ERIC MEROLA – DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER MAKES WAVES WITH AWARD-WINNING MEDICAL DOCUMENTARY

From Yes Weekly, May 26, 2010

By Mark Burger

Winston-Salem filmmaker makes waves with award-winning medical documentary

The feature documentary Burzynski will run from May 28-June 3 at the a/perture cinema (311 W. 4 th St., Winston-Salem). The film marks the feature debut of filmmaker Eric Merola, who was born and raised in Winston-Salem.

Burzynski has already been an official selection at the Garden State Film Festival, the Palm Beach Film Festival, the San Luis Obispo Film Festival and the Newport Beach Film Festival (where it won the Humanitarian Vision Award), and its buzz is building — particularly at a time when healthcare reform is foremost on the minds of many.

This marks the film’s hometown bow, and Merola will attend selected screenings at the a/perture cinema. It will be followed by its Los Angeles and New York premieres the week after.

Having toiled successfully toiled in the advertising world in New York City, with commercial clients that included Volkswagen, Campbell’s Soup and the Speed Channel, Merola always had a strong interest in filmmaking. Then, as so often happens, inspiration struck.

For some years, he’d followed with interest the story of cancer specialist Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, the founder of the Burzynski Clinic in Houston, Texas and the developer of the gene-targeted cancer medicines known as antineoplastons. Dr. Burzynski’s treatments, which had yielded surprisingly positive results in patients — some of whom had been diagnosed as terminal — became a cause of controversy in the 1990s, when the Texas Medical Board, and later the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) took unprecedented steps to discredit Dr. Burzynski’s research.

Merola first contacted Dr. Burzynski in mid-2008 and soon gained his trust. As a result, Merola was given full access to Dr. Burzynski’s records — both medical and legal. He met with Dr. Burzynski’s patients, some of whom testified on his behalf during his repeated legal run-ins with the FDA.

“I just became obsessed with the story,” said Merola in an exclusive interview with YES! Weekly, “and the more time I spent with Burzynski, his patients and his story, the more obsessed and excited I became.”

Since he owned his own film equipment, Merola didn’t need to hire a crew. He simply shot the film himself and utilized broadcast footage from Dr. Burzynski’s trials. Although this was only his first feature film, Merola is pleased with the result, more pleased with the outcome of Dr. Burzynski’s case, which is depicted in the film, and especially gratified that his subject is satisfied with the film, as well.

“Dr. Burzynski couldn’t be more pleased,” Merola said. “At first, he thought the film was too complicated for the average person to absorb all that information, but it seems not to be the case. People are always telling me how easy it is to understand and follow.”

Even more encouraging, “I haven’t had a single audience member approach me after a screening and criticize or question the validity of the information in the film,” he said. “There is nothing in the film that is ‘assumed,’ ‘theoretical’ or not backed by the highest of documentation and forensic evidence.”

Burzynski’s treatment may well be perceived as a threat to what is euphemistically called the cancer industry, and could conceivably render such established (and not inexpensive) cancer treatments as chemotherapy and radiation obsolete. That Burzynski, and not a pharmaceutical company or conglomerate, would hold the exclusive patent and distribution rights for the Antineoplastons treatment, is likely what put him in the bureaucratic crosshairs from the beginning. Over the years and over multiple trials, the FDA spent some $60 million attempting to indict him.

“It threatens a $90 billion-a-year industry [in the US alone],” noted Merola. “That, and only that, is the reason it is being held back. The only way his drug will ever be approved is if the American people stand up and demand it. This film hopefully can serve as a springboard for that. I am not stopping with this effort after the film. Given that 50 percent of the male population of Americans are destined to be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime, I think I have a vested interest beyond just being a filmmaker.”

Without a doubt, Merola wants this film to make waves and rattle some cages. He wants “to get his medicine approved for public use, and any and everything surrounding that,”

Merola said. “I hope the film can be used as a tool to help Congress, the White House and, most importantly, the general public understand that a cure for cancer based on the highest cutting-edge scientific technology is here.”

