DVD/VODebut for Anne Georget's smart muck-raking doc, CHOLESTEROL: THE GREAT BLUFF

If you're anything like TrustMovies in terms of your approach to health, medical science and prescription drugs, you'll have opted out of the whole cholesterol fiasco some years, if not decades, ago. If not (or even if so), you may want to watch the 2016 documentary by Anne Georget entitled CHOLESTEROL: THE GREAT BLUFF. This intelligent, precise and often quite amusing movie offers up medical and nutrition professionals who do not believe in all the lower-your-cholesterol! hype that has been dished out to Americans and much of the western world over the past half century, ever since a would-be scientist named Ancel Keyes began a series of "studies" that claimed to show how important was diet and lowering cholesterol to better health and a lower rate of heart attacks.

Ms Georget, shown at left, has put together an interesting group of experts and woven their comments into a documentary that includes history (dating back to the 1950s), pro-cholesterol TV commercials (as below, some of these wildly, hilariously over-the-top), and smart scientific explanations of what cholesterol is, how it works and why so much of the ersatz "studies" and "science" we've been so far fed are so rife with bullshit.

Beginning with our own President Eisenhower, who suffered a heart attack (which Ancel Keyes and his group attributed to Ike's high-fat diet, rather than to anything else (such as his constant smoking!), we

move to a Framingham, Massachusetts, study (that thoroughly contradicted the results of Keyes) and then to quite an array of, well, not quite the usual suspects, but important groups -- the NIH, WHO and even the folk who hand out those Nobel Prizes -- all too willing, nay eager, to jump on the cholesterol bandwagon.

By the time we get to the arrival of statin medication, along with its unwanted side effects, and how the pharmaceutical industry contrives to market its product, if you are not ready to rethink your acceptance of the usual cholesterol theories, I shall be greatly surprised.

Consistently interesting and full of enough information to make you ever angrier, Cholesterol: The Great Bluff should prove eye-opening and maybe even mind-changing for some viewers.

From Icarus Films Home Video, in French and English, with English subtitles as needed, the documentary runs 82 minutes and becomes available on DVD and VOD this Tuesday, September 11 -- for purchase and/or rental.  In addition to its main feature, the disc offers a second documentary entitled BRANDING ILLNESS, also by Ms Georget, that is very nearly as good as to the cholesterol doc.

While including some of the same speakers and a modicum of repetition, this 52-minute doc shows us the manner in which the major pharmaceutical companies have actually created diseases -- like PMDD, the "cure" for which, as one doctor explains, is simply Prozac in a different color! -- and then supplied medication that supposedly helps the sufferer.

From teenagers being told that they maybe need to take Viagra to a Japan in which the "disease" of depression suddenly arrived to a faux anti-flatulence campaign, the documentary proves a goldmine of anti-Big Pharma ammunition. Don't miss this still-timely and thoroughly muckraking pair of very pointed assaults on an industry that both needs and deserves them.

Streaming sleeper: the Johnston/Mason/Boyes ultra-timely thriller, NOT SAFE FOR WORK

How rare is it to discover a suddenly streamable genre movie that's first-rate yet never even received a theatrical release? Very. Which makes NOT SAFE FOR WORK (TrustMovies has finally learned what the Internet acronym NSFW actually means!) pretty much a must-see, especially for fans of sharp, tight, cat-and-mouse thrillers, of which we see damned few good ones anymore.

As directed by the capable-in-many-genres Joe Johnston, (shown at right) from a smart screenplay by Adam Mason and Simon Boyes, this little movie lasts only 74 minutes, yet for most of its running time is one of those eyes-on-a-screen-from-which-you-cannot-look-away endeavors. It's that tight and exciting.

Best of all, this is a film that relies not upon near-constant special effects but is instead concerned with clever plot mechanics, a very good script and smart dialog to whisk it along, abetted by the kind of direction that knows where to put the camera when and how to cut for maximum speed and intelligibility (the editing's by Rick Shaine).

Add to this a situation that puts you in the midst of Big Pharma, a major corporation, the Mafia and a large law firm -- yes, all of our favorite kinds of people, even though one of these turns out to be a red herring -- and you have a recipe for fast-moving, top-notch entertainment. All the more so for the movie's being near-completely unknown to most movie-goers.

Another smart move: making its hero nothing like a superman (he actually does some dumb things along the way) yet proves someone who, when severely tested, can rise to the occasion. As played by the excellent Max Minghella (above, who it is nice to see in a lead role), this guy is fun to be around, never more so than when he's playing for very high stakes.

The heroine is a pretty and bright secretary (Eloise Mumford, above), and the villain a very smooth-talking fellow (played by JJ Feild, below), who gives his character a most interesting spin.

The major supporting roles are played by Christian Clemenson (below), as the boss of the law firm;

Tom Gallop, as Minghella's co-worker (gasping, below) and Alejandro Patino (shown at bottom) as the building's kindly janitor.

Every cast member nails it. As does this juicy little out-of-nowhere movie. The film's ending has evidently proven problematic for some audiences. Too bad. Considering all we know these days, what happens here could hardly be more on the mark.

In retrospect you may have a few logic questions, but while it's moving along, Not Safe for Work is mostly riveting. It's available now via Netflix streaming, Amazon Instant Video, and on DVD.

Eric Merola is back with another must-see doc SECOND OPINION: Laetrile at Sloan-Kettering

SPECIAL UPDATE: YOU CAN NOW WATCH THIS FILM FOR FREE -- FOR JUST TWO WEEKS, FROM JAN. 1 THROUGH JAN. 15, 2015, ON VIMEO BY CLICKING THIS LINK. SINCE THE MOVIE IS WORTH PAYING FOR, THIS IS A TERRIFIC OPPORTUNITY, 

SO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT, PLEASE!

