventor is known. Therefore this element 5 of 663:
by posting verifiably false statements. In addition, the Caltech press release
763: 49: 612: 608:. Please note that Dr. Tobinick is one of four authors of this textbook, see 414: 411: 667:
arguing that this is of no importance, even after publications from the CDC
410:
mischaracterized the editorial - rather than "mentioning it" the editorial
306: 299: 292: 645: 577: 459: 391: 335: 241: 196: 382:, "important" is the key word: "The person is known for originating an 257: 170:. Patent holders are a dime-a-dozen. Pubmed shows three hits under 182:
involved collaboration with truly well-published researchers. The
413:
appears to have been written solely to discuss this single study
774:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
525:
in the Health section of the LATimes.com is not "lots of buzz".
679:
which is responsible for the high mortality in H5N1 influenza
754:
Historically speaking, after avian flu hits America (thats a
542:. He has also co-authored a well-received medical textbook 675:
have documented the important role which TNF plays in the
263:
Non-notable. I agree with the comments (above) by AED.
572:. 5) Contributing to a textbook doesn't satisfy #4 of 150:
guidelines. Seems notable enough, per Peripitus. --
39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 521:in a relatively insignificant on-line journal and 539:and is cited in a new publication just this week 517:of buzz... and this one has not. The presence of 784:). No further edits should be made to this page. 8: 256:. I get five hits for "Edward Tobinick" on 656:: Examination of U.S. patent 6,419,934 186:appears to be a review article and the 7: 553:edited 23:10 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC) 502:edited 11:58 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC) 677:Acute respiratory distress syndrome 617:. By this criteria alone he meets 458:of buzz... and this one has not. - 24: 203:edited 16:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 584:edited 06:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC) 398:edited22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC) 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1: 687:06:00 PDT, 02 July 2006 (UTC) 625:23:30 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC) 595:: Meets another criteria for 551:18:38 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC) 500:09:19 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC) 44:The result of the debate was 475:: Let's stick to the facts. 635:: 1) So now he's a notable 178:. Of these seven, only the 801: 463:22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC) 435:08:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC) 395:20:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 367:08:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 339:22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 314:11:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 277:18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 245:17:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 216:05:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 200:18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 155:13:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 133:13:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 121:12:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 105:12:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 84:11:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 777:Please do not modify it. 767:06:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 747:19:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC) 649:07:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC) 581:05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC) 54:16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 32:Please do not modify it. 426:is satisfied, and the 384:important new concept 719:as per Peripitus. -- 390:would be met, too! - 174:and four hits under 605:and a third review 362:appear to be met. 744: 585: 554: 503: 399: 350:: With regard to 275: 204: 81: 792: 779: 734: 