Thus far, Merola has not received any reaction from the opposition about the film. If someone at the FDA has seen the film, he doesn’t know about it.

“I have trouble seeing what, if anything, the FDA can possibly say about the film to discredit it,” observed Merola. “The only thing perhaps they can do is discredit me — which is usually what happens to directors like me. It’s going to be interesting to see what happens. I am prepared for anything.”

Visit Documentary filmmaker Eric Merola’s website.

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.

Remember:

“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

1

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

 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

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

KENDRA GILBERT

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)

kendra2

***********

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.

***********

USA NETFLIX SUBSCRIBERS!
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.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER

 

***********

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

IF YOU LIVE IN A TERRITORY OUTSIDE OF THE ABOVE “ON DEMAND” SERVICES
VISIT BURZYNSKIMOVIE.TV – HERE – FOR THE INTERNATIONAL PPV PORTAL.

 

******

 

 

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

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

(Republished from the September 22, 2013 Burzynski Movie subscriber emails I received – from Eric Merola)

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

 

LAURA HYMAS

 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

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

 

 

KENDRA GILBERT

 

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)

kendra2

 

 

***********

 

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.

 

***********

 

USA NETFLIX SUBSCRIBERS!
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.

 

CLICK HERE TO ORDER

 

 

 

 

***********

 

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

 

 

IF YOU LIVE IN A TERRITORY OUTSIDE OF THE ABOVE “ON DEMAND” SERVICES
VISIT BURZYNSKIMOVIE.TV – HERE – FOR THE INTERNATIONAL PPV PORTAL.

 

 

******

 

 

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

 

About The Film Director – Eric Merola

About The Film Director – Eric Merola

Eric Merola photo

ericmerola.com

merolaproductions.com

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

FOLLOW ERIC MEROLA ON FACEBOOK!

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.

Tags:
burzynski
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 … “
=======================================
=======================================
[6] – CANCER FACTS
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 … “
=======================================
=======================================
[8] – ANTINEOPLASTON THERAPY, HS-183, pg. 2
=======================================
=======================================
“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)
=======================================
REFERENCES:
=======================================
[1]
——————————————————————

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic

——————————————————————

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic

——————————————————————
Antineoplastons, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
======================================
[2] – 2/1999 – A10 and AS2-1 – Phase II
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10069350
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

Results:

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

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025-6196(11)63835-4

Comment in Jun; 74 (6): 641-2
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025619611638354
Mayo Clin Proc 74(2):9 (1999), PMID .10069350

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63835-4/fulltext

DOI: 10.4065/74.2.137

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611638354.pdf

Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 137–145

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/full

Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 137–45

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/references

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

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/asset/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x.pdf?v=1&t=hbs6xce2&s=3423e3cd1955667e8e8cdf33323faf0bd85b6a29

Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota USA

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/asset/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x.pdf?v=1&t=hbrndkdf&s=e0af2d3bfb13841852d92a839d3a4932a5f4bb48

======================================
[3] – 6/1999 – A10 and AS2-1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10377942
Efficacy of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10377942
S R Burzynski
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 641-2 (1999),
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Jun; 74 (6): 641-2

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025-6196(11)64143-8

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

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)64143-8/fulltext

Mayo Clin Proc. 1999

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611641438.pdf

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

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025-6196(11)64143-8

Mayo Clin Proc
74 (6): 641-2

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611641438.pdf

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

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)64144-X/fulltext

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

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS002561961164144X.pdf

=======================================
[6]
——————————————————————

http://www.emory.edu/KomenEd/PDF/Treatment/Antineoplastons.pdf

=======================================
[7]
——————————————————————

https://www.bcbsal.org/providers/policies/final/280.pdf

=======================================
[8]
——————————————————————

https://www.wellcare.com/WCAssets/corporate/assets/HS183_Antineoplaston_Therapy.pdf

=======================================

THE LANCET ONCOLOGY REJECTS THE FIRST EVER RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL USING ANTINEOPLASTONS

The first ever independent randomized controlled clinical trial using Antineoplastons for the treatment of cancer at Kurume University in Japan—was rejected by Lancet Oncology this week. Even more interesting, the Japanese consulted with one of Britain’s top oncology peer-reviewers to ghostwrite the manuscript, to make sure it was in perfect format for the Lancet.

