Jett Travolta died today......

Post Reply New Topic

I would say that since you are making the assertion, the burden of proof falls to you. You ask me to prove a negative.

And I dont need you telling me whether I can post or not, unless you are a moderator.

I would bet that I know a bit more about it than you do as I have read most everything about scientology on the net since 1995.

You are asserting people are being murdered, yet provide not a lick of evidence. What evil in your soul provokes you?

Google News Jett and there are lots of articles, many bringing up autism concerns and discussing it quite frankly.

Well, little Miss Sunshine, try these 2 sites for starters....www.whyaretheydead.net and www.xenu.net

Reading all these articles, and they are all describing autism as a psychiatric problem or mental illness. Amazing. Not one states it is a neurological disorder. You'd think by now all these news organizations would have writers who would do a little research to state facts.

Makes one wonder what percentage of the news is plain inaccurate.

Quite a bit, actually. Not usually blatantly, but in the subtlety, the nuance of definition and accurate interpretation of data. If you've ever been quoted for an article, you figure it out pretty quick. You're happy if they got the gist of it, even if a third of the rest may be wrong.

A New York Post article...

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01042009/ne ... 147077.htm

It looks like enough interest is brewing for there to be a proper investigation. Perhaps some sort of good might come of this terrible tragedy. It still should have been prevented or at least the liklihood of it happening reduced.

Avoidable? How? By locking everyone who has ever had a seizure in a padded room for the rest of their lives?

My friend is epileptic, she takes her medicine, yet every now and again one slips through and she passes out. If this would happen while she was driving, she could kill herself, possibly others. Do you take away her driver's license or let her have freedom, all on that .0001% chance it happens at the wrong time?

Again, what happened to Jett is a tragedy, but to say anyone is to blame is ignorant of chance happenings.

I'd like to take this opportunity to post Mr. Bungle's homage to the big man


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G2v5dOQJuI[/youtube]

Coincidence that no one was there when it happened and he was found by the maid hours later and the fact that the "Church" of $cientology will profit from this with bogus cansuling sessions? I think not.

Even if $cientologists didn't go and kill him then, like someone else said, they are at least indirectly responsible for the death by not giving him the proper medication he needed.

They use dogs here, they can detect a seizure coming on and alert the patient or carer.

I understand a lot of you guys are concerned, but I'm the type who refuse to read People Magazine because I like to read non-fiction. Yahoo is my homepage, and one of the articles it headlined was that Jett may have died in John's arms. I didn't read it because I am not a fan of gossip, and that's all it is, gossip. If the alleged facts stated on this situation are true, then you got a case, but unless you know the people first hand, you can't confirm it. In addition, you guys seem to make a lot of assumptions based on one instance such as John neglected his son because he asked someone else to take care of a temper tantrum. Many parents can't deal well with their kids' temper tantrums, especially in public settings. If you have the luxury of having hired help, you would expect them to do what you pay them to do. That is not neglect. That doesn't mean he casted his son to the side out of sheer embarrassment. Now, if you were to tell me his son didn't get the same bonding type parenting from a celebrity because John's so busy with his job, that I would understand more. Many very busy people involved with their careers have children who seem more neglected than those who pull 40 hour work weeks. That doesn't make them bad parents in this world..maybe kinda in my mind, but not socially speaking that is. Wasn't McCain's VP a woman with a special needs child? How does that child get the proper care from mom when she's running for vice president? I think that's crazy, but that's the world for you.

As far as scientology, that's a jacked up religion. There are many of those jacked up religions out there, and I personally feel that anyone can jack up a decent religion. Even if they attempt to kill people that try to leave it, I still seriously doubt there is a direct connection to the death of a child who supposedly couldn't communicate. If that were the case, the child would have accidentally died a long time ago.

If this child had all the articles said this child had, then I'm sure John didn't hate or resent his child. The idea of having your own suite sounds like a nice gift from a loving considerate father. I knew a girl whose dad was Muslim and her mom was Irish, and when she came out with red hair, he used to make the Aunts dye it dark brown black regularly. He separated from the mom, and she was raised her early years by him. He and the boys enjoyed a nice mansion (so big you can actually tour it) while the women lived in the service quarters. I'm sure she isn't on the list to receive a huge inheritance upon his death like his sons are. Even then, now that she's grown and on her own trying to deny him as her father, he is always there to help her when she needs it. BTW, she now dyes her hair weekly different shades of red and blonde.

I'm just saying you can't assume that the parents were trying to distance themselves from their child by building a suite for him unless you know the parents and they told you that was why they built the suite.

Besides, you know John Travolta had to pop in Grease Lightning once in a while and dance with his kid.

To the OP and other similar posts, that's awesome you have such a big heart that goes out to children. I'm totally with you on that. Children are the future, and if one is neglected and it is in our power to fix that, then we fix it. I just want to caution you on something (I actually had two things in mind, but I totally forget the second one, so if I remember, I'll post it then). One, you are basically saying the Travolta's were bad parents, and imagine how infuriating that would be if someone were to disagree with the way you handle your children and questioned your love for them. I personally have been in positions where people misunderstand things and want to tell me how to be a parent. They always seem to have a strong opinion on me as a mom when they are not here enough to know what kind of mom I really am. Being in that kind of situation recently, and watching my sister also go through it, I just feel someone needs to state that it's really rude to judge a parent as a parent without really knowing what kind of parent they really are.