Eric Merola -- the filmmaker who gave us the stunning, shocking and anger-provoking documentary, BURZYNSKI (from 2010), and its follow-up doc in 2013 -- is back this week with a new film, SECOND OPINION: Laetrile at Sloan-Kettering, which is every bit as surprising and anger-producing as his first couple of movies. Viewers of Burzynski will recall that New York City's (in)famous Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center appeared prominently and anything-but-decently in that film. Now it is popping up again, front and center, in Merola's new one (the filmmaker is shown below), and the behavior of the cancer center's upper echelon is once again utterly disgusting. Granted, this behavior took place back in the 1970s, when the war on cancer was coming to full-bloom.

The Burzynski contretemps took place much more recently. If we had a government at all concerned with medical malpractice (this can take many forms, dear reader) rather than constantly kowtowing to corporations, Big Pharma and the medical establishment, who knows what greater strides cancer research and treatment might now have taken?

SECOND OPINION: Laetrile at Sloan-Kettering deals with events that took place in the 1970s involving a then-young science writer named Ralph W. Moss (shown below in his older incarnation), who was at the time married with two young children, and who goes to work in the public relations department of the famous cancer center and soon finds himself interviewing and then befriending and writing about the center's leading research scientist, Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura (shown above).

The good doctor had been studying the effects on mice of something called Laetrile, a supposed "quack" cancer cure. Dr. Sugiura's research, however, indicated that Laetrile was anything but "quack." While it seemed not to cure cancer, it could slow its growth and deliver other positives, too. And while, the heads of Sloan Kettering were all for the disclosure of this -- suddenly, after a closed meeting with government officials and perhaps others, they were all against it, and went on record with lies -- yes, they lied -- about Laetrile's ineffectiveness.

What happens next -- and next and next -- makes up the meat of the movie, and will pretty much blow your brain. It will bring to mind the cigarette industry, among other lying corporations, and it will also offer up a wonderful example of the "common man" who finds himself in an intolerable situation when he must betray the public trust to keep his job.

All this happened prior to any laws and help for whistleblowers (not that they are all that effective, even today), and so Mr. Moss, along with his wife and son (both of whom we hear from) must find a way around this bad situation. What happens is both alarming and very funny (or would be if it didn't hold up such a mirror to our rotten health care providers).

Like his other two documentaries, this one is made up mainly of talking heads, some archival footage, and the kind of written evidence (records, research notes and papers) that back up quite well Merola's and Moss' viewpoints.

The plentiful ironies here are often astounding and finally funny/disgusting, as the Sloan Kettering of today tries to "honor" the Mr. Moss of yesteryear. Hypocrisy, it seems, knows no bounds. Someday, I suspect, a documentary will be made about the rush of the medical establishment toward curing the nation's "high cholesterol" via expensive statin drugs. Maybe Mr. Merola is already working on this one. I hope so.

Meanwhile, don't miss his current film, and watch his earlier ones, too, while you're at it. Second Opinion: Laetrile at Sloan-Kettering, running 75 minutes, opened yesterday in New York City at the Cinema Village, and will hit the Los Angeles area next Friday, September 5 at the Laemmle Music Hall in Beverly Hills. To see all currently scheduled playdates, click here and then scroll down. If you're not near any of the cities for a theat-rical screening, never fear. Click here to purchase the"extras"-filled DVD.

Note: Director Merola and his subject Ralph W. Moss 

will be appearing in person at many of the theatrical venues. 

Click here and scroll down to see at which and when.

Part II of one of the most important docs (physician and film) of the Millennium -- BURZYNSKI: CANCER IS SERIOUS BUSINESS; Q&A with Eric Merola

First a note: TrustMovies' review of the original Burzynski film, together with a long interview with the filmmaker Eric Merola (you can find both here), is the single most read post on this blog, by a wide margin -- with literally thousands more hits, page-views and readers than any other posting in the blog's nearly five-year history. In a normal to good week, my postings might get 2,500 hits; Burynski's best week reached 10,000. I'm happy about this because the film is not only a very good one, as it details the triumphs and struggles of this Texas-based doctor to cure cancer using his own Antineoplastons method (which, by the way, after 27 years of independent testing, notes Dr. Hideaki Tsuda of Kurume University Hospital in Japan, have been found successful), it also shows up the behavior of our government, the Cancer industry and Big Pharma for the power/money-hungry, hypocritical scum that they all too often are.

Mr. Merola, shown at left, has done his homework -- and a lot more. His first film is so tightly focused, documented and well argued that if it were used in court as a defense of Dr. Burzynski (or better, the prosecution of that government/pharma/cancer coalition) there would be no contest. In the time since I saw the original film, Merola tells me that it has been reedited to include certain testimony that was not originally available, and now makes an even stronger case. The injustice quotient here is so staggering that one cannot blame many Americans for wanting to look the other way. As more and more truth about the lies we are being fed keeps surfacing, thanks to everything from Google Search to WikiLeaks, looking away grows more difficult in these days of "banks too big to fail," Wall Street crime unchecked and unpunished, constantly growing corporate power, and the increasingly lurid and sick control of Monsanto over our diet. This is just as well, for we seem to be approaching a time when either martial law or armed insurrection will at last be America's real form of democracy.

Meanwhile, what to make of BURZYNSKI: CANCER IS SERIOUS BUSINESS (PART II)? First off, in my estimation, you should make certain you've seen the original film first, for it offers such terrific history and background on the whole story. For anyone who's already seen Part I, Part II will be be a must. The latter film gives updates on much of what we saw in Part I -- further explaining the doctor's use of personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy along with the Antineoplasteons method.

There is also an almost entirely new cast of patients, some of whom "make it," some of whom do not. (Neither the doctor nor the filmmaker ever implies that this method is foolproof.) We follow one particular family in Britain, that of Laura and Ben Hymas (above) and how the British medical establishment tries to prevent the Hymases from going with Burzynski (there is a audio-taped interview here, a still from which is shown below, that is simply staggering); how the paid-off leading "skeptics" and their follow-along acolytes try to first scare and then drub the Hymases into submission, and finally how Laura comes through and what she has to say to these "supposed" skeptics, post-remission.

