Kylee Dixon - between forced surgery and cannabis oil

The story of Kylee Dixon, a 13-year old from Oregon, resembles a movie. In march 2018 she was diagnosed with undifferentiated embryonic sarcoma, a rare form of liver cancer. For six months she went through devastating chemotherapy, making her mother Christina feel her daughter "was on the death row".

After the chemo, she brought her home, and put her on non-invasive, unofficial alternative therapy based on nutritional support, herbs and cannabidiol (CBD), oil derived from cannabis. According to the mother, it shrunk Kylee's tumor by 90%.

So she didn't bring Kylee to the follow up surgery, scheduled for June 2019. In response, court order was issued to place Kylee into state's custody. The mother went on the run with her daughter, but they were ultimately tracked down, ending with Kylee being placed with a foster family, and scheduled for the surgery. The mother was charged with

"custodial interference" and "criminal mistreatment".

The surgery was temporarily delayed by a judge, but after state attorneys quoted multiple doctors describing Kylee's condition as "medical emergency", presented medical scans showing the tumor to be still "active", along with the state's claim that there was "70% chance" surgery would stop the tumor, the "go ahead" was given.

Also, Kylee, who previously didn't want the surgery, changed her mind.

Few days ago, she underwent surgery. It is too early to tell how successful it will be - we can only hope for the best.

Now, putting aside the questionable state's right to impose medical treatment of its choice on someone's child, the missing piece here is:

what were the chances of suppressing or eliminating tumor
with the alternative treatment of mother's choice?

Isn't that crucial in determining what is better for Kylee, and whether her mother did anything wrong, or not?

Of course, the worn out statement that "there is no scientific evidence showing those treatments are effective" is not answering that question. The question is: is there a scientific evidence showing they are ineffective? Were there any sound scientific studies, like large clinical trials, supporting either conclusion? Short answer is: "no".

Hmmh, how convenient. Such studies, of course, need funds, which only pharmaceutical companies, or the government, can provide - and they evidently didn't. So they can claim "no scientific evidence".

But there is, in fact,

scientific evidence that CBD does work.

Even the National Cancer Institute, a staunch supporter of the official therapies, lists several small studies finding CBD to be effective against tumor growth:

"Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis invasion and metastasis." [2]

and

"Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. " [2]

There are also other studies with similar conclusions.

For instance, a study from June last year found CBD to be as effective in slowing down pancreatic cancer as much as an approved chemo drug (gemcitabine), with the combined therapy being three times more effective. [1] However, since there was no study focused on using CBD alone, or with other alternative cancer suppressing factors, or therapies, it is reasonable to conclude that the benefit of such therapy could be larger than with the approved chemo drug alone.

By the way, pancreatic cancer is among the hardest to treat.

There are also many individuals that did use CBD for personal cancer therapy, crediting it significantly, or solely, for their recovery. CBD's scientifically proven cancer-suppressing effect only adds credibility to it.

In other words, scientific evidence wise, CBD is just as efficient - or possibly more - than the officially approved chemo drug for which, presumably, there is scientific evidence it works.

And,

there were no large clinical trials supporting that chemo,
or surgery, are effective in suppressing cancer either -

their approval was based solely on the pharmaceutical industry's own research (making its objectivity suspect from the get go), as well as the empirical outcomes presented, again, by the industry itself, or by industry-controlled medical establishment.

If so,

why didn't the judge consider and honor the evidence supporting CBD's efficacy?

Why the effect of CDB treatment which, according to the mother, was very successful, wasn't assessed? Instead, court went with the state's vague description of the tumor being "still active", not relating in any way to the effect of either therapy, official (chemo) or alternative.

Was the whole court process for the show, just to give legitimacy to the state's forceful implementation of medical therapy of its choice? The answer seems to be obvious.

_________

[1] GPR55 signalling promotes proliferation of pancreatic cancer cells and tumour growth in mice, and its inhibition increases effects of gemcitabine, Ferro et al. 2018

[2] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq

January 22. update: According to the Oregon Department of Human Services, Kylee was released from the hospital after surgery, and she's "doing very well"; her mother was not allowed to see her, but "has been provided regular updates on Kylee's progress". However, the mother, speaking out on a Facebook video, says she knows nothing about neither surgery, nor Kylee's whereabouts after release (source: KATU).
February 4th update: After "successful surgery", Kylee was released from state protective custody and reunited with her mother
(source: KPTV).

TOP

YOUR BODY ┆ HEALTH RECIPE ┆ NUTRITION ┆ TOXINS ┆ SYMPTOMS

Comments

No one has commented yet. Be the first!