Jett Travolta RIP

condra

Did Scientology kill John Travoltas son, Jett Travolta?

I'm guessing they probably did, but I have no facts to back up my opinion, just, it's the kinda thing they'd do.

King Mob

womoma wrote: »

but I have no facts to back up my opinion:D

Must be true then.

condra

lol

ShaneU

ALL HAIL XENU!

Setun

There is speculation that his death may be related to the scientologist stance on western autism medication. L Ron Hubbard said that autism is psychosomatic, and has a detox programme to help the autistic - which may or may not have had fatal implications on Jett Travolta.

Short answer: Maybe!

Mr. Incognito

initially I laughed. Then I thought of the grief the family must be feeling.........

that made me stop. 16 years old. Jesus.

Diabhal Beag

Talk about killing a dead 16 year lad, SORRY, flogging a dead horse

Tristram

Oh, I thought the Lisbon Treaty was responsible. My bad.

condra

What if I phrased the question:

If John Travolta wasn't a member of the cult of Scientology, would his son Jett still be alive today?

King Mob

womoma wrote: »

What if I phrased the question:

If John Travolta wasn't a member of the cult of Scientology, would his son Jett still be alive today?

The way you phrased it intially seem to suggest that scientology killed him on purpose.

It's possible that they denied him proper medical care. However as far as I know Jett was only speculated to have autism, but was never diagnosed as such.

The one good thing about this is hopefully it will shine a spotlight on Scientology's bogus medical claims.

Run_to_da_hills

According to this report he didn't die from Scientology

http://entertainment.oneindia.in/hollywood/top-stories/scoop/2009/travoltas-son-not-victim-cult-070109.html

Ciaran500

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

According to this report he didn't die from Scientology

According to Scientoligists he didn't die from Scientology.

I thought you'd be a bit more critical thinking than that.

Run_to_da_hills

Ciaran500 wrote: »

According to Scientoligists he didn't die from Scientology.

I thought you'd be a bit more critical thinking than that.

Edited.

Ciaran500

Ciaran500 wrote: »

According to Scientoligists he didn't die from Scientology.

I thought you'd be a bit more critical thinking than that.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Ciaran500 wrote: »

According to Scientoligists he didn't die from Scientology.

I thought you'd be a bit more critical thinking than that.

Edited.

Where :S

Mahatma coat

Womoma, I'd like to change thst thread title to somthing a little less inflamatory, Scientoligst are all over the place, something like that might cause problems for the site

so, any ideas on how you'd like it to read instead.

I'd go with a simple 'Jett Travolta RIP' , actually thats what I'm gonna change it to now, but if you hae a better idea I'll implement it

condra

Cool hopefully boards don't get sued. I have heard the COS like suing people

Jetts death is tragic. I hate to think he may not have been recieving the medical help he needed because of (what I consider to be) a fruity little cult.

The fact that he probably wasn't in a position to make a logical, informed decision on his own ideology and lifestyle makes it especially interesting for a secularist like myself.

Still, come to think of it, no matter what people think of the COS, the event is a tragedy, not a conspiracy. My bad.

espinolman

womoma wrote: »

Cool hopefully boards don't get sued. I have heard the COS like suing people

Jetts death is tragic. I hate to think he may not have been recieving the medical help he needed because of (what I consider to be) a fruity little cult.

The fact that he probably wasn't in a position to make a logical, informed decision on his own ideology and lifestyle makes it especially interesting for a secularist like myself.

Still, come to think of it, no matter what people think of the COS, the event is a tragedy, not a conspiracy. My bad.

Maybe you should have named it 'Did alCIAda kill jett travolta' . (thats just what i was thinking when i heard about this tragedy)

Tomk1

Mahatma coat wrote: »

'Jett Travolta RIP'

Do they even believe in Rest in Peace.
When I heard about this first, I thought how terriable.

1.Thing is has the actions of this crazy believe directly attribuated to his death.
2. Lets speculate, if cos directly killed jett, why?
3. If John was not a member of cos would jett be alive now.