The FDA as an arm of the drug companies is explored once more, along with a lot else. What isn't in the documentary (from folk who are no doubt too frightened to go on record) is probably as important as what is, but you can read about some of this in the Q&A below. Our government, our Cancer industry and our drug companies all know the Burzynski's method works better than anything they have come up with. (That's the good doctor himself, shown below.) Why this method has not been accepted and allowed to be used to treat the general public (not to mention be covered by insurance) will prove one of the great and enduring scandals of our time. (To get the filmmaker's "take" on this question, read the interview below.) As George Bernard Shaw's Saint Joan so famously asked: "How long, oh lord, how long?"

BURZYNSKI: CANCER IS SERIOUS BUSINESS (PART II) is available beginning today, June 1, via VOD on over 100 cable/satellite provi-ders and will hit the streets as a DVD on July 1. You can also rent or stream its predecessor from Netflix. Or order both films from the link here. Go to it -- and learn about something worth fighting for.

*******************

Eric Merola is the fastest talker (literally, not symbolically) I have ever interviewed, and so my already inadequate typing skills were simply not enough. Once I'd readied the transcript, I sent it off to Merola for additions and/or corrections, so what you read below has both his and my imprimatur. In the following, TM appears in boldface and Merola in standard type....

Boy, you have been spending a lot of time on this film -- in addition to all you put in on Part I. 

Yes—the Burzynski saga has been going on for nearly 40 years now. I started cold calling the Burzynski Clinic back in 2007, and they had zero interest in speaking to me. They had no idea who I was, and frankly I don't blame them. I had never directed my own documentary before, my only credits included some work on some PBS documentaries and Michael Moore's films. After about a year of persistence, Burzynski finally allowed me into his world.

After the release of the first documentary in 2010, I immediately began working on "Part II".

The first documentary was more of a historical and biographical story of the struggles and battles that allowed Dr. Burzynski to freely allow his "Antineoplastons (ANP)" invention to enter America's Food & Drug Administration (FDA) drug approval process. This film also included the plight of many of the cancer patients throughout this time period—many of whom were instrumental in winning numerous monumental legal battles with the FDA. For "Part 1", aside from curing incurable cancers, I was fascinated by the fact that a single scientist stood up to the FDA and defeated them in not one, but two federal juried trials. The most stunning thing about those court battles was—the prosecution refused to allow whether the therapy worked or not into the trials! (Click to see Source.) The trials were merely about "interstate commerce", accusing Burzynski of shipping his medications across Texas state lines, breaking Federal Law. Two sets of juries reached a "not guilty" verdict related to these charges.

For me the the highlight/low-light of your first film was seeing the collusion involved -- when they are unable to discredit his work, they try to steal it!  

For me, too. Perhaps the most stunning aspect of "Part 1," is where I was able to prove how the very same agencies trying to imprison Burzynski for the rest of his life for "interstate commerce", were also colluding with one of Burzynski's own research scientists as well as The Department Of Health and Human Services to file duplicate patents of already existing patents of one of his Antineoplastons' medications, "AS2-1"!

Part I can be seen on Netflix, DVD, and other distribution outlets, and the entire film is backed up and sourced for transparent fact-checking by anyone—including the patent situation. Every document used in the film are available—in context—for anyone to scrutinize and fact-check for themselves. I knew I had to back up everything in this documentary since most people would find corruption of this magnitude simply too hard to believe at face value. (Click for Source.)

For "Part II", I not only wanted to make a modern story of the current status of clinical testing of Antineoplastons—but also roll the dice and follow patients from diagnosis, and throughout their journey using Antineoplastons. Some of them came out cancer-free, and some died. This therapy is not a "miracle cure" nor is it in any way a "magic bullet". It works for some, and not for others.

Do you think this film can stand alone? It seems to me that you really should see Part One first.

Since this saga has been going on for nearly 4 decades, it's impossible to cover everything in one film, and especially in a sequel. I feel "Part II" stands on its own, but anyone who is interested in this story will really want to see "Part I", to understand the background. Again, I wanted to document a "modern story", and not harp on the past—I wanted to make a documentary where once it was released, all its contents occurred within the last 24-36 months. The last scene in the film occurred in January of 2013, for instance.

Another big difference between this new film and the first one is—the first film focused on Burzynski's history—"Part II" focuses on the patients. For Part II, I also managed to get oncologists, surgeons, neurosurgeons and other medical professionals who witnessed their patients leave their care, headed to Hospice, only to return cancer-free.

Another aspect that will take many viewers who are familiar with this story by surprise—is Burzynski's work on what he calls "Personalized Gene-Targeted Therapy". In a nutshell, how this works is: the patient is diagnosed via biopsy by a third party cancer center—(Dr. Burzynski has never diagnosed anyone, all cancer patients that seek the therapy of the Burzynski Clinic come to the clinic already diagnosed by usually more than 2 outside cancer institutions like MD Anderson or Sloan-Kettering)—a sample of that biopsy is sent to one of the cutting-edge gene-testing labs that are emerging around the country more and more today, coupled with a blood sample that is sent to another lab. These genetic labs are able to scan the biopsy sample and the blood sample to recognize what genes relate to that individual person's cancer. From there, Burzynski and his medical team design a "personalized gene-targeted" regimen using any number of the 40+ gene targeted cancer drugs on the market today. Burzynski also includes a substance called "Phenylbutyrate (PB)" which is a "pre-metabolite" of one of his initial Antineoplastons' invention, AS2-1. When the patient takes PB orally, it metabolizes in the liver into AS2-1. The oral form (PB) isn't as powerful as just giving AS2-1 intravenously, but under FDA sanctions Burzynski isn't allowed to give anyone the genuine infusions of AS2-1 without FDA's permission. (The FDA holds full dictatorial rights over what Burzynski can and can't do with ANP).

