An Open Letter to Kylee Dixon’s Doctors – Medical Kidnapping

Dear Doctor Jason Glover and Doctor Mubeen Jafri,

We are producing a documentary movie. One of our documentaries will be covering Kylee Dixon’s Medical Kidnapping story and will be streaming worldwide upon completion. We have several questions, and we are hoping for an official response from you. The people who are following this story would like to have some answers. We would also like the opportunity to interview you when we arrive in Oregon for our filming. Should you allow it, these are the questions we will ask.

We understand that you cannot respond to any medical questions that pertain directly to Kylee’s ongoing or prior medical records due to HIPPA laws. Still, we would like to ask you some general questions not directly related to Kylee’s medical records.

It has come to our attention that you intend to perform an unwanted surgery on 13-year-old Kylee Dixon, which violates her civil rights. The mother, whose civil rights have also been violated, whose authority has been unconstitutionally terminated, does not want the surgery for her daughter.

Can you please explain why you are willing to violate two people’s federal civil rights? Have you consulted with a federal attorney and the possibility of liability in this matter? 

Could you please tell us how many of these same types of surgeries you have performed and how many of them were successful? How many were not and why? 

We see you are involved in experimental therapeutics. We would like to know how you feel about the medical experimentation on children in the foster care system who are used in these experimental studies quite often and can be against what is morally and ethically correct?

In general, when a child has a severe adverse CNS reaction, and the Black Box Warning on the Chemotherapy drug clearly says to stop using the drug on the patient, under what circumstances would you continue using it and why?

We understand why when Kylee had severe CNS reactions, and the black label warning says to cease administration, it was not immediately stopped. Again, we are not asking specifics about Kylee’s case but general information about why and when you would not heed and abide by the warning? We were advised that you would only consider not giving Kylee chemotherapy if you can remove all of the tumors. 

Currently, patients with UESL have a poor prognosis as there is no successful treatment strategy. This comes from the allopathic treatment documentation. So why would you not allow the natural remedies that have worked for so many others?  Are you aware that there are a plethora of people curing cancer that your mainstream industry purposely suppresses the availability of the information?

There is an overwhelming amount of people who agree that the mother’s decision of treatment should be made. There is only a small percentage who agree that the state should make the decision. Do you have anything to say to those who agree you should not do the surgery and violate their civil rights?

Young children who have been molested or sexually assaulted have an intensely traumatic time during and directly after the incidents. Emotional and psychological health and the mind-body connection are a large part of the real medicine’s protocol in healing disease.

Do you think a child should have traumatic surgery just a few weeks after her sexual assaults had ceased? Do you believe a child who experienced such horrors should be evaluated by a psychologist before a dangerous surgery? Do you believe the outcome could be much worse when a child is extremely against surgery? Do you believe in the mind-body connection at all or just in chemicals? 

How do you feel that this child will not have her mother present before and after her surgery? Kylee has eight aunts, and they will not be allowed to see either. How would you react if your child had to have surgery with not one family member present and you were not allowed anywhere near her? Would you be okay with that?  

In Oct of 2016, an article was published that advised an analysis did not reveal a significant improvement in the OS of patients who received chemotherapy alone or radiation therapy. The lack of survival benefit with chemotherapy and radiation may be attributable to differences in patient populations.

Kylee has told you that she does not want chemotherapy again. Her mother is against it, and you said you would try alternatives only if you remove all of the tumors.

Since chemotherapy almost killed Kylee and caused severe adverse reactions and should have been discontinued, why would you ever allow chemotherapy again when it has no benefit, only the possibility of severe adverse events including but not limited to death?

Some studies from Europe and Japan have shown that survival rates with alcohol injection or radiofrequency ablation procedures are comparable to the survival rates of those who had a resection. If the mother and Kylee are adamant about not doing surgery, why are you not offering alternative options?

If one of your children had such toxic adverse chemotherapy reactions that brought them close to death, would you allow more chemotherapy? If your answer is no, how would you feel if the state forced you to administer it to your child and you were against it knowing it could kill the child?

In your U-tube video Dr. Glover, you discuss cancer treatment and advise of toxic adverse side effects; deafness, cardiac issues, and infertility. You say the treatment can be quite toxic. Knowing Kylee’s history of adverse effects, why would you give her more toxic treatment?

How much money will you make if you give Kylee chemotherapy?

You are well aware of the toxic reaction Kylee had to chemotherapy, the black box warning, and the possibility of death if the worst-case scenario were to happen with chemotherapy; what would you say to the mother, the thousands of supporters and the documentary staff, 

If this were to happen, what would you say to the millions of people who will see this documentary?

Christine Dixon has been asking for a second opinion month after month, and it has been refused. Why has this not been granted, and what harm can a second opinion do? We ask you, what are you afraid of, Doctor Glover? Doctor Jafri?

We, the people, would like some answers.

Respectfully,

The Documentary Staff and Kylee Dixon Supporters

Ifosfamide Encephalopathy

Abstract

Encephalopathy is a potentially fatal toxicity of ifosfamide. Clinical manifestations of encephalopathy range from fatigue and confusion to coma and death. Early identification of this toxicity and prompt cessation of ifosfamide are the essential elements in the management of ifosfamide encephalopathy. Accurate prediction of this toxicity is often difficult. Based on the limited available evidence, methylene blue, an electron acceptor, may have a role in the treatment and the prevention of neurotoxicity. This paper reviews the current understanding of ifosfamide encephalopathy.