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

Maybe you should have named it 'Did alCIAda kill jett travolta' . (thats just what i was thinking when i heard about this tragedy)

Call me a 'conspiracy theororist' but i think that is exactly like something alCIAda would do to get a hate campaign going against a minority religion.

Kernel

Daddio wrote:

There is speculation that his death may be related to the scientologist stance on western autism medication. L Ron Hubbard said that autism is psychosomatic, and has a detox programme to help the autistic - which may or may not have had fatal implications on Jett Travolta.

I prefer Robert Kennedy Juniors analysis on preservatives used in vaccination as a cause of autism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrIM2hwrLoc

Legend.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

I prefer Robert Kennedy Juniors analysis on preservatives used in vaccination as a cause of autism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrIM2hwrLoc

Legend.

Despite the large amount of evidence show that this isn't true and the complete lack of evidence linking autism with any kind of vaccine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy


But if Robert Kennedy Jr said it, it must be true.

Run_to_da_hills

I suggest locking this thread and letting the poor kid rest in peace.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Despite the large amount of evidence show that this isn't true and the complete lack of evidence linking autism with any kind of vaccine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy


But if Robert Kennedy Jr said it, it must be true.

Bah, even your own link (on wiki!) says that they need to do further research on the issue. Mercury is a poison. Injecting said poison into babies is bad. Particularly bad since it's used as a preservative to cut costs for drugs corporations.

http://www.naturalnews.com/011764.html
http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php

condra

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I suggest locking this thread and letting the poor kid rest in peace.

I would strongly disagree with locking the thread, but perhaps moving it to A+A, Celebrities, or Skepticism.

Celebrities and their families, live and die in the public eye. Aside from the fact that none of the Travolta family will ever read this, the general tone of the thread is relatively sober and measured.

I personally feel it important that people be aware of, and discuss the possible dangers of superstitious/dogmatic belief.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Bah, even your own link (on wiki!) says that they need to do further research on the issue. Mercury is a poison. Injecting said poison into babies is bad. Particularly bad since it's used as a preservative to cut costs for drugs corporations.

http://www.naturalnews.com/011764.html
http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php

Yea and sodium is a poison and incredibly reactive and most people ingest it everyday. Eating that poison is bad.
Great logic!

But maybe you have some kind of good evidence linking autism with vaccinations? Or some evidence to show that the conclusion of pretty much every medical body is flawed?

Or are you just assume a conspiracy because some people claimed one?

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Yea and sodium is a poison and incredibly reactive and most people ingest it everyday. Eating that poison is bad.
Great logic!

But maybe you have some kind of good evidence linking autism with vaccinations? Or some evidence to show that the conclusion of pretty much every medical body is flawed?

Big difference between sodium in compounds and mercury my good man. The medical jury is still out on the link between autism and vaccinations, and most will say that while they believe baby vaccinations to be safe, that more study needs to be done. Studies have shown an increase in tremors after vaccinations for a start - does that sound good to you? The WHO organisation has an agenda to control disease and herd immunisation is a great way to do this. I'd wager that they would be prepared to gloss over minority cases of serious side effects to ensure that public confidence and thus that people continue to take the vaccinations.

As for the drugs corporations? I wouldn't believe much from them (or studies which they have funded), as they exist solely for profit.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Big difference between sodium in compounds and mercury my good man.

That's my point. They aren't injecting mercury into babies as you claim as much as people aren't eating sodium everyday.

Kernel wrote: »

The medical jury is still out on the link between autism and vaccinations, and most will say that while they believe baby vaccinations to be safe, that more study needs to be done.

No that's plain not true. The "medical jury" have firmly said there is no evidence to support a link between autism and vaccination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy#Scientific_consensus_on_controversy

Have you evidence to the contrary?

Kernel wrote: »

Studies have shown an increase in tremors after vaccinations for a start - does that sound good to you?

What studies?
How is "a increase in tremors" indicative of autism?

