John Travolta's 16-year old son dies

[MG1962]

History is evidence.

If it can be shown that you have done something repeatedly in the past, you do not get to claim it is unfair that other are suspicious of you doing it again.

Oh okay - So a child has died (No access to his medical records, nor treatment regime) A autopsy to be performed (No acess to medical records)

And you are able to do a diagnosis that just happens to conform with a preconcieved notion you have about the persons religion.

Some real elephant and peanut action going on here

 

[applecorped]

History is not evidence.

 

[Drudgewire]

Speculation is just that, speculation. I believe there's some gun-jumping going on here to be sure, but it doesn't mean there isn't any merit to the suspicions beyond "hatred of their religion."

As mentioned earlier, the explanation they'd always given for his condition, Kawasaki's Disease, is exceedingly rare beyond the age of five. Does that mean it's a lie? Not at all. But the fact (and it is a FACT) they belong to a religion which does not recognize a disease which his symptoms seems to fit a lot better is, to say the least, curious.

I also agree that history should not be weighed as evidence on its own, but when it falls into place with other factors (the child standing on his toes, for instance) it shouldn't be discounted completely either simply because it doesn't seem "fair."

We may never know what happened, and to be honest at the end of the day it may not be any of our business. But the Travoltas are public figures, and they belong to a religion who have not only a skewed view of medically-accepted diseases, but a history of alternative treatments which has been known to leave a body or two in its wake.

It's absolutely not a matter of 1+1=2 by any means. But I'm puzzled at the vitriolic attacks on those who are suggesting there's any connection whatsoever. Unsupported speculation? Yes. But that's what almost any investigation is going to be in its earliest stages. You throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks.

 

[plumjam]

I agree with Lionking.
Arti, why not just come out and say it? You really hope that Scientology had some part to play in the boy's death, so you can use it as further ammunition in your shapeless, repetitive rants.
You're probably getting repetitive strain injury from writing the same words again and again - Tom Cruise, the hijackers, Fred Phelps, and Jim Jones. If you could only add 'the Travoltas' to that list then it might just improve your RSI diagnosis.

 

[kittynh]

well honestly, I somehow doubt John Travolta or his family read this forum. I iimagine none of his friends read this forum

so if people want to speculate a tad, and say "hey this might not have caused the kids death, but let's discuss how this child was raised and the health treatmen for Scientology children"... I mean, yeah, their methods have probably caused the deaths of many children if they reject things like treatment for depression.

So, is anyone saying what caused Jett's death? Nope

Did Travolta on Larry King say his childs illness was caused by too much cleaning and toxins and he went through a Scientology detox? yes (in fact it was replayed on Larry King last night).

Is the Scientologists treatment of their children important to discuss...yes. Because before this I didn't know how extensive this was.

A lot of people think Scientology is just a silly little religion. No harm. Lotta actors.

Well, it's far more dangerous than I imagined.

 

[desertgal]

Speculation is just that, speculation. I believe there's some gun-jumping going on here to be sure, but it doesn't mean there isn't any merit to the suspicions beyond "hatred of their religion."

I'm not saying there isn't some merit to the speculation. But Pondering Turtle, Articulett, and Smackety are presenting "speculation" as "evidence". If it is just speculation, then say that.

As mentioned earlier, the explanation they'd always given for his condition, Kawasaki's Disease, is exceedingly rare beyond the age of five. Does that mean it's a lie? Not at all.

Ah, but they haven't ALWAYS given that explanation. Preston said, twice, in 2001 and 2002, that Jett was diagnosed with KS as a toddler, and went through Scientology detox to "cure" him. Travolta said the same thing in 2001. Neither one of them said, back then, that the boy still had KS. Neither one of them has addressed the issue since those interviews. It's the press that keep reiterating what the parents said years ago and making KS a "current" medical issue.

But the fact (and it is a FACT) they belong to a religion which does not recognize a disease which his symptoms seems to fit a lot better is, to say the least, curious.

That, I don't argue with. But, again, none of us know that the Travoltas didn't address the issue of autism privately, or how they might have addressed it. If it is proven that they did, in fact, neglect the lad's autism because of their religion, then they DO deserve to be censured for that. But, that hasn't been proven yet. So, why accuse them of killing their son without proof?

I also agree that history should not be weighed as evidence on its own, but when it falls into place with other factors (the child standing on his toes, for instance) it shouldn't be discounted completely either simply because it doesn't seem "fair."

That isn't what I said. What I said is that it wasn't fair was to present speculation as factual evidence.

We may never know what happened, and to be honest at the end of the day it may not be any of our business. But the Travoltas are public figures, and they belong to a religion who have not only a skewed view of medically-accepted diseases, but a history of alternative treatments which has been known to leave a body or two in its wake.

It's absolutely not a matter of 1+1-2 by any means. But I'm puzzled at the vitriolic attacks on those who are suggesting there's any connection whatsoever. Unsupported speculation? Yes. But that's what almost any investigation is going to be in its earliest stages. You throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks.

Yes, yes, and yes. All agreed. But, speculation is not factual evidence. It shouldn't be claimed as such.

