Aside from the debate and issues so far here, I guess if anyone were involved in such a sick plot of course they would deny it, time will tell , either that or something else is going on... and somebody wants someone "destroyed" as "fair game" by accusing them of the worst of crimes .
Either prospect is chlling.
Police in the Bahamas are deepening their investigation into an alleged plot to extort up to $25m from Hollywood star John Travolta over the death of his 16-year-old son.
A prominent politician on the island of Grand Bahama, Pleasant Bridgewater, quit as a member of the Bahamas senate over the weekend, and investigators questioned a former tourism minister who had claimed to be a close friend of the Travoltas.
Tarino Lightbourne, a paramedic who said he tried to revive him is still in custody, on suspicion of being part of an extortion plot, although neither the local police nor Mr Travolta’s lawyers have released details of the alleged scam.
Early reports suggested that Mr Lightbourne and others had been trying to get money in return for suppressing a photo of the 16-year-old just before he died, but conflicting accounts are now circulating in the island of 75,000 people
Ms Bridgewater, a leading lawyer and politician in the island, angrily vowed to clear her name, as she submitted her resignation from the 16-member senate appointed by the Bahamas governor-general, the Queen’s representative. She had been acting as a lawyer, and the charges of extortion were “untrue and unfair”, Ms Bridgewater said.
"How these innocent actions can be so misconstrued, so perversely twisted to mean something other than it was, is a mystery," she said without providing more details.
Last week, the Travolta family sparked a mystery by filing their extortion plot, saying: “Regrettably, in a time of such terrible grief, there are often a few individuals who attempt to make false claims in hopes of making millions of dollars. We will never let that happen."
Reports today suggested that family lawyers had entered negotiations with the people involved in the plot, in order to help gather evidence.
Its rather amusing to be accused of not believing in something by skeptic. (I was particularly impressed in the thread on Scientologists not believing in calculus.) I guess I was under the impression that "belief" was a bad thing on this board
Unfounded belief in unsubstantiated claims is generally considered stupid by many here. You unrelentingly and uncritically espouse the writings of L. Ron Hubbard -- a fact that gives most here pause for thought.
Then you go on to say what you think we think mental conditions are caused by. I guess the same mental conditions you claim we don't believe in. You even include "environmental" on the supposed list of causes which most psychology textbooks do acknowledge as a source of mental conditions.
Evidence-based medicine is generally accepted by most here. The unsubstantiated, unproven rantings of a pulp science-fiction writer are perchance, not.
The subject of Scientology does cover many "mental conditions" and the causes for them. So I guess we do "believe" in mental conditions. Still not sure why one would have to believe in such a thing as I can simply observe such conditions.
So you prefer to accept the unsubstantiated, largely uneducated rantings of a pulp science-fiction writer to the scholarship of evidence-based science?
Here is a very simple but all too common example of a mental condition and its cause: A man cheats on his spouse. He feels bad, some might even say depressed. He hides it from his wife. Eventually he decides to bite the bullet and tell his wife what he has done and deal with the consequences. (Not so common.) He feels better that is has faced up to the truth of his actions. If his wife doesn't kill him maybe they work it out and one day he doesn't have to sleep on the couch anymore.
Maybe you meant that we don't believe that mental conditions have a biological basis. Yet many writings by Ron says to watch out for that very thing. And indeed to have it looked into by a doctor.
Care to provide evidence for Hubbard's educational and professional qualifications for anything he said?
My son had a seizure once. And this was after numerous doctor visits for his cold/fever that kept going on and on. I did everything they said to do. Heck I kept taking him back to the doctor even when they said to not worry and just keep him at home. When he had the seizure I took him to the best damn hospital I could find. Let me make this clear - I had him in the car in 3 minutes and raced him to the best children's hospital in the state. He underwent 12 hours of tests - some of it very painful before we found out what was happening. He is much better now.
Guess what? That IS following some of the basic tenets of my religion. You really should attempt to face the idea that maybe you don't know everything there is to know on the subject of Scientology and actually study it without preconceived ideas and bias.
