An Academic "White page" discourse on Dr. Sinclair's Patented Method, the original patents on Naltrexone, and how all patent protections expired-- eliminating any exclusivity or uniqueness to this methodology.
As a result of Dr. Sinclair's research into the "extinction" of alcohol cravings when a neural reprogramming is coupled with Naltrexone/ Nalmethene, a newly patented miracle drug (at that time) introduced to the market to block the "high" or "buzz" produced in the brain receptors, Dr. Sinclair first patented his method in the United States in 1989.
Dr. Sinclair was originally awarded a United States Patent in 1989 for his alcohol extinction treatment protocols and process, The patent subsequently expired in 2008, which rendered the treatment method process as "public domain", and therefore "open-source".
The following extract from a chapter in Roy Eskapa's book "The Cure for Alcohol"-- explains why The Sinclair Method and the companion medication Naltrexone... are the next-gen open source medication technology that all the protective patents have long ago elapsed and expired.
With no exclusivity or monopoly, there is no potential of big revenues accruing to big Pharma, nor would there be there any big revenues or profits to be reaped by alcohol treatment industry--- this simple and inexpensive treatment would eclipse a billion dollar industry, without any way to monetize it.
It's simplicity obviates the justification for the expensive--- and profitable one week hospitalization in detox facilities, 30 day inpatient treatments in rehabs--and the myriads of other machinations of IOP's PHP's , and whatever the healthcare industry can create.
If TSM were ever to become the accepted mainstream alcohol treatment-- it mean the end to a multi-billion dollar-a-year healthcare industry with such an abysmal success rate for long-term abstinence or sobriety.
The behavioral health industry is a revolving door... when their patients relapse (which most ultimately will), the patients will come back into the ineffectual system. Whatever their success or failure rates are, they are far superior to the success/failure rates of AA... which is antiquated faith-based "just say no..." concept.
It is the lack of exclusivity (patents and trademark protections) ... and therefore the inability of private industry to capitalize on, and monetize The Sinclair Method and the low cost of Naltrexone, that will relegate the Sinclair Method as being a grassroots movement... rather than a "cure" embraced by the mainstream healthcare industry.
The following extract from "The Cure for Alcoholism" is what both Doctors Eskapa and Sinclair had to comment about this economic paradox in 2008 /cont...../
"If naltrexone had been a proprietary medication with a long patent life that could still be exploited for decades—as Prozac* once was for depression—there would have been a stronger financial incentive by pharmaceutical companies to exploit the medication. Instead, DuPont obtained only a short period of exclusivity for its ReVia brand and naltrexone now is a generic medication— meaning it is non-exclusive and, therefore, inexpensive for the customer and with low profit margins for the manufacturer. What pharmaceutical company executive in his or her right mind would waste hundreds of millions of dollars promoting a medication that would yield low profits that would soon be undercut on international markets by competitors? Not one. Shareholders are in the business of securing financial returns—not in giving charity.
It is ironic that the reason for patenting the Sinclair Method (see Appendix C, which presents the original patent) was to get the treatment out to more people more rapidly, but patenting it may, in retrospect, have delayed the process—and cost lives in the process. In an e-mail about why people have not heard about his method, Sinclair responded:**
Patenting cannot, however, explain the similar suppression of information about the correct way to use naltrexone for treating opiate addictions. That suppression started more than a decade before Sinclair got his patent related to alcoholism, and there was no similar patent related to opiate addiction encouraging any misleading of doctors and patients about the scientific evidence showing how naltrexone had to be used to be effective.
* Prozac was a $3-billion-a-year, blockbuster medication when Eli Lilly introduced it in the United States. It is now off-patent, a generic medication, and the pharmaceutical companies have been driven to introduce newer SSRI antidepressants with long patent lives to retain market exclusivity.
** My editorial additions are in parentheses.
process. In an e-mail about why people have not heard about his method, Sinclair responded:**
Copyright © 2020 - All Rights Reserved.
The Sinclair Method Institute and Center for Advanced Studies