While this "personalized gene targeted therapy" doesn't hold the power that his original ANP invention holds—it's a cutting edge new direction that has been considered by some of the top oncologists in the world as "the future of cancer therapy". Burzynski has been practicing this method since the late 1990's—MD Anderson is finally catching up, finishing their new "personalized gene-targeted cancer center" in 2014. Most importantly, it's a new direction away from the cookie-cutter, conveyor belt of blindly giving everyone with a particular cancer diagnosis standard chemotherapy and radiation, without an ounce of an idea if it will be efficacious for that patient. This new "personalized" direction has more of a "targeted" purpose. They weed out the drugs that most likely will not benefit the patient, and include the drugs that most likely will. (Ideally, since Antineoplastons are shown to target as many as 90+ genes related to certain cancers, it would be ideal to combine Antineoplastons as well as the "personalized gene-targeted therapy" to give the patient the most optimum chance at winning their battle against their cancer—but we are worlds away from getting to that point given the strict sanctions the FDA currently holds over Antineoplastons alone).

Most amazing of all in "Part II"—for me—was my travels to Japan interviewing and meeting a team of pathologists, oncologists, radiologists, surgeons, neurosurgeons, PhD biochemists, and anesthesiologists at the Kurume Medical Center in Fukuoka, Japan. This team did something that no other medical research team has had the courage to do, at least not at this scale. They underwent 27 years of independent studies of Antineoplastons, starting from mice studies in the 1980's, then Phase 1 human trials (testing toxicity), Phase 2 human trials (testing efficacy), and finally the first ever randomized human clinical trials—for colon cancer with metastasis to the liver, lungs and brain.

The "randomized trial" was created by the world's scientific community to eliminate "bias" and "anecdotal data". As Dr. Hideaki Tsuda from my film says, "Anecdotal data gives birth to the scientific mind. But recording anecdotal data again and again, isn't convincing. You have to create the randomized study where the patients are arranged randomly and no one knows who is getting just chemotherapy and who is also getting the experimental medications (in this case, Antineoplastons). We did exactly this, and after 27 years of independently testing Antineoplastons, it's clear to us that Antineoplastons are now considered a proven therapy, and its results can no longer be considered anecdotal."

Oh, but that doesn't count, 'cause we beat out Japan in World War II, right? 

(Merola chuckles) What is interesting about these Japanese studies is: They were truly independent, and were not done under Burzynski's supervision or advice whatsoever. Speaking to Burzynski about these monumental independent randomized trials conducted by the Japanese, Burzynski said "They didn't use the 24 hour infusions as I have done since the 1980's, they only gave the patients one week of arm injections of ANP, and then one year of oral pills of ANP. If they used the infusions as I have designed, their results would have been far better."

While this is true that the Japanese ignored all of Burzynski's recommended protocols for their human studies—and chose to design their own, the fact that they had double the survival rate in the Antineoplaston group vs. the chemotherapy alone group—that is pretty darn incredible. I can only imagine how the patients would have fared under the infusions. What is also remarkable about these Japanese studies is the fact that this medical team are not "alternative" scientists, they are orthodox medical doctors and scientists. And as such, they insisted on combining chemotherapy with both the control and Antineoplaston groups. The Japanese insist that Antineoplastons work very well in connection with chemotherapy—as chemotherapy is "reactive" and "kills", while Antineoplastons are "non-reactive" and "occupy the space and reprograms the cells". They feel that the easiest way to ease Antineoplastons into the mainstream medical profession is to start there—combine it with chemotherapy. In some ways I agree from a "paradigm-shift" stand point. Telling an oncologist to throw his chemotherapy into the garbage and start using only Antineoplastons overnight—from a bureaucratic standpoint—is next to impossible. This Japanese oncology medical research team firmly feel that Antineoplastons are a perfect complement to standard chemotherapy.

England features more prominently in this edition than in the first one. 

All four patients I followed the closest happened to be from the United Kingdom. Some of these patients were cancer-free at the end of our journeys together, and some died. This therapy is not a magic bullet, but when you are told by your oncologist "you are going to die, we can't save you", and then they opt as a last resort for the Burzynski Clinic, and that patient comes out cancer-free, that is remarkable. Especially since all four of these particular patients were diagnosed with incurable brain tumors.

Focusing heavily on the United Kingdom patients wasn’t planned, but it’s just the way the story went. So I made best use of my time over there. I actually found the British to be more resourceful than most of the American patients. Many American patients in general put a lot of blind faith in Burzynski (they also put a lot of blind faith in their regular oncologists too), while the English really did their homework. The English were far more skeptical and came to their treatment choice only after weeks of research and scrutiny of Burzynski and his therapy methods. Maybe it's because Americans are living under the delusion that they have a "choice" in their cancer therapies—due to all the indoctrination that Americans live in a free country—and the British just know they have no choice in their cancer therapy—given the socialized system there. I am not knocking socialized medicine—all I am saying is, if any country has socialized medicine, the "cook book, conveyor belt, blind administration of chemotherapy and radiation" protocols given to everyone will be the only option for that population—unless they go private, which most people can't afford. Any medical system where the government dictates its scientific protocols pretty much automatically excludes anything "out of the box" or "innovative."

One thing I was particularly impressed with is how much of a fighter Laura Hymas really is! 

Yes, she is. Another aspect of this new documentary I am most proud of, is how much documentation I was able to obtain related to Laura Hymas' story. After Laura was deemed incurable by her oncologists, and decided to raise money to travel to Houston to get Antineoplastons at the Burzynski Clinic, I have National UK TV news clips essentially telling its audience Laura is going to die, two-page national magazine spreads saying "How am I going to tell my son I am going to die", the list goes on. The British media had a frenzy over Laura when she was first diagnosed—and ever more so when it was realized that she wanted to go to some Polish doctor in Houston Texas . Her story was a super tragic story—she was diagnosed with an incurable Glioblastoma Multiforme Grade IV brain tumor on Christmas Eve, she had an 18 month old son, was having 40 seizures a day due to her tumor's location—the media loved it, as they always love to report on tragedies. (Of course, once her tumor began to shrink using Antineoplastons, and her tumor is now completely gone—the British media wants nothing to do with her!)

