Dr. Edward Tobinick might not be a quack, but his behavior suggest otherwise.
Having a medical degree does not mean not a quack.
Using FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approved drugs does not mean not a quack.
Having a medical web site that does not have the word “quantum” all over the place does not mean not a quack.
Threatening to sue people for writing about the lack of evidence for his treatments does not mean not a quack.
Dr. Edward Tobinick is suing Science-Based Medicine for writing about Dr. Edward Tobinick’s dubious medical practices.
That strongly suggests that Dr. Edward Tobinick is a quack.
The claims and practice of Dr. Tobinick have many of the red flags of a dubious medical practice, of the sort that we discuss regularly on SBM. It seems that Dr. Tobinick does not appreciate public criticism of his claims and practice,
Essentially, what Dr. Edward Tobinick is saying is, Your valid criticism of the way I apparently take advantage of patients might discourage patients from shelling out money for my untested treatment.
Your valid criticism of the way I apparently take advantage of patients might encourage patients to ask reasonable questions about my untested treatment – questions that I cannot honestly answer.
Etanercept might work, but so might steroids, or ribavarin, or eye of newt, or a kick in the groin.
All of these treatments are equally valid. Oddly, the patients receiving a kick in the groin will probably report the fewest symptoms after treatment. 90% of the kick in the groin patients claimed to be cured and not in need of any further treatment.
Without evidence, and with his opposition to evidence, Dr. Edward Tobinick is just a quack with a brainstorm. Nothing original there.
Dr. Edward Tobinick injects etanercept (Enbrel) around the spine. This is not something he covered in his dermatology residency, so has he injected etanercept into the spine yet?
Why etanercept? Etanercept is an immune suppression/anti-inflammation drug. Inflammation is a problem with everything, so preventing/reversing inflammation is the simplistic cure. If this worked in real people, and not just in the hypotheses of pathophysiologists, steroids would have cured everything decades ago.
Perhaps Dr. Edward Tobinick is imitating Dr. Michael Bracken, who is able to produce improved outcomes with steroids (anti-inflammation drugs) for spinal injury, but only when he is in charge of the data.
At least Dr. Michael Bracken published some research to support his claims. Dr. Edward Tobinick just wants us to believe that his interpretation of pathophysiology is miraculously prescient.
Evidence? We ain’t got no evidence. We don’t need no evidence! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ evidence!
Maybe Dr. Edward Tobinick does have some valid evidence.
Maybe Dr. Edward Tobinick is just hiding the valid evidence because it is proprietary.
Here are a couple of comments by Dr. Novella on science and the importance of evidence. They probably were not directed specifically at Dr. Edward Tobinick, but they do apply to him.
What do you think science is? There’s nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?
Science is the way we learn what works.
Dr. Edward Tobinick’s criticism is evidence that he does not understand science.
Is any treatment, that is not based on evidence, likely to provide a benefit to patients?
History is strewn with ideas that were intuitive and made sense at the time, but were also hopelessly wrong.
Alternative medicine, opposition to EBM (Evidence Based Medicine), and opposition to SBM (Science-Based Medicine) are all the same mistake – evidence denialism.
Evidence denialism is devotion to being hopelessly wrong and remaining ignorant of being wrong.
Maybe there is no such thing as bad publicity for a quack, but the publicity associated with this law suit means that people will associate the name quack with Dr. Edward Tobinick, or vice versa.
Dr. Edward Tobinick is stating I am not a quack.
Reasonable people are hearing –
I, Dr. Edward Tobinick, am a quack.