Kernel wrote: »

The WHO organisation has an agenda to control disease and herd immunisation is a great way to do this. I'd wager that they would be prepared to gloss over minority cases of serious side effects to ensure that public confidence and thus that people continue to take the vaccinations.

Herd immunisation doesn't work if a lot of people refuse to have there kids vaccinated. In fact there have been a few larger than usual outbreaks in the US due to an increase of unvaccinated children.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/01/health/main4063974.shtml
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/21/us-measles-cases-highest_n_120493.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7819874.stm
Do you have anything to show any "serious side effects"?

Kernel wrote: »

As for the drugs corporations? I wouldn't believe much from them (or studies which they have funded), as they exist solely for profit.

And is this the only reason you believe that vaccinations are dangerous? Ignore any evidence that comes form an official source?

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

That's my point. They aren't injecting mercury into babies as you claim as much as people aren't eating sodium everyday.

Mercury is present in the vaccines however, and mercury is a serious toxin which causes neurological problems. In fact, the CDC in America recommends a safe level of such a toxin - a level which was surpassed in many cases particularly with Hepatitis B vaccination.

King Mob wrote: »

No that's plain not true. The "medical jury" have firmly said there is no evidence to support a link between autism and vaccination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy#Scientific_consensus_on_controversy

Have you evidence to the contrary?

Yes, I suggest you research further than the wiki page. Studies are ongoing at the moment, with one in Argentina almost ready for release. It appears to show that ethyl mercury is less of a problem to metabolise and pass out of the body than methyl mercury. Here are some preliminary findings:

Currently the investigators of this study are completing their analyses of the data obtained from this study. Preliminary results indicate
Mercury, in the form of methyl mercury (oral ingestion) and thimerosal (intramuscular injection with vaccines) were both readily absorbed and distributed into blood and brain.
Total (organic plus inorganic) mercury was cleared from both blood and brain faster after thimerosal exposure than after methyl mercury exposure.
Levels of total mercury measured in blood and in brain were lower after thimerosal exposure than after methyl mercury exposure.
The proportion of brain mercury that was inorganic was higher in thimerosal-exposed animals compared with methyl mercury.
The absolute amount of inorganic mercury was higher in thimerosal-exposed animals compared with methyl mercury.
During weekly doses of methyl mercury, total mercury in blood continued to accumulate, while during weekly doses of thimerosal, there was little accumulation of total mercury in blood.

Source: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/thimerosalqa.htm

King Mob wrote: »

What studies?
How is "a increase in tremors" indicative of autism?

Google it, research it. Must CTers spoon feed for every point. Here is some info:

Both methylmercury and ethylmercury can cause peripheral and central nervous system injury in adults and children following acute or chronic, high-dose dietary exposure(1,10,19). Symptoms may include tremors, spasms, numbness and tingling of extremities, and a range of psychomotor and psychologic effects including irritability, restlessness, difficulty concentrating, decreased memory, and depression. Many of these symptoms and signs resemble those found in autistic children. Studies of the effects of ethylmercury and methylmercury in rats suggest comparable observable neurologic effects of intoxication between these two compounds(14,20,21).

Source: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/02vol28/dr2809ea.html

from:

4. Ball LK, Ball R, Pratt RD. An assessment of thimerosal use in childhood vaccines. Pediatrics 2001;107:1147-154.

20. Magos L. Review on the toxicity of ethylmercury, including its presence as a preservative in biological and pharmaceutical products. J Appl Toxicol 2001;21:1-5.

21. Suzuki T, Takemoto T, Kashiwazaki H et al. Metabolic fate of ethylmercury salts in man and animal. In: Miler MW, Clarkson TW, eds. Mercury, mercurials and mercaptans. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas, 1973.

King Mob wrote: »

Herd immunisation doesn't work if a lot of people refuse to have there kids vaccinated. In fact there have been a few larger than usual outbreaks in the US due to an increase of unvaccinated children.

That's my point. Re-read it.

King Mob wrote: »

Do you have anything to show any "serious side effects"?

