About The Film Director – Eric Merola

About The Film Director – Eric Merola

Eric Merola photo



Eric Merola began his career as a motions graphics designer and animator after founding Merola Productions and was commissioned by various TV & film clients including WE Network, Fuel TV and Speed Channel. He was also employed as animation director for Flickerlab in New York City where he worked on projects for Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi, MoveOn(.org), Comedy Central and A&E.

In 2007, while building an animated sequence for Michael Moore’s feature documentary, “Capitalism: A Love Story”, Eric became aware of Dr Stanislaw Burzynski and decided that his was a ‘story that must be told’. And so, armed with over decade of experience, he set about producing, writing and directing his first documentary. Three years later, BURZYNSKI, THE MOVIE was released.

BURZYNSKI quickly attracted widespread distribution and many awards including Best Documentary 2011 on the Documentary Channel2 Audience Awards at the HumanDoc Festival in Warsaw 2011 and the Humanitarian Vision Award at the Newport Beach Film Festival. It also received favorable reviews from The Los Angeles TimesThe New York Times and Variety, and granted Mr. Merola a guest appearance on the DR. OZ SHOW.

Eric has since completed his second documentary – BURZYNSKI: CANCER IS SERIOUS BUSINESS, PART II (2013) which has premiered in various film festivals, and took home the top Audience Award at the Sedona International Film Festival in 2014. It wasreleased on June 1, 2013 on TV and internet On Demand in over 200 million homes in 6 countries—under a major international distribution deal.

In 2014, Eric Merola’s 3rd feature documentary, “Second Opinion: Laetrile At Sloan-Kettering” opens in theaters across the United States in the Fall of 2014.

Radio and TV interviews with Eric Merola.

Eric Merola’s only efforts within the film industry are those listed in this bio as well as his IMDB page:
click here ].

Eric Merola: New York Daily News

Eric Merola: The New York Times


Eric Merola interview – June, 2013 – Underground Wellness Show – “Burzynski: Part II”

Underground Wellness Radio

Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business (Part 2)

Documentary film maker Eric Merola returns to the show to discuss the ongoing saga of Dr. Stanislav Burzynski and the goverment’s war against his highly effective antineoplaston cancer therapy.

Topics will also include Gene Targeted Cancer Therapy, the social media campaign against Dr. Burzynski, and why the FDA remains in opposition of a therapy that has proven to be more effective than the current standard of care.

To learn more about the documentary please visit www.burzynskimovie.com.

Hosted by Sean Croxton of Underground Wellness.

burzynski clinic
burzynski movie
eric merola
underground wellness
eric merola wiki

Eric Merola – Director of The Burzynski Documentary Film Series TV interview – Documentary Channel

Eric Merola – Director of The internationally award-winning Burzynski Documentary Film Series TV interview – Documentary Channel

Critiquing the blatant Burzynski Clinic / Antineoplaston Paid Astroturf Smear Campaign on Wikipedia

[1] – Wikipedia, claims:
“There is a scientific consensus that antineoplaston therapy is unproven and of little promise in treating cancer””
“… a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit from antineoplaston treatment.[1]“”
“The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has stated“Bottom Line: There is no clear evidence to support the anticancer effects of antineoplastons in humans.”[1]“”
Interestingly, the above 1st claim by “Wikipedia” does NOT provide any specificcitation(s)reference(s), or link(s) to support this claim
[2] – 2/1999 – What “Wikipedia” does NOT advise the reader about the 2nd and 3rdclaims, is that the conclusion of the study was:

“Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy
[3] – 6/1999 – Wikipedia also does NOT point out that Burzynski replied to the 2/1999publication, that:

[A] – Study tested dosing regimen known to be ineffective

[B] – Dosages of A10 and AS2–1 used in study were meant for treatment of single small lesion (<5 cm)

5 of the 6 evaluable patients had either multiple nodules or tumors larger than 5 cm

[C] – As the provider of A10 and AS2–1, I strongly suggested to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) that these patients receive a much higher dose, consistent with greater tumor load

[D] – Study was closed when I insisted the NCI either increase the dosage or inform the patients that the drug manufacturer believed that the treatment was unlikely to be effective at the dosages being used
(letter to Dr M. Sznol, NCI, on 4/20/1995)

[E] – Review of clinical data in the article by Buckner et al proves validity of my position

[F] – Study patients had extremely low plasma antineoplaston levels

My phase 2 study dosage regimen produced plasma phenylacetylglutamine (PG) levels 35 times greater, phenylacetylisoglutamine (isoPG) levels 53 times greater, and phenylacetate (PN) levels 2 times greater than those reported by Buckner et a1 [1]

