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
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
and "criminal mistreatment".
The surgery was temporarily delayed by a judge, but after state
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
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
But there is, in fact,
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." 
"Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their
nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. "
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.  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.
there were no large clinical trials supporting that
or surgery, are effective in suppressing cancer either
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.
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.
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.
 Ferro et al. GPR55 signalling promotes proliferation of
pancreatic cancer cells and tumour growth in mice, and its inhibition
increases effects of gemcitabine, 2018