Talk:Anatabine

need to correct impression left

The reference to Star Scientific should be updated with the information that the FDA is investigating its use of anatabine-containing products. News story: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/12/31/fda-says-star-scientific-illegally-marketing-products/ 71.163.117.143 (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

revisions today

just wanted to leave a quick note here. as per WP:MEDRS we should rely on secondary sources to discuss biological activities and potential drug-like uses for compounds (especially ones in commercial development). I found no reviews discussing anatabine, so i looked at one of the more recent primary sources and created some content based on its discussion section, which provided an overview of work that has been done to date. I removed all the primary sources that were used to directly support content, as it is very suboptimal to use primary sources in the biomedical space (happy to discuss that further if anybody wants to, but pls have a look at an essay i wrote called "Why MEDRS" if you like...it is still drafty.)

With respect to MAO inhibition, I looked at the two sources provided, and neither of them discusses anatabine.

• Rose JE, Behm FM, Ramsey C, Ritchie JC (November 2001). "Platelet monoamine oxidase, smoking cessation, and tobacco withdrawal symptoms". Nicotine Tob. Res. 3 (4): 383–90. doi:10.1080/14622200110087277. PMID 11694206.
• Castagnoli K, Petzer JB, Steyn SJ, van der Schyf CJ, Castagnoli N (2003). "Inhibition of human MAO-A and MAO-B by a compound isolated from flue-cured tobacco leaves and its neuroprotective properties in the MPTP mouse model of neurodegeneration". Inflammopharmacology 11 (2): 183–8. doi:10.1163/156856003765764353. PMID 15035820.

What I found was that the Castagnoli source discusses 2,3,6-trimethyl-1,4-naphthoquinone (TMN) (which looks like this. The Rose article mentions no alkaloids from tobacco other than nicotine. That was surprising, since the article featured MAOi as the most important thing about anatabine. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision: Anatabine

Resolved

 – Wording was tweaked from this, to better show applicability.

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.

---

Hello Jytdog!

I saw that you reverted my edit on the anatabine page, so I thought I'd come here to discuss it with you. Since I am a new editor, I am trying to learn from any reverts, so I appreciate your patience and participation. As a reminder, the information in question is below:

In 2013, the company became embroiled in political scandal, when news broke that the governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, and his wife had received significant loans and gifts from Jonnie Williams Sr, the CEO of the company. Williams resigned in 2014 and the company changed its name at the same time it changed its board and management, at the end of 2013 due to the scandal.

In your revert of my deletion, you gave the reasoning that "this is very relevant to commercial development of the drug. it belongs in this section." However, I do not understand why a political scandal involving the CEO of a company that happens to make this drug is relevant to the product development of this specific drug. I would understand if the scandal involved the drug itself, such as in the preceding paragraph which talks about the unlawful promotion of the drug, but that is not the case here.

Therefore, could you please explain your rationale for keeping this information in the Anatabine#Commercial Development section in greater detail to me?

References

Thanks! ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 16:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC) (This post was copied here from Jytdog's talk page. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 17:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC))

Thanks for the question. Drugs and new supplements aren't brought to market in a vaccum - they are brought to market by specific companies and specific people and the commercial history is inextricable from the purely technical history of clinical studies, etc. Tracing the history of how a drug (I will just say "drug" for the rest of this...) got to market means tracing the companies that worked on it. Potentially great drugs have failed to reach the market (and people who need them) because companies have screwed up or just run out of money or had some other disaster befall them (9/11 kiilled about 10 promising biotech companies, the management of which were in meetings in the twin towers that day). Likewise, shit drugs have reached the market because of things the company did. So in this case like all others, the history of the companies is very much part of the story. When I was trying to trace the history of this compound it took me some time to figure out why it in the hands of Rock Creek and Star Scientific had fallen out of the picture. The political scandal is why. And it is why development has apparently completely stalled. It will be interesting to see if this ever comes back to the market and if so how. This is encyclopedic content - part of the history of this compound, and instructive. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I concur that drugs and the like aren't brought to market in a vacuum; I acknowledge that a variety of circumstances surround the drug development process (political, economic, scientific, regulatory, etc). My objection was because I didn't see how the company's political scandal affected the specific drug development process of this drug, though the other content clearly does. After reading the sources directly now, I can see why they're relevant, but perhaps the section can be amended to emphasize how the scandal relates to the commercial development of the drug. What do you think about this proposed revision (with major changes in bold):

In 2013, the company became embroiled in political scandal when news broke that the governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, and his wife had received significant loans and gifts from Jonnie Williams Sr, the CEO of the company, in exchange for promoting Anatabloc. Williams resigned in 2014 and the company changed its name at the same time it changed its board and management, at the end of 2013 due to the scandal.

