Cancer Cure – Glioblastoma Brain Cancer Cured – Watch a 30 minute free clip of Burzynski Movie Part II (2013 – Eric Merola)

Please share this video! After returning from England to attend Laura Hymas’ wedding last week (who was cured of a Glioblastoma brain tumor while I was documenting her journey for BURZYNSKI: PART II) – I decided to upload the portion of my new documentary with Laura’s story (and an unprecedented audio recording with her local oncologist) + footage from Laura’s wedding, + Hannah Bradley’s story & her update, as well as a fellow guest to Laura’s wedding, who happens to be diagnosed this year with the same type of brain tumor Laura had: Martin Vizzard.


“Taking one simple glance at history—using simple common sense—we will find that everything of scientific innovation has come from the fringe, and directly threatened the status quo at the start. From The Wright Brothers to Steve Jobs – they were all once considered “fringe mavericks” until their efforts merged into the mainstream and became a participant in the “status quo”. The status quo is there to create its own legion of followers, while only those who dare to step out of it and take a risk with something that could change it—those are the only people in human history that have ever contributed to changing it. These innovators didn’t listen to anyone except their own hearts and minds—while ignoring all the noise around them.”

– Eric Merola


Brain cancers cured, weddings to follow – thanks to Antineoplastons!

1topbar 2013 lo2


This blog post was originally an email newsletter by Eric Merola – the director of the Burzynski Documentary Series in September 2013

Dear Burzynski Movie Subscribers,

Three former patients of Dr. Burzynski’s Antineoplaston (ANP) therapy are having weddings this year.


 Laura Hymas’ story was covered in great extent in Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II.
She was diagnosed with a Glioblastoma Grade IV brian tumor on Christmas Eve in 2010.
After surgery failed her, and after being forced to take Temodar (chemotherapy) to qualify
to enter a clinical trial using Antineoplastons (ANP)—she started ANP in 2011, and
experienced a complete remission less than a year later. Also included in the documentary
is an interview with her neurosurgeon who performed her biopsy, as well as an audio
recording of her oncologist refusing to participate if she choose ANP over conventional therapy—
while telling Laura in the same breath that she will not survive.

This October, Laura and Ben will be married in their hometown in England.
I will be attending their wedding and will share updates and photos from their wedding in late October.

 Laura, Ben and Jacob Hymas



Dustin Kunnari was diagnosed with a deadly medulloblastoma brain tumor in 1994 at only 3 years old.
Dustin’s parents refused to subject him to the poor outcome and toxic nature of radiation and
chemotherapy and instead decided to have Dustin treated with Antineoplastons (ANP).

 Dustin and his parents were featured in “Burzynski, the Movie” (Part 1), where the Kunnari family
was seen begging the FDA in front of Congress to allow Dustin to continue his life-saving therapy.

 See a recent news segment with the Kunnari family (click here).

The Kunnari family won their battle with the FDA, and Dustin soon won his battle against his
once-deadly medullablastoma brain tumor.

Watch the clip of Dustin and his mother Mariann from the 1996 hearings, below:


dustin 1996 lo

On August 17, 2013—Dustin Kunnari was married to the lovely Calah Hester.
Below are photos of Dustin’s wedding with Dr. Burzynski in attendance!

wedding Dustin and Dr B


At age 22 Kendra Gilbert was diagnosed with an Anaplastic Astrocytoma brain tumor.
In 2007, after all conventional therapy failed her, she began Antineoplaston therapy.
Kendra completed Antineoplaston therapy in 2009.

As of right now (September 2013) Kendra has been cancer-free for 5 years.
She will be married later this year.

Read a 2011 news article about Kendra.


(Kendra is pictured on the far right)



While the future of Antineoplastons still appears to be uncertain due to recent FDA obstruction
(if you haven’t seen “Burzynski: Part II”, you need to—to understand this FDA action)
the lives saved using Antineoplastons still continue to grace the Earth.


We need your help getting
Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II
on Netflix DVDs!

Please go HERE and “rate”, “save to your DVD queue” and “leave a comment”
if you are a USA Netflix DVD subscriber!!

netflix save


If you still do not own Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II on DVD

We ship worldwide—the following business day upon ordering.

We offer special prices when you purchase a
Combo of Part 1 & 2 together and when ordering multiple copies.




Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II
also available ON DEMAND:






We have recently posted many photos from the production of
Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business Doc Series on Flickr!


 flickr logo



Follow the film series on Facebook

fb logo

 In solidarity,

Eric Merola

Burzynski Documentary Film Series



Follow director Eric Merola on Facebook to be alerted of new projects!


 eric Merola fb

Los Angeles Times reviews Eric Merola’s “BURZYNSKI”


By Kevin Thomas – June 4, 2010

Eric Merola’s “Burzynski” charts how a Texas Medical doctor and biochemist developed Antineoplastons, genetic-targeted medicines, and with them began to treat a wide range of cancers, including difficult -to-treat brain malignancies, with remarkable and continuing success only to bring down teh full force of the medical establishment, which has laid assault to him in the most stupefying, devious and costly manner.

Stanislaw Burzynski, a Polish immigrant with an unflappable, bemused attitude, eventually won a 14-years struggle  — during which he found himself threatened with life imprisonment and astronomical fines for fraud ans other violations — to obtain FDA-approved clinical trials of his Antineoplastons, an ordeal that cost Burzynski $2.2 million in legal expenses and the FDA $60 million in taxpayers money. If anything, his dealings with the National Cancer Institute were to prove even more outrageous.

Merola unleashes a barrage of information, including much testimony from grateful patients, but he could have made an even more effective film had he paused to summarize each phase in Burzynski’s long ordeal. Even so, the film makes the case that big pharmacy holds the FDA in its thrall, that the National Cancer Institute perversely refused to follow Burzynski’s protocols in its clinical trials and seemingly has violated Burzynsk’s long-held patents.

Julian Whitaker of the Whitaker Wellness Institute of Newport Beach and one of Burzynski’s most eloquent defenders makes an all-crucial point: Burzynski’s Antineoplastons, with their high success rate and lack of side effects, pose a significant threat to the trillion-dollar industry of treating cancer with the traditional methods of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.

Read the original article here.

Watch the trailer:

For more info and to buy the DVD of this film and its sequel released in 2013, visit:

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

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.