And I'm not being vitriolic, believe me. But, the kid is dead, and his parents are grieving. That's all any of us know right now. Why accuse them of killing their child before the facts are in? If that happened to one of us, we'd be screaming that it is unfair.

 

[Lonewulf]

Oh okay - So a child has died (No access to his medical records, nor treatment regime) A autopsy to be performed (No acess to medical records)

And you are able to do a diagnosis that just happens to conform with a preconcieved notion you have about the persons religion.

Some real elephant and peanut action going on here

I'm guessing that people now define "evidence" to mean "absolute proof".

Preconcieved notion. Hah, that's a laugh... I'm hoping you didn't mean that in the way your comment came off. Us evil bigots, daring to think that the Co$ has a bad history with mental illness, and that the fact that a child had seizures in the past is a scary indication...

 

[Soapy Sam]

A very sad event, whatever the causes.
Speculation is legitimate.
Evidence is better.

My sympathy to the family.

 

[Drudgewire]

I'm not saying there isn't some merit to the speculation. But Pondering Turtle, Articulett, and Smackety are presenting "speculation" as "evidence". If it is just speculation, then say that.

I'm not naming names by any stretch. But as a pro-gun guy you certainly don't have to worry about me disagreeing that some to all of those mentioned do let their emotions get in the way of rational thinking on occasion.

Ah, but they haven't ALWAYS given that explanation. Preston said, twice, in 2001 and 2002, that Jett was diagnosed with KS as a toddler, and went through Scientology detox to "cure" him. Travolta said the same thing in 2001. Neither one of them said, back then, that the boy still had KS. Neither one of them has addressed the issue since those interviews. It's the press that keep reiterating what the parents said years ago and making KS a "current" medical issue.

You are absolutely correct. These are things that are getting fuzzy and are the exact reason we should be confronting this head-on rather than muddying up the waters like is happening almost everywhere else this topic is being discussed. As critical thinkers, we have a duty to ourselves to do so.

That, I don't argue with. But, again, none of us know that the Travoltas didn't address the issue of autism privately, or how they might have addressed it. If it is proven that they did, in fact, neglect the lad's autism because of their religion, then they DO deserve to be censured for that. But, that hasn't been proven yet. So, why accuse them of killing their son without proof?

Again, I couldn't agree more. That's why speculation isn't a bad thing, as long as its used as a jumping off point rather than to form a conclusion one way or the other.

That isn't what I said. What I said is that it wasn't fair was to present speculation as factual evidence.

My post wasn't all about you, you egomaniac.

Yes, yes, and yes. All agreed. But, speculation is not factual evidence. It shouldn't be claimed as such.

Once again, we're on the same page. To be honest, the reason my comments were mainly directed one way is because I'm still a bit shell-shocked at the very idea of sticking up for Articulett for anything ever.

And I'm not being vitriolic, believe me. But, the kid is dead, and his parents are grieving. That's all any of us know right now. Why accuse them of killing their child before the facts are in? If that happened to one of us, we'd be screaming that it is unfair.

BUT if we'd become a public face of an organization who refuses to accept the existence of the disease there's even a tiny possibily might have been the cause of death, we'd know deep down in our hearts it isn't as unfair as we'd want it to be.

 

[kittynh]

you know what the REAL proven tragedy of this is?

That once again parents are ashamed of their child with autism or some other illness.

It's like if your child is not "normal", and they have a very narrow definition of normal, then you must deny it. Or you have to blame something like cleaning chemicals for your childs disability. It can't be YOU and just the way the world works. I do give them credit for giving the children some privacy in life. I do blame them for not accepting that children with autism and other illnesses ARE normal. They should be accepted into our society and treated with the best medical care we have, but also, not treated as some sort of horrible result of too much cleaning product or a vaccination.

Guess what. Non "perfect" children happen. Our society is made up of people that are of all types. The parents that stand up proudly and accept that sometimes we don't have the children we imagine, but our world has a place for all children no matter what their conditions, are the parents I admire. The world isn't going to judge you badly as a parent because you had a less than perfect child. And yeah it was just YOU and your spouse and not cleaning agents or a vaccination. Stand up and say "yes, we made this child, and this child is alright just the way he is". He doesn't need to get better. He's ok the way he is.

I wonder if the parents think that by having a less than "perfect" child people will think THEY are less than "perfect". I certainly think any parent that denies their child validation as a "normal" person is far from perfect. Normal is children with different degrees of ability and disability. When will parents get that?

 

[applecorped]

you know what the REAL proven tragedy of this is?

That once again parents are ashamed of their child with autism or some other illness.

Some parents.

 

[Drudgewire]

you know what the REAL proven tragedy of this is?

That once again parents are ashamed of their child with autism or some other illness.

While it might seem as though I'm all over the board here, I'm just trying to keep things in perspective.

We DON'T KNOW that's the case here. If it is, you're right. And even if it isn't, your points are still valid in a general sense. But for now let's stay above the fray and look before we leap.