Fred, I avidly read Dianetics back in the 70s. It was Major BS then, and it's even more Major BS now, in light of my present knowledge and understanding. Frankly, I cannot understand how a seemingly intelligent person could or would buy into this nonsense.
As a so-called skeptic I would think the first thing you would be skeptical of is things that you think you know.
Quite. And at this point in my life I strongly feel that I know and understand a heck of a lot more than L. Ron Hubbard ever did. In particular, I know and understand that L. Ron Hubbard was a shyster and a grifter. His counterpart today would be Bernie Madoff, as far as selling pipe dreams goes.
What does L. Ron Hubbard have to do with this case? This is like saying that if someone is Catholic they must approve of child molestation and not just approve of it, but do it to their own child.
I'm still waiting for any evidence that the Travolta's son had autism and that the parents denied it at home and never treated them.
All I've heard so far is anecdotal evidence and hear say oh and wishful thinking.
To me the evidence shows that they did medicate their son, so its a non issue.
I'm sure in those patients for whom anticonvulsants are completely effective in suppressing seizures, they prevent seizure-related deaths.
As Ichneumonwasp has pointed out, seizure-related deaths is a general category, which includes falling deaths during seizure, drowning deaths during seizure, etc. SUDEP cases are a subset of seizure-related deaths, and the numbers don't seem to support your allegation that medication PREVENTS these deaths.
Some comments from the website you cited:
I lost my wonderful husband of 24 years on 25th June 2008 to this terrible
condition. My darling husband was only 48 years old and had suffered epilepsy
which the doctors were at a loss to treat or medicate properly - in truth, they
were not helpful at all and his medication did not ever work properly for him.
Submitted by Sue (not verified) on 27 August, 2008 - 14:02.
My prayers are with all these families who are going through such a tragic loss.
Our son Ben died in August of 2007 at the age of 7. His seizures were almost
completely controlled by medication.
Submitted by Jenny (not verified) on 2 October, 2008 - 18:40.
What is your evidence for this? I believe you have none, and this charge is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.
He appears to have been provided with two full-time caregivers. By making it more likely that each of his seizures would be observed, the Travoltas decreased the chances that he would injure himself during a seizure. They also made it more likely that he would receive prompt medical assistance if he seemed unresponsive after a seizure.
And yet the Travoltas reportedly treated their son for years with just such a drug, though it never eliminated his seizures. They discontinued it when it became less effective and its damaging side effects seemed (to them) to outweigh its benefits.
Were Jett's parents aware of the best practices regarding seizure treatment as exemplified in the article above? If not, why not? I think the answer is surely due to the teachings of the church where they are known to be vocal and outspoken proponents.
They seem to have been well aware of the best practices. They attempted to control his seizures with medication, and when that didn't work they took extraordinary steps to mitigate potential damage from his seizures. How do you jump from posing a hypothetical to concluding they were not aware? Having jumped to one unsupported conclusion, you quickly leap to another, concluding that the lack of awareness is "surely due to the teachings of the church."
They credited Scientology to the healing of their son from Kawasaki's disease. There is nothing in Scientology teachings that heals people from Kawasaki disease. It's an immune reaction that goes away on it's own and it does not leave sequelae of seizures..
So they gave credit where credit wasn't due. Lots of people go to the doctor demanding antibiotics for their colds, which are also self-limiting, or take mega-doses of vitamin C or "Grandma's herb tea". That doesn't mean they'll attempt to use the same treatment for a seizure.
The point of the "large block of text" that was clipped is that the site contains numerous comments from people whose loved ones were on medication, but still died of SUDEP. It is incorrect to state flatly that anticonvulsants prevent such deaths. The clipped comments included cases of people who died despite the fact that they were taking:
depakote and tegretol
trileptol
dilantin
every drug trial that came along
multiple anticonvulsants
"the neurologists were quick to put Grant on several anticonvulsants but if one
did not seem to be working they would not take him off this drug (just in case
it was helping)"
So among neurologists, there are those who will prescribe anticonvulsants even when their effectiveness is not evident. In light of the correlation between multiple anticonvulsants and SUDEP, is that a good idea? Should people have unquestioning faith in the correctness of any course of treatment, as long as it was designed by a physician?