References

Tell me what you think! (: ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 04:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Great, glad you see relevance. The "using" went both ways; the governor and his wife apparently used the company for money; the company mostly used the governor to impress investors and for connections/introductions and overall wheel-greasing. I think the "in exchange for promoting Anatabloc" is not accurate. Have to be careful with BLP and what is actually said, which is one reason I didn't belabor it. Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I see. What do you think about clarifying the exchange and the source, then? I think it is important to tie the company's scandal to the drug itself; the lack of emphasis contributed to my initial deletion of the paragraph. The proposed "in exchange for promoting Anatabloc" was drawn from these paragraphs in the NYT article:

Former Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia and his wife, Maureen, were indicted Tuesday by a federal grand jury on charges of accepting more than $140,000 in loans and gift in exchange for promoting the business of a political patron who was seeking special favors from the state government

The 14-count indictment filed by the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virigina included charges of fraud and soliciting loans and gifts from Jonnie R. Williams Sr., the chief executive of Star Scientific, a maker of dietary supplements, who hoped to use the governor to promote his products.

I've taken your comment into consideration by using more exact wording from the article, yielding this proposed revision (major changes in bold):

In 2013, the company became embroiled in political scandal when The New York Times broke that the governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, and his wife had received significant loans and gifts from Jonnie Williams Sr, the CEO of Star Scientific, in exchange for promoting its products. Williams resigned in 2014 and the company changed its name at the same time it changed its board and management, at the end of 2013 due to the scandal.

References

In the preceding paragraph under Anatabine#Commercial Development, it already mentions that Anatabloc (anatabine) is a product of Star Scientific. This way, we're being more true to the reporting (rather than making a claim about promoting Anatabloc specifically). Looking forward to your thoughts! (: ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 18:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

No. It is misleading and makes it sound like they were actively out there selling the stuff and you are not taking BLP into account which we take absolutely seriously. I will tweak it. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I would have appreciated consensus here before editing the contentious section we're discussing; isn't that the general policy? In response to your argument, I do not understand how the wording of "promoting its products" equates to the wording of "selling its products." After all, "promoting" is verbatim the wording that the NYT used, which I believe is in accordance with WP:BLPSOURCE. The NYT is not tabloid journalism, a primary source, self-published, or gossip. I don't believe that I'm not taking BLP "seriously," as you insinuated; we appear to having just a difference of interpretation (which is bound to happen--I'm still learning!☺). For my benefit as an editor, can you quote for me exactly what BLP policy you believe I'm not taking into account with my proposed revision? ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 12:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The NYT says "promoting the business." That is a very different thing from promoting the product. You appear to be unaware of the difference between the two. I don't know how to help you see the difference. The content tweak I added is clear that the gov and his wife helped the business. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Be nice. In addition to saying "promoting the business," the NYT also says, "promote his products." Perhaps you missed it, but I quoted that in bold above (18:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)). Does seeing that help clear this up? (: ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The company used the governor for far more than promoting products. The products is a subset, and the other stuff was far more important and is given more WEIGHT in the sources. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hm. That's an interesting thought. I'm not actually sure which had more weight. I decided to re-read the NYT article, and pulled quotes about what the governor actually did, bolding them below. Things relating to the "business," in a more vague sense, are coded in blue. Things related to the "product" are in red. This is what the NYT article explicitly says:

"...in exchange for promoting the business of a political patron..."

"...Jonnie R. Williams Sr., a maker of dietary supplements, who hoped to use the governor to promote his products."

"...solicited with the promise that she and the governor could help his company."

"Mr. Williams...sought to use the McDonnells to impress investors, as well as to enlist the governor's support in winning state-funded research on his product."