There is another aspect to Laura's story included in this new documentary that I will not tell your readers about—I'll let it be a surprise—but I will say that never before in documentary history has any documentary obtained and included such a profound piece of material. Everyone that sees the film is floored by this piece of material. I am still pinching myself that I was able to obtain it—much less include it.

Can we talk about these “Astroturf campaigners,” which you spend some time on in Part Two?

Yes. They ironically call themselves "The Skeptics". (I have found that we should be wary of any organized group that labels itself after a pre-existing attribute of the human condition). They pretend to be patient advocates protecting people. In reality, they are there to stop people from seeking Burzynski's therapy. However, Burzynski isn't alone. Any therapy that is not invented, approved, packaged, marketed, and sold by the pharmaceutical industry—is automatically a "quack therapy" by default in their eyes. They have even attacked the world-famous Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City for giving their terminal cancer patients the option of choosing yoga, meditation, and acupuncture—over traditional highly addictive narcotic pain medications. These so-called Skeptics have roundly accused Sloan-Kettering of quackery for daring to give their patients a choice in pain management. In the Skeptics point of view "all cancer patients are prisoners, and they must receive the cook book pharmaceuticals and if they or anyone even thinks of altering that cookie-cutter plan—off with their heads!" These people have zero tolerance of any sort of freedom—when it comes to medical choices—or one's freedom of speech. But then again, that is their job. Burzynski is merely in the blender with the rest of those innovators who dare deter from the norm—since Burzynski's therapy also isn't packaged and produced by one of the top pharma companies.

The whole goal of the Astroturf campaign is to manipulate other unsuspecting and naive members of the public—and then recruit and build their army that way. Not all of the so-called skeptics are on a discreet payroll, perhaps only a handful of them at the top. But this really isn't the most important thing—as using fake advocacy groups to push an agenda is the pharmaceutical company's oldest trick in its toolbox. Former editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine—Marcia Angell—has written extensively how the pharmaceutical industry has created dozens upon dozens of fake advocacy groups to fight their battles and defend their own interests (Read Dr. Angell's "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It").

It would only make sense that such a force would exist, I mean after all—imagine if Antineoplastons were released onto the market—being a proven gentle and effective therapy—and you as a cancer patient had that choice over the ancient toxic carcinogenic chemotherapies and radiation… which one would you choose? The industry knows this, and they will do whatever it takes to stop it—and polluting the internet with noise to confuse everyone is a very effective strategy.

But they don't stop at just polluting the internet, for instance, when PBS in Colorado aired the first documentary during a fund-raiser earlier this year, all these Astroturf/Skeptics got together and hounded PBS: calling and telling them, "You can’t air this!" Of course PBS isn't going to listen to a bunch of random angry ranting yahoos, so they aired it anyway. But then, after airing, this group continued calling, emailing, and harassing the PBS staff to the point where they convinced the PBS Ombudsman to apologize for airing it, which he did! I guess if you harass someone long enough, they will eventually give in, just to silent the relentless badgering. These "Skeptics" have even called my film's distributors, harassing them! Any time my film airs anywhere these guys get together and launch a campaign of hate and lies toward the distributor providing the service. Free speech is certainly not something the "skeptics" hold sacred.

Have these "skeptics" taken some of the wind out of your sails. 

Frankly, I couldn't care less about them, and I had no intention of covering them in my film. I really wanted to tell the patients’ side of this story here—but the patients kept complaining about "The Skeptics", so I felt I had to include them. First they kept telling Laura that she would die if she used Burzynski. Once she was cured, of course, they shut up. And now it’s like she never even existed. While other "Skeptics" say Laura was just pretending to have cancer, and she is just a money launderer for Burzynski. (I wonder what Laura's neurosurgeon who performed her biopsy confirming her Glioblastoma Multiforme Grade IV diagnosis—who I interviewed and included in my new documentary—would have to say about that?!)

The Skeptics only care and get excited about patients who die under Burzynski's therapy, think about trying Burzynski's therapy and die before they can get there, or people that "choose the smart path" and die under the hands of chemotherapy and radiation. That would make sense, since that is what fits their agenda. Anyone who is cured by Burzynski's therapy—those people don't exist to them.

To give you an example, if you decide to cover this film, and your online review allows comments on its webpage, and you publish them, your page will be filled with the same Astroturf/Skeptics, saying the same stuff, calling Burzynski a quack, scam, con artist whose works have never been published, etc etc . They will say I was paid to make these films, the films are infomercials, etc etc. You will notice that one thing none of them will do—is address the films themselves. They always resort to character assassinations, and try their best to distract from the actual subject matter—which is understandable, and fits their agenda. You can't win a battle of misinformation by addressing truth, you can only do it by distracting from it. And as soon as anyone bothers to counter their "arguments" and prove them wrong on anything, they stop with that particular "argument" and move on to their next invented "argument". They just keep moving the goal posts. Again and again. You can't win; the biggest mistake anyone can make is to engage them. They want you to engage them—like the bullies in the school yard trying to make you flinch. At the end of the day, they will always end up metaphorically stealing your lunch money—by wasting as much of your precious time as they can.

Do you think there will be a Part Three to this story and to your filmmaking? 

If something big happens, there might be a 3rd Burzynski film from me. Not until then. Until something really changes, at least, I’ve reported on the situation as much as I can. Frankly, until everyone knows who Burzynski and what Antineoplastons are, until the population rises up and takes charge of the situation, until something really changes, I don’t see the point of doing another documentary on this subject just now. I am very passionate about this subject matter, and it's occupied all of my time over the last 6 years, but I don't want to just report on Burzynski and his patients the rest of my life. There are many other stories to tell, and I also want to write and direct my own original scripted narrative films, too.

If this is it for you (and the Burzynski subject) for a while, where does it leave you in regards to the subject itself?