The idea that everyone having seizures should be medicated seems much too simplistic for the diverse circumstances of the individuals and families who have to deal with this condition. Those whose seizures do not respond well to medication (and Jett Travolta was apparently one such) may be justified in seeking other treatment options, such as full-time in-home care.
No one knows for sure, but we think that the connection between multiple drugs and SUDEP is that poorly controlled patients have a greater chance of dying from SUDEP, and poorly controlled patients often end up taking multiple medications. There could, however, be a direct connection between the multiple drugs and sudden death, particularly if those drugs conspire to act on sodium channels, as a few of them do.
We need more knowledge about the pathogenesis of epilepsy in each case -- something lacking today -- in order to design better treatment options. At this point we don't even know what meds will work for what individual patient. When they have been compared head to head, all the drugs seem essentially equivalent (with few exceptions) in large groups of people; but some drugs work well for one person but not the next. We know that certain drugs work better for partial onset epilepsy (seizure begins in one area of the brain and spreads) and others work well for generalized (seizures start all over the brain at the same time) epilepsy as well as partial onset. One (Ethosuximide) tends to work well for absence seizures but not for partial onset seizures.
In the future, I would hope that we could run a genetic profile on everyone and choose the medicine that should work best for that particular individual, so that we needn't muck about with trying one drug then another.
I want my tricorder now.
Should people have unquestioning faith in the correctness of any course of treatment, as long as it was designed by a physician?
The idea that everyone having seizures should be medicated seems much too simplistic for the diverse circumstances of the individuals and families who have to deal with this condition.
Yes. In general, though, we always begin with medication and move on from there to other treatment options. There are rare patients who seem not to respond to any medicine; and those people occasionally opt against medical treatment. Some will have vagus nerve stimulators placed if resective surgery is not an option. A few will try the ketogenic diet -- rare for adults. Some will just take Ativan when they have a seizure to prevent a second or third event. It's rare, but it happens sometimes.
There is no evidence that Jett Travolta fit into that category, however. Trying one medicine is not trying them all.
Those whose seizures do not respond well to medication (and Jett Travolta was apparently one such) may be justified in seeking other treatment options, such as full-time in-home care.
Another example of a logical fallacy is moving the goal posts:
Someone can go from being medically qualified to diagnose autism based on a YouTube clip, to being capable of observing abnormal behavior on a YouTube clip.
You are confusing the issues here. Goal posts are not moving.
I am medically qualified to diagnose autism. I have a license to make such a diagnosis in this state. That is a fact.
I said the you tube video showed behavior consistent with autism.
I said the behavior of the parents blaming the son's medical condition on a sentinel event was consistent with other parents of autistic children.
I listed other things which were consistent with Jett having autism.
That you don't have the qualifications to draw such a conclusion does not impact on the fact I do.
"Consistent with" does not mean "Is certain".
Being qualified to diagnose doesn't mean one cannot observe behaviors and not make a definitive diagnose.
The language I have used in this thread is correct. If you'd care to find a post you believe I actually made a false claim in, I'll look at it to see if I did.
No one knows for sure, but we think that the connection between multiple drugs and SUDEP is that poorly controlled patients have a greater chance of dying from SUDEP, and poorly controlled patients often end up taking multiple medications.
The most reasonable explanation for the correlations between SUDEP and multiple meds/frequently changed meds is, as you say, that patients with poorly controlled seizures are likely to be trying more medications.
When they have been compared head to head, all the drugs seem essentially equivalent (with few exceptions) in large groups of people; but some drugs work well for one person but not the next. [...] In general, though, we always begin with medication and move on from there to other treatment options. [...] Trying one medicine is not trying them all. [...Jett] apparently only tried the one medication. There were many other options, not just home care.
It may be that a general anti-medication bias reinforced by Scientology beliefs (or vice versa), coupled with the fact that they could easily afford personal care caused them to abandon drug treatments prematurely when one drug lost its effectiveness and adverse side effects were seen. If I faced a similar decision, I know I'd try more than one medication before giving up on them all.