[G] – Clinical outcomes reported by Buckner et al, based on inadequate dosage schedulediffer dramatically from my phase 2 studies in which higher dosage regimen was used

[H] – They reported no tumor regression

In contrast, in 1 of my ongoing studies on protocol BT-9, 4 of 8 evaluable patients with astrocytoma had objective responses [2]

[I] – Difference in outcomes primarily due to difference in dosage schedules

[J] – Another factor that may have caused a lack of response in the study by Buckner et al is duration of treatment was too brief

Almost all patients in their study received treatment for less than 30 days

1 patient received only 9 days of treatment

Current studies indicate objective tumor responses usually observed after 3 months of therapy

Additional 8 months of treatment usually needed to obtain maximal therapeutic effect

[K] – Ambiguities in response evaluation and analysis in article by Buckner et al

In.2 patients, tumor necrosis attributed to “radio-necrosis”

Interpretation’s clouded by fact antineoplaston-induced necrosis can be indistinguishable from radionecrosis

[L] – Analysis by Buckner et al could’ve highlighted 2 patients with recurrent glioblastoma who survived for more than 1 year

This is of interest because patients typically have life expectancy of 3 to 6 months

[M] – At time of the study by Buckner et al, the sponsor, NCI, decided against higher dosing regimen I proposed and closed the study

Study used dosing regimen known to be ineffective
[2] – 10/4/1991 – Five doctors (3 from the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Branch (CTEP); including the Head of the Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Department of Health &Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and 2 invited consultants; including one from theNational Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center) visited the offices of Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski
[3] – 10/31/1991 – Michael A. Friedman, M.D. Associate Director, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Department of Health &Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, sent a one page Memorandum toBruce A. Chabner, M.D., Director, Division of Cancer Treatment, which stated, in part:

“I thought you would be interested in this for several reasons:”

“3. Antineoplastons deserve a closer look”

“It turns out that the agents are well defined, pure chemical entities
“The human brain tumor responses are real”
[4] – 11/15/1991 – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, sent a 7 page letter to Decision Network, which stated, in part, on page one:
“It was the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series … “
[5] – 12/2/91 – NCI (National Cancer Institute)Decision Network Report onAntineoplastons, states in part, on page 11:
“The site visit team determined that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series … “
National Cancer Institute • National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services, Antineoplastons, pg. 1

“The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity … “
[7] – Page 1 of 6, BlueCross BlueShield of Alabama, Antineoplaston Cancer Therapy, Policy #: 280, Category: Medicine, states, in part, on page 2 of 6:

Key Points:
“The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity … “
“After the reviewers found some evidence of antitumor activity … “
These facts indicate to me that Wikipedia’s claim about “antineoplastons”, is“debatable”

Maybe they should have learned how to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)




Antineoplastons, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
[2] – 2/1999 – A10 and AS2-1 – Phase II
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in Patients With Recurrent Glioma

Material & Methods:

Patients received escalating doses of A10 and AS2-1 by multiple intermittent intravenous injections with use of portable programmable pump to the target daily dose of 1.0 g/kg for A10 and of 0.4 g/kg for AS2-1

Mean steady-state plasma concentrations of phenylacetate & phenylacetylglutamine after escalation to the target doses of A10 and AS2-1 were 177 +/-101 ug/mL & 302 +/- 102 ug/mL, respectively


9 patients were treated, in 6 of whom treatment response was assessable in accordance with protocol stipulations


Comment in Jun; 74 (6): 641-2
Mayo Clin Proc 74(2):9 (1999), PMID .10069350


DOI: 10.4065/74.2.137


Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 137–145


Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 137–45


J C Buckner, M G Malkin, E Reed, T L Cascino, J M Reid, M M Ames, W P Tong, S Lim, W D Figg


Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota USA


[3] – 6/1999 – A10 and AS2-1
Efficacy of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
S R Burzynski
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 641-2 (1999),
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Jun; 74 (6): 641-2


Comment on
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Feb; 74 (2): 137-45 PMID .10377942


Mayo Clin Proc. 1999


Comment on
Mayo Clinic Proc. 1999; 74: 641–642 (letter)


Mayo Clin Proc
74 (6): 641-2


Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 1 (1999),
Elsevier Ltd.
DOI: 10.4065/74.6.641
1999 – A10 and AS2-1 – Mayo
Buckner, Reid, & Malkin
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 2 (1999),
Elsevier Ltd.
DOI: 10.4065/74.6.641-a


Mayo Clinic Proceedings
74(6):2 1999 Elsevier Ltd.