I will say, this whole experience has been a huge life-changing catharsis for me. We’re all so used to corruption these days. People shrug their shoulders and say "well, that’s the way it is!" People cannot imagine that this same corruption that we get in politics and business every day is occurring in relation to a life-threatening disease like cancer. Back in the day, there was no awareness campaign to get penicillin or insulin on the market. Today, anyone who even thinks about advancing the therapies of anything—given the stranglehold the market has on everything related to science—especially in cancer, is immediately marginalized because advancing the therapies isn't the name of the game—keeping things the same is the name of the game. They don't call it an establishment for nothing—these therapies are established and they are here to stay. Protecting the establishment and the status quo is the job of today's governments and industries—their job is not to change it—things are working just perfect for the status quo—and changing it by doing something drastic like adding Antineoplastons onto the free market—within an existing failing, yet highly profitable system—really screws up what has been already established.

For example, David Axelrod – a top political adviser to both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama – he saw the first film, and said, "yes, it is very, very important, but it is just “too big” for our government to get involved in right now. Maybe in 10 years we can face it, but not right now." 

Lastly on this subject, anyone that says "what! no one would ever block a cure for cancer!"—needs to remember one thing, that their response is an emotional one, not a scientific one. Saying "I can't believe the FDA would do this—or do that" - is just that, your "belief". It is an emotional response and isn't based in fact. If one actually practices the scientific method in researching this subject, and ignores their emotion while researching it—they will find this reality to be as apparent as the sky is blue on a sunny day.

Quick example: Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper introduced into law HR 3472 in 2009. This newly proposed law said basically that if you can prove through your family doctor that you lead a healthy lifestyle, you are then entitled to discounts on your health insurance premiums. This law never made it to the Congressional floor—why? Because The American Cancer Society and The American Heart Association teamed up and blocked it! That's right, the two largest advocacy groups for heart health and cancer therapy and prevention blocked a bill that would likely reduce heart disease and new cancer diagnoses. What does that single little event tell you? (Think logically about your answer to that—not emotionally). Even more telling is the fact that not a single mainstream TV news outlet touched this story, the only entity to cover it was The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. (Click for Source.) Oh, and Ms. Dahlkemper was never reelected for her seat after that…

Yes, like those banks that are too big (and too criminal) to fail, but our government refuses to go after them. And, speaking of: That government is clearly already involved here via the FDA not allowing certain things to happen, and by Texas law enforcement constantly try to shut the doctor down. 

Right. But maybe in 10 years, Axelrod says, maybe then we can face it. If this therapy is unleashed now, it would destroy the current cancer drug market.

As dark and horrible as this sounds, through my journey of following this story and watching the pure hell these patients had to go through just to get the therapy, not to mention fighting their cancer itself—what I now believe is that something as innovative as Burzynski’s therapy is not meant to go to market now—not yet. Right now, it’s only for the very affluent—those who can afford such luxuries—the ones that are smarter than the rest—and the ones who simply "know better." I used to think that this fight could be won—and maybe it can—but the American public is just far too complacent to actually put up any sort of fight, and the regulatory agencies and industry are far too corrupted and in bed together to allow this therapy into their so-called "free market." I came to that conclusion by listening to the logical and scientific side of my brain—not the emotional side.

Burzynski's invention isn't alone—there are a handful of other extremely effective and highly advanced cancer therapies left under the radar that we can all gain access to, if we know where to look and want them bad enough. What is happening to Burzynski is far from a one-time anomaly.

This is simply the world in which we live.

Well, we know how despicable our own government can be in so many other ways. Now we can add this to the mix. Thanks so much for you time, Eric. And especially, thank you for your yeoman work on these two films—which brings to the public information that it desperately needs to know.

My pleasure. All I can say to everyone reading this: Think for yourself. Question everything, including me and my films. Feel free to fact check anything within the films—and don't take anything at face value, especially from "The Skeptics." Research, make up your own mind—and that doesn't mean stopping at a Wikipedia page and saying "Well, that's that! Wikipedia said it so it must be true! I'm done with my research!"

Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II 

releases throughout North America, United Kingdom, 

Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and more via TV and online 

"On Demand/Pay Per View" on June 1, 2013. 

 The DVD is also for sale shipping July 1, 2013. 

 For more info, click here. 

Seek out BURZYNSKI (maybe its doctor, too) in Eric Merola's new documentary ; Interview with the filmmaker

TrustMovies can sometimes be too credulous. He admits this. He would like to think it is part of his charm, but it is more likely related to his stupidity. And if he is being credulous again in his passionate plea that you seek out and view the new documentary BURZYNSKI, so be it. Better credulous in the cause of some-
thing you believe worthwhile than suspicious to the point of an ignorance that approaches fundamen-
talism. (For the latter, see the "review" in this week's Village Voice, full of snarky innuendo and near-complete misrepresentation of what the film contains.)

No documentary, save this year's Academy-blessed The Cove and Charles Ferguson's No End in Sight has angered me more than Burzynski, less about the title character, shown above, and what he is doing (which appears to be pretty damn good), than because of how the medical establishment and our government (both state and federal) have unjustly harassed this man and his work.  The unmitigated unfairness of what has gone on -- and continues to this day -- is so shocking and anger-making, that watching as it piles up in this documentary is enough to turn a reasonable man into a terrorist. And just why has all this happened?  The good doctor appears to have developed a cancer cure, the success rate for which clearly outdoes all others -- the use of antineoplastons in the treatment of human cancers -- while avoiding the often terrible and sometimes fatal (especially to children) side effects of radiation and chemotherapy. Instead of embracing and encouraging this treatment, the powers-that-be have brought Bursynski up again and again and again on charges that have no basis in fact.  Each time charges have been dismissed.  That his method works is not disputed.  What apparently is disputed is that a small, insignificant and maybe somewhat weird individual, rather than a large drug company, stands to profit from what looks like the best cancer cure anyone has come up with so far.

Further, it appears that, after trying to discredit his research and work, the government itself now holds what would be, under any kind of fair justice system, illegal patents on the very materials that Burzynski himself had earlier legally patented.  Harassment, deception, betrayal, theft, fraud and so much more are uncovered in this documentary by filmmaker Eric Merola (shown left) that Burzynski, absolutely one-sided as it is, still rivets and brings up questions that must be asked about the collusion between our government, drug companies, the FDA and some very large institutions supposedly dedicated to conquering cancer.