 

[kittynh]

It should be noted during the Larry King interview the Travoltas were firm in their belief that cleaning agents caused whatever problems their child was having. The wife said she cleaned his nursery carpet "obsessively."
OK, so at the very least they are guilty of spreading bad medical information.

And I do feel badly. If they believed as parents that they were guilty of causing their child to suffer because they cleaned his nursery carpet too much, how much guilt and misery is that to live with? If Scientology had anything to do with that belief, well then the "church" is guilty of making that family suffer needlessly.

How much nicer for them to just know, "hey, that's life. It wasn't us. It wasn't decisions we made. It's just sometimes this happens. Aren't we lucky to have the resources to give this child all that he will need?"

 

[MG1962]

I'm guessing that people now define "evidence" to mean "absolute proof".

Preconcieved notion. Hah, that's a laugh... I'm hoping you didn't mean that in the way your comment came off. Us evil bigots, daring to think that the Co$ has a bad history with mental illness, and that the fact that a child had seizures in the past is a scary indication...

You read the comment exactly as it was meant. The logic leap, mental illness = seizures, shows it. There are many many reasons people have seizures. Three of my four daughters have suffered such episodes in their life, none related to any mental illness.

The fact that the linkage has been made as a critism of scientology shows the preconcieved nature of the arguement. Because a late episode of Kawasakis disease doesnt fit the need to attribute blame, therefore it is being ignore in all this speculation

 

[Wowbagger]

I, for one, shall wait for the evidence to come in, before slamming Scientology completely, for this one.

I understand Articulette's and other's points. But, do we really know enough details about the situation? Do we really know if Jett was or was not on seizure medication, yet?

Let's all be good skeptics, and start with a neutral stance, instead of knee-jerk reation. Let us see exactly where the evidence goes, before we make judgement.

 

[rwguinn]

You read the comment exactly as it was meant. The logic leap, mental illness = seizures, shows it. There are many many reasons people have seizures. Three of my four daughters have suffered such episodes in their life, none related to any mental illness.

The fact that the linkage has been made as a critism of scientology shows the preconcieved nature of the arguement. Because a late episode of Kawasakis disease doesnt fit the need to attribute blame, therefore it is being ignore in all this speculation

I was wondering this myself.
How does one make the leap from Mental illness (loony, demented, crazy, pick your favorite prejudicial term) to Neurological disorder (epilepsy, siezures, etc) being one and the same?

 

[Lonewulf]

I was wondering this myself.
How does one make the leap from Mental illness (loony, demented, crazy, pick your favorite prejudicial term) to Neurological disorder (epilepsy, siezures, etc) being one and the same?

Scientology treats them the same, as far as I know.

By all means, if you can show that they treat neurological disorders with proper medical treatment, then go right ahead.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to be a "bigot" and assume that scientology's "special" doctors would be used to treat Neurological Disorders as much as mental illness.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Wow, I get up this morning and see that this thread has absolutely exploded

I, like many here, am not ready to place complete blame on $cientology for Jett's tragic death. However, I am still extremely suspicious, given what I've learned so far.

Those of you wanting to toss invectives at each other, have at it. I'm interested more in learning more about $cientology's stance on autism and similar issues myself.

well honestly, I somehow doubt John Travolta or his family read this forum. I iimagine none of his friends read this forum

I get the sense there are at least one or two $cientologists on the forum. Interesting that I haven't seen any of them posting here yet.

so if people want to speculate a tad, and say "hey this might not have caused the kids death, but let's discuss how this child was raised and the health treatmen for Scientology children"... I mean, yeah, their methods have probably caused the deaths of many children if they reject things like treatment for depression.

Excellent point. Thank you for articulating it so well.

So, is anyone saying what caused Jett's death? Nope

Correct. I am, at this stage, saying that I have suspicions, nothing more. As I said in an earlier post, I am not ready to scream from the rooftops that "$cientology killed Jett Travolta!"

Yet.

Did Travolta on Larry King say his childs illness was caused by too much cleaning and toxins and he went through a Scientology detox? yes (in fact it was replayed on Larry King last night).

Really? I'd never heard of this before. Does anyone have a link on this?

Is the Scientologists treatment of their children important to discuss...yes. Because before this I didn't know how extensive this was.

A lot of people think Scientology is just a silly little religion. No harm. Lotta actors.

Well, it's far more dangerous than I imagined.

Agreed. In my opinion, scrutiny of $cientology should, if anything, be increased.

 

[ponderingturtle]

History is not evidence.

So if a man regularly beat his wife so she needed to go to the hospital it should not be presented at the murder trial as it is meaningless.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not saying there isn't some merit to the speculation. But Pondering Turtle, Articulett, and Smackety are presenting "speculation" as "evidence". If it is just speculation, then say that.

No your position has been that it is not reasonable to think that Scientology ever does anything wrong, regardless of past crimes committed. You ignore the history and can only rate things for specifics of that case.

If you are for ignoring history you can't say that there is any reason to speculate. You have been clear up till now, there is no reason to suspect anything here, and anyone who does so based on the past is clearly being horribly biased and unreasonable.


Clearly it is horribly wrong to investigate deaths of christian scientist children as well.