Obviously there is the explosion in autism which you will say is down to changes in diagnosis. Apart from that, there are allergic reactions which can result in infants having to be recussitated after adminstration.

King Mob wrote: »

And is this the only reason you believe that vaccinations are dangerous? Ignore any evidence that comes form an official source?

I didn't say official sources, I said sources who profit from such studies. Much the same way the tobacco companies in the US had many many studies showing smoking tobacco did not cause lung cancer.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_U.S._Government's_racketeering_case_against_Big_Tobacco

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Mercury is present in the vaccines however, and mercury is a serious toxin which causes neurological problems. In fact, the CDC in America recommends a safe level of such a toxin - a level which was surpassed in many cases particularly with Hepatitis B vaccination.

Yes high doses of mercury cause mercury poisoning not autism.
How much higher was this Hepatitis B vaccination was it over the safe level when it was introduced and is it still in use?

Kernel wrote: »

Yes, I suggest you research further than the wiki page. Studies are ongoing at the moment, with one in Argentina almost ready for release. It appears to show that ethyl mercury is less of a problem to metabolise and pass out of the body than methyl mercury. Here are some preliminary findings:

Source: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/thimerosalqa.htm

Funny that study mentions absolutely nothing about vaccines causing autism. Even if there are ongoing studies. Studies that have come before have shown there is no link between vaccines and autism.

Kernel wrote: »

Google it, research it. Must CTers spoon feed for every point. Here is some info:

You made the claim you can back it up.

Both methylmercury and ethylmercury can cause peripheral and central nervous system injury in adults and children following acute or chronic, high-dose dietary exposure(1,10,19). Symptoms may include tremors, spasms, numbness and tingling of extremities, and a range of psychomotor and psychologic effects including irritability, restlessness, difficulty concentrating, decreased memory, and depression. Many of these symptoms and signs resemble those found in autistic children. Studies of the effects of ethylmercury and methylmercury in rats suggest comparable observable neurologic effects of intoxication between these two compounds(14,20,21).

"Acute or chronic, high-dose dietary exposure" not the levels in vaccines. You said the was evidence of babies having tremors after the vaccinations. the paper says nothing about that.

From that same paper

Adverse neurodevelopmental effects following vaccine-related ethylmercury exposures -if these adverse effects do exist -are either extremely subtle and difficult to measure or occur at a frequency that is so low that they have escaped reliable detection(14,29,31). Nevertheless, additional studies are being undertaken to further evaluate whether there is any association between neurodevelopmental disorders and exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines(29).

Kernel wrote: »

That's my point. Re-read it.

Could you clarify your point?

Kernel wrote: »

Obviously there is the explosion in autism which you will say is down to changes in diagnosis.

Um yea I am going to say because it's a reasonable explanation. And there have been changes in how autism is diagnosed. How is this explanation wrong? Simply stating that I'll bring it up isn't much of an argument.
Also there are studies showing no decrease in autism rates despite the thiomersal being removed.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/290/13/1763
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/65/1/19

Kernel wrote: »

Apart from that, there are allergic reactions which can result in infants having to be recussitated after adminstration.

Yea that's a allergic reaction. Same can happen for peanuts and milk. Perhaps we should ban them.
But you have no evidence to show that a baby who is not allergic will have "serious side effects."

Kernel wrote: »

I didn't say official sources, I said sources who profit from such studies. Much the same way the tobacco companies in the US had many many studies showing smoking tobacco did not cause lung cancer.

So then you can point out where the studies are wrong or covered up?
And what about independent and international studies are they getting paid off?
Just because it has happened before does not mean it does every time. By your logic since Nixon was involved with the Watergate scandal therefore Obama will do the same.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Yes high doses of mercury cause mercury poisoning not autism.
How much higher was this Hepatitis B vaccination was it over the safe level when it was introduced and is it still in use?

Google it. Symptoms of mercury poisoning are similar to autism, which has led to medical studies to seek a correlation. Such studies are still ongoing.