The Lancet’s reason for the rejection? It had nothing to do with the science or the study’s design—but instead the Lancet simply said “we don’t have enough room in our journal for this randomized study on Antineoplastons”. In other words, the Lancet and the cancer establishment as a whole does not have any room for an oncology paper that involves cancer being cured by a paradigm-shifting invention, especially when the study is a randomized study which elevates “anecdotal” to “proven”—since the randomized study is the industry’s holy grail of clinical testing. If the Lancet had accepted it—they would have ironically been Lanced.

The fact is, Antineoplastons do not fit the Pharma mold, and therefore they are not allowed in. It’s just the way our system works. Science is secondary to profit in today’s market. Anyone who feels the need to come up with conspiracy theories to justify the ignorance toward Antineoplastons, just doesn’t have a basic understanding of how our system works. This is just business 101.

Profit has and will always trump scientific truth. The entire industry is clever enough to realize that if Antineoplastons were allowed onto the market, their patents would eventually run out and they would eventually become a generic drug. And that can’t be allowed to happen. If all companies within Pharma is allowed to make and sell Antineoplastons (as they do the antibiotic), who in their right mind would choose destructive and carcinogenic chemotherapy or radiation ever again? The industry knows this, and to protect the bottom line and Wall Street as a whole, Antineoplastons simply can’t be allowed in.

However, the Japanese randomized studies WILL be published, but likely not in a journal that serves the industry and the owners who dictate the journals’ content.

 

You can learn more about this randomized Japanese study of Antineoplastons by watching: Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II by Eric Merola

 

 

Film Threat Review of “Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business” – Movie Film Documentary Review

BURZYNSKI

3 Stars
Year Released: 2010
MPAA Rating: Unrated
Running Time: 106 minutes
Click to Expand Credits:

Eric Merola’s documentary focuses on the controversies surrounding Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, a Polish-born physician who has been at the center of controversy following his development of antineoplastons as a treatment for seemingly incurable cancers.

In offering antineoplaston therapy instead of chemotherapy and radiation treatments, Dr. Burzynski forced the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry to reconsider their long-held theories on cancer treatment. The reaction, not surprisingly, was harsh and negative. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sought to stop him based on a legal anomaly – Dr. Burzynski conducted his work in Houston without FDA approval, which was legal under Texas law at the time. Despite negative pressure from the media and the Congress, the FDA pushed five separate federal grand juries to indict Dr. Burzynski, ultimately resulting in two federal trials that failed to return guilty verdicts.

When the FDA couldn’t stop him, the federally funded National Cancer Institute reluctantly agreed to work with him – albeit by intentionally screwing up his instructions, thus resulting in test results that could not possibly succeed. Simultaneously, the government sought to hijack Dr. Burzynski’s research and patents on antineoplastons.

As filmmaking goes, “Burzynski” is fairly elementary stuff: talking head interviews, old news footage, and images of letters and documents with highlighted text. Dr. Burzynski and his supporters speak at length, but equal camera time is not given to those who questioned his work and results. (Even the film quietly admits that most of Dr. Burzynski’s patients have not achieved cancer-free results.)

Nonetheless, the film offers a jolting examination of the hideous collusion between federal agencies and the pharmaceutical industry. In their partnership, profits and ego massaging takes priority over the treatment of the terminally ill. Furthermore, the testimony of Dr. Burzynski’s patients – particularly the tragic testimony of a San Francisco policeman whose child died from the ravages of chemotherapy even though her cancer was cured by the doctor – provides a stirring contradiction to the empty boasts about the quality of the American medical system.

Posted on June 3, 2010 in Reviews by