728: 583: 552: 501: 419:; and 6,982,089 397: 267: 234:five unique hits 202: 92:per nom. Fails 79: 34: 800: 799: 795: 794: 793: 791: 790: 789: 788: 782:deletion review 775: 724: 681:avian influenza 566:CDC publication 63: 60:Edward Tobinick 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 798: 796: 787: 786: 770: 769: 749: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 651: 627: 626: 587: 586: 556: 555: 527: 526: 505: 504: 466: 465: 438: 437: 401: 400: 370: 369: 342: 341: 317: 316: 280: 279: 250: 249: 248: 247: 219: 218: 205: 157: 137: 136: 135: 107: 62: 57: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 797: 785: 783: 778: 772: 771: 768: 765: 761: 757: 753: 750: 748: 743: 740: 737: 732: 729: 727: 722: 718: 715: 714: 686: 682: 678: 674: 672: 669: 665: 662: 658: 655: 652: 650: 647: 643: 638: 634: 631: 630: 629: 628: 624: 620: 616: 613: 610: 607: 604: 601: 598: 594: 591: 590: 589: 588: 582: 579: 575: 571: 567: 563: 560: 559: 558: 557: 550: 547: 544: 541: 538: 534: 531: 530: 529: 528: 524: 520: 516: 512: 509: 508: 507: 506: 499: 495: 492: 489: 485: 482: 479:Dr. Tobinick 477: 476: 470: 469: 468: 467: 464: 461: 457: 453: 452:One editorial 449: 445: 442: 441: 440: 439: 436: 433: 429: 425: 421: 418: 415: 412: 408: 405: 404: 403: 402: 396: 393: 389: 385: 381: 377: 374: 373: 372: 371: 368: 365: 361: 357: 353: 349: 346: 345: 344: 343: 340: 337: 332: 328: 324: 321: 320: 319: 318: 315: 312: 308: 305: 301: 298: 294: 291: 287: 284: 283: 282: 281: 278: 274: 270: 266: 262: 259: 255: 252: 251: 246: 243: 239: 235: 230: 226: 223: 222: 221: 220: 217: 214: 209: 206: 201: 198: 194: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 169: 165: 162:Doesn't meet 161: 158: 156: 153: 149: 145: 141: 138: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123: 122: 119: 116: 111: 108: 106: 103: 99: 95: 91: 88: 87: 86: 85: 82: 76: 72: 68: 61: 58: 56: 55: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 776: 773: 759: 755: 751: 725: 716: 653: 636: 632: 592: 561: 532: 519:an editorial 514: 510: 487: 480: 478: 474: 472: 455: 447: 443: 406: 383: 375: 347: 322: 285: 253: 228: 224: 207: 192: 159: 143: 139: 125: 109: 89: 70: 64: 45: 43: 31: 28: 758:and not an 670:and others 644:, though. - 574:WP:PROFTEST 229:pilot study 172:Tobinick EL 523:an article 180:1978 study 176:Tobinick E 731:rovingian 717:Weak keep 484:authored. 152:Coredesat 115:Peripitus 533:Comment: 511:Comment: 407:Comment: 376:Comment: 307:15251122 300:16524718 293:15802198 188:2004 hit 184:1987 hit 146:to meet 685:tnfinfo 661:WP:NPOV 654:Comment 642:WP:PROF 633:Comment 623:tnfinfo 619:WP:PROF 593:Comment 562:Comment 549:tnfinfo 498:tnfinfo 473:Comment 444:Comment 432:tnfinfo 428:WP:PROF 424:WP:PROF 388:WP:PROF 380:WP:PROF 364:tnfinfo 360:WP:PROF 352:WP:PROF 348:Comment 331:WP:PROF 323:Comment 311:tnfinfo 286:Comment 265:Nephron 225:Comment 213:tnfinfo 168:WP:PROF 160:Delete. 144:cleanup 130:Tevildo 126:Comment 102:Tevildo 98:WP:PROF 73:elete. 637:author 597:WP:BIO 570:patent 356:WP:BIO 327:WP:BIO 302:, and 258:Pubmed 254:Delete 164:WP:BIO 148:WP:BIO 118:(Talk) 94:WP:BIO 90:Delete 67:WP:BIO 764:Ste4k 50:ESkog 16:< 756:when 752:Keep 602:and 545:and 515:lots 490:was 456:lots 378:Per 329:and 304:PMID 297:PMID 290:PMID 240:. - 238:none 208:Keep 142:and 140:Keep 110:Keep 80:T@lk 46:keep 646:AED 578:AED 576:. - 481:did 460:AED 392:AED 336:AED 242:AED 197:AED 193:not 166:or 75:JFW 48:. ( 760:if 745:} 621:. 358:, 325:: 100:. 96:, 77:| 69:. 52:) 742:@ 739:C 736:T 733:{ 726:e 721:M 496:. 471:' 273:C 271:| 269:T 260:. 71:D

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
deletion review
ESkog
16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Edward Tobinick
WP:BIO
JFW
T@lk
11:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:BIO
WP:PROF
Tevildo
12:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Peripitus
(Talk)
12:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Tevildo
13:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:BIO
Coredesat
13:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:BIO
WP:PROF
Tobinick EL
Tobinick E
1978 study
1987 hit
2004 hit
AED
18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.