"...to promote a dietary supplement called Anatabloc, made by Star Scientific."

"'Maureen is excited about the trip to fla to learn more about the products,' he added."

"At the governor's request...policy advisors to meet with Mr. Williams, who was interested in having Virginia's public universities conduct scientific studies of the health benefits of the active ingredient in Anatabloc, which he would be able to point to for investors."

"discussed...having the studies paid for by the State Tobacco Commission."

"...Mr. McDonnell pulled out some Anatabloc from his pocket, said he took it personally and asked the official to 'reach out to the 'Anatabloc people' and meet with them...'"

"Although Mr. McDonnell said he had returned all the gifts, the indictment included a list of property that he and his wife would be required to forfeit if they are convicted. The list includes...30 boxes of Anatabloc."

Now that I look at my work above, it seems to me that greater weight is placed upon the product. If I missed anything, feel free to edit it in above. Let me know if you would disagree with my coding as well, since it is somewhat up to interpretation. What are your thoughts?

P.S. Thank you for continuing this conversation with me! I'm happy to work together on this!―Biochemistry🙴❤ 17:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how much you understand about bringing medical products to market. Several of the quotes that you provide above are specifically about supporting the company (e.g. studies of the products are run by and paid for by the company and need money, clearances of various sorts, sites willing to conduct them, etc), where "grease" was useful to get stuff done. Support for "studies of products" means "support for the company".

the one really startling thing in the NYT article related to "promoting the product" -- the one -- is the anecdote about the governor pulling a bottle of one of the two products out of his pocket and giving it to someone. That is what people are going to think when they hear "promote the product" and that is a small part of what went on. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair question to ask of me, I suppose. (: In answer, I do understand a great deal about how pharmaceuticals are brought to market.

I would agree with you that supporting a company's products is supportive of the company itself. But if that's what you believe, why did you object to my revision that explicitly used the word "products," in favor of your arguably vague (and potentially misleading) description of "helped the company in several ways"? Solely on the basis that you conjecture that people will think of the governor's pill-displaying anecdote (which they'd have to read the source to learn about, assuming they didn't get it from some other source) when they read "promote the product"? If anything, I would be more concerned about what people will think when they read "several ways," as that could refer to almost anything. What's the point of making an encyclopedia deliberately vague?

If we can't agree that all of the actions were somehow related to the products at the end of the day, perhaps there's a better way to put this. What do you think of the following wording (added words in bold, subtractions struck out, with the reference removed):

In 2013, the company became embroiled in political scandal, when news broke that the governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, and his wife had on the one hand, received significant loans and gifts from Jonnie Williams Sr, the CEO of the Star Scientific, and on the other, were also found to have helped the company in several ways. in exchange for attempting to further the financial interests of the company.

The phrase "further the financial interests" isn't explicitly used in the source, but it covers all interests related to promoting the products (and any so-called "greasing") as well as any "non-product" financial interests. I also clarified that the company was Star Scientific at the time.

Open to your feedback, as always! (: ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 19:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I used the short/vague "in several ways" b/c your initial objection was that this was OFFTOPIC/UNDUE and i agree that it should have minimal weight. About your proposed "financial interests" language - companies exist to make money and have no interest that is not financial. That phrase sometimes comes up with say academic investigators who are supposed to be all disinterested scientist-y but sometimes have "financial interests". But that is weird language to use for a company.

Also, the language I chose with "on the hand" and "on the other hand" also avoids, carefully, stating that there was an actual quid pro quo; your version states unambiguously that there was one. This is a BLP violation as far as I can see. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I understand now--you're speaking to WP:BLPCRIME! Although the NYT seems to report it as a matter of fact (e.g. saying "hoped to use the governor to promote his products," vs "allegedly hoped to"), I see that Wikipedia relies upon actual convictions to make such claims. I don't know how I could have missed that earlier. I agree with your commentary on the phrase "financial interests" as well; that makes an awful lot of sense. With all of this is mind, I'm comfortable with your revision. Thank you for working with me to come to a consensus on this! I really appreciate that. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 23:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ok thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2017 (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.

/anatabine listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect /anatabine. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)