King Mob wrote: »

Funny that study mentions absolutely nothing about vaccines causing autism. Even if there are ongoing studies. Studies that have come before have shown there is no link between vaccines and autism.

Eh, are you for real? Thimerosol, ethyl-mercury, vaccinations.... remember what we are talking about? As for previous studies, do you have proof that such studies have definitively shown no link between vaccines and autism? Prove it.

King Mob wrote: »

You made the claim you can back it up.

Eh, I just did.... immediately after the line you plucked out and replied to!

King Mob wrote: »

Could you clarify your point?

Here, I'll just take it right out.

kernel wrote:

The WHO organisation has an agenda to control disease and herd immunisation is a great way to do this. I'd wager that they would be prepared to gloss over minority cases of serious side effects to ensure that public confidence and thus that people continue to take the vaccinations.

Herd immunisation only works when everyone takes the vaccines, is it clear enough or is there something else you want clarified?

King Mob wrote: »

Um yea I am going to say because it's a reasonable explanation. And there have been changes in how autism is diagnosed. How is this explanation wrong? Simply stating that I'll bring it up isn't much of an argument.

Prove to me that the increase in autism is linked to the changes in diagnosis. You made the claim, so the onus is on you to prove it.

King Mob wrote: »

Also there are studies showing no decrease in autism rates despite the thiomersal being removed.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/290/13/1763
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/65/1/19

I'm aware of those studies, after all I linked to them.... I need to look further into the Danish results before I can comment on them.

King Mob wrote: »

So then you can point out where the studies are wrong or covered up?
And what about independent and international studies are they getting paid off?
Just because it has happened before does not mean it does every time. By your logic since Nixon was involved with the Watergate scandal therefore Obama will do the same.

How can I prove that? You know I cannot, unless I can fund a widespread medical study myself. Strawman! Your point about Nixon and Obama is completely incorrect. Corporations exist for profit, therefore any action they conduct to damage profits is against their reason d'etre. The choices between 2 politicians depend on a number of factors, not least of which personal beliefs and morality.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Google it. Symptoms of mercury poisoning are similar to autism, which has led to medical studies to seek a correlation. Such studies are still ongoing.

And a lot have finished and showed no link between autism and vaccinations.

Kernel wrote: »

Eh, are you for real? Thimerosol, ethyl-mercury, vaccinations.... remember what we are talking about?

That study said nothing about whether or not Vaccines cause autism.

Kernel wrote: »

As for previous studies, do you have proof that such studies have definitively shown no link between vaccines and autism? Prove it.

http://www.nature.com/clpt/journal/v82/n6/abs/6100407a.html
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/5/1039
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/3/577
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/3/604
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/13/1281
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/e139

These and the studies showing removing thiomersal had no effect on the rate of autism all came from the first link I gave from wikipedia. They are just a small few of the studies showing no link between autism and vaccinations.

Kernel wrote: »

Eh, I just did.... immediately after the line you plucked out and replied to!

Yea so why the big problem about being asked?

Kernel wrote: »

Herd immunisation only works when everyone takes the vaccines, is it clear enough or is there something else you want clarified?

I wasn't sure what point you were making.

Kernel wrote: »

Prove to me that the increase in autism is linked to the changes in diagnosis. You made the claim, so the onus is on you to prove it.

I'm not sure if it is the singular explanation, there might be other factors.
But here's a good article on the subject.
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=454

Kernel wrote: »

I'm aware of those studies, after all I linked to them.... I need to look further into the Danish results before I can comment on them.

Um when did you link to them?

Kernel wrote: »

How can I prove that? You know I cannot, unless I can fund a widespread medical study myself. Strawman!

So then how do you know they are wrong or covered up.

Kernel wrote: »

Your point about Nixon and Obama is completely incorrect. Corporations exist for profit, therefore any action they conduct to damage profits is against their reason d'etre. The choices between 2 politicians depend on a number of factors, not least of which personal beliefs and morality.

Yes but that is the only reason you have to believe vaccines to be dangerous despite evidence to the contrary.