If you troll the web, you will come up with blogs that indicate that Dr. Bursynski also holds patents on cancer-fighting toothpaste, anti-aging creams and so forth.  This may all be true (or not), and it also may be true that the good doctor is a wacko in some regards and may hold ideas that may seem crazy to many of us.  But all this is beside the point of what Merola's documentary shows us.  It is the evidence that appears here that needs to be addressed and countered, if found incorrect.  Nobody that I have read so far has done this.  Instead they toss out innuendo and nasty generalities instead of addressing the very clear points at hand -- about the cures Bursynski's treatment has effected, the repeated harassment of the doctor, and the very sleazy-appearing dealings of the National Cancer Institute (above), the FDA (below), the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners and even the federal government patent office.  All this is very clearly shown in the documentary -- and so  the movie deserves to be seen, discussed and either exonerated or found wanting.

This film reminded me in some ways of Brent Leung's documentary House of Numbers that will finally be out on DVD later this month for all to see and finally weigh-in on. This is another good film that was summarily dismissed in similar fashion and deserves to be seen and argued about.

Burzynski opens Friday, June 4 at the Cinema Village theater in NYC, where director Merola will be appearing at Q&As following some of the showings of the film, and in Los Angeles at Laemmle's Music Hall 3.  Further playdates around the country can be found here; click and then scroll down.

*********

Because I was so impressed with this documentary, and because the Village Voice review is such a shoddy piece of  journalism, I contacted the filmmaker and asked him pointed, specific questions about the content of the Village Voice review, along with some of my own.  What follows is Trust Movies in bold and Eric Merola in standard type. I believe, if you read Mr. Merola's very good answers, you will be covinced, as am I, of his honest intentions and so will want to see his film.

I found the Voice review nasty from the get-go: calling you "a former art director of commercials" -- as though someone like that certainly can't be trusted to make a real documentary.  That's typically snarky innuendo. 

I'm not really sure how to respond to that one. I made a living in advertising, never really enjoyed it. I sort of got stuck in it, while always wanting to be in TV & Film. This is obviously an attack on my character, while ignoring the subject matter.

Since Ms Taylor mentions the possibility of an “undisclosed relationship,” I think this needs to be addressed. How did you come to make this documentary?

As I stated in my press kit, I have always been interested in documentaries that delve into hard truths, I'm a huge fan of "The Cove," "Food Inc," "Why We Fight," "No End In Sight," and so on.

I read a book called "The Cancer Industry" by Ralph Moss. Ralph was fired from Sloan-Kettering in 1977 for blowing the whistle on another coverup that occurred at Sloan. They were hiding positive results from a certain treatment, while going on TV saying the studies failed to show any efficacy. This story fascinated me. In his book, he had a chapter on Burzynski. What intrigued me about Burzynski was, he isn't peddling some "holistic treatment' or "lifestyle change" to treat cancer. He made an accidental profound discovery (as virtually all scientific discoveries are often made) by realizing that people with cancer lacked a certain strain of peptides in their blood and urine. I was also intrigued that he went up against every possible state and federal power in their attempts to halt his practices and won. No one beats the FDA, it just doesn't happen. He beat them twice.

One day in 2008 I literally called up the clinic to alert them I wanted to explore doing a documentary film on Burzynski. His assistants said "yeah, you and 10 other other people who claim to want to do this and either never follow through or waste Burzynski's precious time." Combined with the fact that Burzynski and his staff are always on the look-out for people posing as someone that wants to do the right thing, and then burns him in their report (see the recent Houston Press articles - they came in with a big smile pretending to be in support of him, only to burn him in their publication).

Burzynski was politely distrustful of me at the start. He made me read various books, review various publications, and jump through many hoops before even speaking to me in person. This was all through email via his assistants. Finally, after several months of back and forth and long gaps waiting for responses, he finally agreed to the first interview. I flew myself to Houston and had my first 5 hour on-camera interview with him.

I also told him I wanted patient's medical records. I said "I want only terminal diagnoses' diagnosed from third party institutions, and none of them could have previously undergone chemo or radiation before coming to him." I was given a slew to choose from. I interviewed more than a dozen total - traveling all over the nation on my own dime to interview them in their homes, and some who were in Houston just came into the clinic for the interview. This wasn't easy either - many of these patients were very distrustful of my intentions, they had seen what the press had done to him.

What started out as a doc about his discovery—and my primary goal was to show patients, their records, and their recovery—blossomed into something much bigger than I had planned.  I was also impressed at how organized and on top of his game Burzynski is. He had everything I needed readily available.

The longer I spent with him -- and the more he kept telling me about the rigged NCI clinical trials and the Dept Of Health and Human Services pairing up with one of his own scientists to file duplicate patents of his work -- the more things became exciting. However, I told him "I simply cannot put that stuff in this film unless it can be absolutely proven. Given the controversial nature of this film and his treatment as it is, I can't just start saying the NCI intentionally sent 9 people to death by ignoring protocols and diluting medicine -- and that the FDA itself was filing dupe patents of your work while simultaneously trying to throw you in prison. That's nuts!"  But, after a long and laborious process of digging up documentation, he was able to prove it all.

The documents regarding the rigged clinical trials (the letters back and forth with him and Friedman, the protocols that were signed off on, the protocols that were broken, the clumsy Mayo Clinic article stating themselves they diluted the medicine) -- these was easy for me to obtain, because Burzyski had sent a hard copy package of these documents in the late 1990's (and many more I couldn't possibly fit into the film) to Joe Biden, Pelosi, many congressman and senators as well as ALL major news organizations from TV to newspapers attempting to alert those in power to expose this.  NO ONE TOUCHED IT. I saw the hard copies, I have the pages of the "cc" list to the people it was sent to. Everyone ignored it. I felt it was my turn to use this very same documentation in my film as another attempt to get the info out there.

As far as the patents, that's easy, anyone can go to "free patents online" and download them for yourself. They are public domain.