I will say that since I don't read celebrity gossip except for the headlines about Jennifer and Angelina (I'm a huge Angelina fan, and Brad Pitt did get the better actress and the better looking one at that), I had no idea that John Travolta was a scientologist until now. I kinda thought he was smarter than that. Tom Cruise makes sense to me. That man looks like a follower type. He always did movies that made money as opposed to being good movies. I knew he was into that because of South Park, but John Travolta? I never really was a fan of his, and I hate the way he smokes his cigarettes in movies (it just always bugged me), but I guess it could make sense. Maybe it's like cocaine. Anyone can become an addict.

A great number of people have complete control of their seizures through medication and even more have less seizures of greatly reduced effect because they have been prescribed medicine. Medicine that Travolta, Cruise and Scientology want banned (in favour of everyone becoming Scientologists instead).

While medication might not have prevented all of Jett Travolta's seizures, it may have prevented the one that killed him. It may have reduced the severity of it. It may not have, but on pure mathematical statistics, it's more likely that it would have.

Saying that people on medication still have seizures so there's no harm in denying someone medication is like saying that people are still dying in car crashes, even with seatbelts, so there's no point in wearing them.

We (the public) do NOT know whether or not the family was following doctor recommendations on treatment for the seizures. Even if the parents denied autism, it is possible the seizures were being treated by medication, or as recommended by the child's physician. There is conflicting information on that floating about, and most of what we're reading seems to be about what the family "most likely" would have done based on an outsider's perception of the church's teachings. Those who want to rush to judgement on this one, I think, need to wait until the facts are known.

As for treating the autism itself, even on this site there are many conflicting ideas about that. What it means, and what it shouldn't. I can understand that people may be upset over a parent's denial about a very real condition, the label of which has helped many make sense from their own lives, but treating or not treating autism isn't likely to be connected in any way with this acident. Treating or not treating seizures - yes, that is connected. Treating or not treating autism - not.

Even a parent who never uses the label of autism, but who does take great care to understand their child, and to tend to his needs, can do a very good job raising an autistic child. As a parent who doesn't buy into most of the "treatments," I do believe that. First and foremost is understanding your child. The label is far less important than what the parent DOES with his child. It seems there is controversy there, as well, when it comes to Jett, but we just don't know. There isn't enough information in the articles; just speculation and gossip.

I am interested in seeing what falls out from this case, because it will have an effect on the autistic community. If these parents failed their child, I want to know, because it effects all of us indirectly. But we do not have the information at this point in time.

In the same token people pick and choose which parts of religion they wish to listen to. Christianity and Catholicism have some very barberic intrepretations of things that should be done under literal definition. It is possible while being scientologists they are still giving their child medication its not like scientology would kick them out due to the fact that Travolta is a star and could bring more followers to their religion.

Unfortunately Scientology does not allow such freedom of thought or deviation from the infalible "Tech". Unlike other religions, in Scientology, you are constantly under review to make sure you are doing exactly what they say you should be doing. If you question or even choose to disregard some elements of the Tech that you disagree with, you are labelled PTS (a Potential Trouble Source) and you have to report for reprogramming or "Processing".

There is a division of the "church" called the RPF (Rehabilitation Project Force) that operates special camps for those who do not follow the course exactly as specified. I'll let you do your own research into Scientology's RPF, but the main gist of it is that they are sent to isolated compounds, denied any comforts and made to work long and hard until they fall into line.

Scientology hides behind the respect that we all should have for religious freedom, something I hold very dear. But Scientology is unlike any other religion - because, quite frankly, it isn't one. There is simply too much to go into in regards to this than we have the space or time for to discuss on this forum. I hope everyone does their own research.

I will protect any and every religion on the planet, even those that may be entirely contradictory to my moral and ethical standards. But not this one. It is not a religion. Even Satanism is a religion (sort of), even David Koresh's Branch Davidians were (are) a religion. Scientology, is not. People need to look into this to understand why. Unfortunately, without the information, we have some very good people defending a scam and a criminal organisation that they would be horrified by if they knew the truth.

Of course, to anyone who has just a cursory knowledge of Scientology, this comes across as bullying and anti-religious hate. I can only hope that anyone who feels that way does the research into why Scientology deserves this reaction. Looking up terms like "Scientology Fair Game", "Operation Snow White", "Operation Freakout", "Lisa MacPherson", "RPF" and "Affirmations, L Ron Hubbard" are a good start.

thats going to work on a highly public figure how quite frankly ...? if they did use it on him it would put publicity on scientology's pratices and they can't afford that so besides losing possible members they would have their most inhamane pratices would be brought to light so I doubt if John Travolta said I'm using seizure medications on my son they would fight with him about it. Theres too many people who would love scientology exposed more in the public eye for them to take the chance.