Still, it wasn't my decision to make in this case. I don't know what other treatment options they discussed with their physicians, or what they tried, or even the complete set of factors which may have gone into their (assumed) decision to stop medication after Depakote. And no one knows whether a different set of choices would have led to a different outcome.
In general, people making decisions about medical care should get as much information as they can from as many trustworthy sources as they can. I don't regard Scientology publications as trustworthy sources for medical information.
I got mine at the University of WA and I have a license in the state of WA to diagnose autism and other mental disorders. Just because you don't feel the evidence is sufficient doesn't mean the evidence is not. There is sufficient evidence when you look at the totality of it to draw at least some tentative conclusions here. Obviously there isn't enough evidence for a definitive diagnosis. But there is more than enough evidence for a tentative one.
I concluded from the evidence I listed in post #515 that there is convincing evidence Jett had autism. He may have had some other disorder. He clearly wasn't normal.
I am medically qualified to diagnose autism. I have a license to make such a diagnosis in this state. That is a fact.
I said the you tube video showed behavior consistent with autism.
I said the behavior of the parents blaming the son's medical condition on a sentinel event was consistent with other parents of autistic children.
I listed other things which were consistent with Jett having autism.
That you don't have the qualifications to draw such a conclusion does not impact on the fact I do.
If you are qualified to diagnose autism then you are qualified to diagnose autism based on the actual criteria. These criteria are highly detailed and complex and do not include watching a YouTube video or noting that parents have odd notions about what caused their child's problems. Nor do they include the other 'evidence' you have posted.
You may be able to tell that his behaviour and his parents' actions were consistent with autism but that is not the same as diagnosing (however tentatively) autism.
Besides which, whether he had autism or not seems to be wholely irrelevant to whether his parent's faith had anything to do with his death.
You are confusing the issues here. Goal posts are not moving.
I am medically qualified to diagnose autism. I have a license to make such a diagnosis in this state. That is a fact.
I said the you tube video showed behavior consistent with autism.
I said the behavior of the parents blaming the son's medical condition on a sentinel event was consistent with other parents of autistic children.
I listed other things which were consistent with Jett having autism.
That you don't have the qualifications to draw such a conclusion does not impact on the fact I do.
"Consistent with" does not mean "Is certain".
Being qualified to diagnose doesn't mean one cannot observe behaviors and not make a definitive diagnose.
The language I have used in this thread is correct. If you'd care to find a post you believe I actually made a false claim in, I'll look at it to see if I did.
It is your claim that you are qualified to diagnose what is consistent with certain behavior from a few seconds of video?
Well I would suggest that every person on the planet has at some point in their life behaved in the manner on the video. I fail to see how you can claim to have an authority on this matter. The fact that you do, based on what you are suggesting undermines your attempt at authority.
I do not know of any medical professional that would attempt to diagnose a person that they have not met in person. The only equivalent I can think of are those "plastic surgery" experts that tell us who had PS in the rag mags.
I read a news magazine story once about how Preston was going to heal her son using "all natural" cleaning products, blah blah.
Didn't work.
Seems that Travolta may be sinking into a depression, but after what he said to a fellow actor about her post-partum depression-he won't be getting any good help for that either.
Wonder if his bad health will or something else will now finish him off? Too bad.
I read a news magazine story once about how Preston was going to heal her son using "all natural" cleaning products, blah blah.
Didn't work.
Seems that Travolta may be sinking into a depression, but after what he said to a fellow actor about her post-partum depression-he won't be getting any good help for that either.
Wonder if his bad health will or something else will now finish him off? Too bad.
This is painful to read. Add to this that once Travolta leaves CoS, that their "Fair Game" policy kicks in, and it gets even worse. That this "church" would go out of their way to destroy this man, simply because he's questioning what it is he believes, simply because he asks if his "faith" killed his son, is unconscionable.
If the man were sitting here with me now, I'd tell Travolta, "I'm sorry this happened. But you cannot blame yourself for anything more than trying to do the best you could." A Lie? Perhaps. But I can live with it for now. He's got a lot more on his plate than he really needs.
In the meantime, that there is no autopsy report as yet, I'm willing to wait. I'd like to see what that would reveal.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