To sum up your questions about "how I got into this doc" - what started as a curious inquiry turned into an absolute obsession for me. Once I realized how huge this story was, I literally dropped everything, quit my freelance job art directing JC Penney ads at Spontaneous in NYC, and started traveling everywhere from CA to Atlanta, to NC, you name it -- to interview patients.

I have exhausted all financial resources on this film. I am presently living off of credit cards and borrowed money until the DVD release. I never received a dime from Burzynski, never met him before this, never met a single patient of his before this, I literally picked up the story and never put it down. The entire process, from gaining his trust, gaining all the documents and records I needed, and realizing that "wow, there they are!" - it's all here.  No assumptions, no theories, just cold hard facts. I was stunned that I was able to acquire everything I needed to make this case. Lawyers have told me there is enough evidence in my film and in my possession to convict at least a handful of people for the rest of their lives -- that to me, is exciting. One really powerful lawyer even said he'd take the FDA to court "pro-bono" after seeing this film. But Burzynski told him, "no, we need the FDA to approve my drug, let's put this behind us, and move forward. We can't come in the front door asking for approval, and then the back door trying to indict them. We know we are right, they know they are wrong, the truth will surface." And it already has.

Another interesting note is, David Axelrod has seen this film. He was handed a copy of this DVD in Nov of 2009 at a meeting in Washington by his old college buddy (and friend of Burzynski) who was once an MD for Pfizer. I was told Axelrod "claimed" an investigation should be opened - but they've heard nothing since). The big boys know this treatment is legit. The White House knows. The problem is the financial devastation it will cause to the cancer industry if it is allowed to reach the public under the standard "7 year exclusive license" before it becomes generic.

Wow. I am even more impressed than I was just after watching the film. That pretty much does it. Unless there is anything more you want to add. For instance, in her VV review, Taylor says that Burzynski claims (italics mine) to have cured scores of patients of a lethal brain cancer.  But this is not just a claim, is it?This appears to have been proven, even according to the FDA and the courts.

Yes, the FDA's very own data, the very same data and process that any other member of Phrma would use to research a new drug for approval -- that process and the same people have recorded that the treatment works. No government entity, no physician who has reviewed his work (not some random article by the opposition, I'm talking about actually being in on a clinical trial, working directly with his patients, etc.) none of them have said "the treatment doesn't work." Look at the court testimony from Dr. Nicholas Patronas. He is the founder of the neuroradiology section of the NCI. The founder of the section of the NCI that deals exclusively with brain tumors! I'm not sure what else Ella needs! You really don't get much more "proven and legit" than a head of the NCI testifying under oath in support of Burzynski.

Ella also notes his claim to have cured scores of patients of a lethal brain cancer with a treatment derived from animal urine...

Again, not sure what else she needs than actual FDA data showing that Burzynski is the only scientist in history to have cured a childhood inoperable brainstam glioma. Not sure how the "claim" part works there. Likewise, Ella "claims" to have seen the film. And animal urine? Yeah, wow. Again, if she saw the film, she'd notice her glaring error.

What about the part where she notes that you produce no patient records other than the doctor's own, and offers no credible proof of the drug's success and no data about its side effects?

Again, in the film you see the medical records from third party institutions, like MD Anderson, etc. -- not Burzynski's records. And again, all of these patients' recoveries were verifed by the FDA itself, because after all, they were cured while attending an FDA supervised clinical trial (did I mention these patient's recoveries were supervised by the FDA?) . To say I only used Burzynski's own records is another example of Ella's embarrassingly clumsy attempts at pretending she watched the film.

Unless she really is just slow...

I should note that, because the film may appear bogged down with documents as it is, I did not include the fact that all of these patients' recoveries were also verified by another third party institution - just so Burzynski could cover his bases. Some of these are on the website; I now plan on adding ALL of them.

And then there's the fact that she says you slam chemotherapy and radiation...

Again, if you watch the film, I do not once slam chemo or radiation. I use the FDA's own data on their side effects. I also allow the NIH to state for themselves the problematic nature of chemo & radiation.

I do have to admit the documentary does seem one-sided.

Frankly, I think the media is filled with enough of the opposition -- anyone can read it all they wish. I had certain goals I wanted to meet:
1. Proof the medicine works - medical records, etc.
2. State level persecution and victory
3. Federal level persecution victory
4. Proof the NCI clinical trials were rigged to fail, killing those 9 patients. (This is an important one as all the opposing members use that article as "proof" his treatment doesn't work. I needed to show thoroughly that that article is scientifically invalid. The NCI even admitted before they published it that "no conclusion can be made" - yet they published it anyway.
5. The patents.

By the time you get through these five points, you have a full running time. I had originally included many of the opposition in the film, but I cut them for the final running time. For instance, Dr. Keith Black, a famous neurosurgeon in LA was on Larry King last fall sitting right next to Burzynski and waved around those invalid NCI trials as "proof" the treatment doesn't work. I had planned on calling him out on it. Second Dr. Black also claimed that the brain tumor patient he sent to Burzynski died shortly after. Well, the reality is, Jodi Fenton, who is the first patient in my film consulted with Dr. Black before going to Burzynski. Dr. Black told her he was a fraud and a quack. 30 days later - Jodi was cured of her brain tumor. Dr. Black fails to acknowledge this. As Jodi said in the film "he just wrote it off".

I did have the film packed with "opposition", but between running time and meeting the goals I felt I had to meet plus just looking at how absurd the "opposition" is, I decided to cut it. Again, anyone can spend hours reading the opposition. However, I also think that I do show some opposition in the film.

Sort of, I think.  In any case, you have really answered to my satisfaction Ms Taylor's objections as well as my own.

I'll be delighted to answer any more questions you might have.

TrustMovies wants to thanks Eric for the extra time and effort that he's put in here.  We wish him well for the success of his film so that Dr. Burzynski can continue his work, and so that Eric can stop adding more charges on those credit cards.  And we hope one or more of those lawyers decides to sue the hell out of a lot of the sleazebags involved in this case.

(All photos, with the exception of 

that of Mr. Merola, are from the film itself.)