Comments on: Glosslip Exclusive: Daily Mail Threatened By Church of Scientology, Forced To Pull Travolta Story

By: questions

questions — Thu, 21 May 2009 10:35:58 +0000

What really needs to be known is whether they took blood samples post-mortem which would show if he had anti seizure meds on board. It is correct that you change one med for another if there are side effects and you never leave someone off seizure meds when they are having two grand mal seizures a day. the Travoltas in Scn have “pulled this in” namely that they did something that incurred Jetts’ problems. This is handled with auditing and if you have read the Anderson Report or Ask the Scientologist-thought control you will realize just how pernicious auditing is. This is very sad but Travolta will not understand its consequences.

By: Jamie Jackson

Jamie Jackson — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:19:47 +0000

apaheri = Tommy Davis?

By: Over and out....

Over and out.... — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:47:50 +0000

Aphari,
Are you kidding me? OT’s are not suppose to have epilepsy or any other physical problem for that matter! It is just an engram that should have been ran out when the person went clear.
Plus, Depakote IS a psyche drug (in scientology) which would have meant if Jett took it then he is an illegal P.C. And so are those other people taking meds that are used to treat psyche disorders as well as seizures. You cannot get auditing if you are on seizure meds!!!! AND IT IS A LIE THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TAKE SEIZURE MEDS PAST THE STATE OF CLEAR. YOU SHOULD NOT NEED THEM!!!! So Tommy Davis lied his butt off on t.v to make it sound like people are allowed to take their meds, they’re NOT! OT’s are considered to be a new race called “Homo Novis” and are not suseptible to physical ailments anymore. Meaning they can cure themselves because they have “super powers” to do so because they went OT.

By: HOS

HOS — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:05:34 +0000

Not to mention that Scientology has its army of lawyers and plenty of money; even if the judgement is eventually in the Daily Mail’s favour, they could quite possibly bankrupt the Daily Mail from the legal fees.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 04:37:07 +0000

“The remark he makes on this tape means that you can get in severe trouble trying to get epileptics off their medication. That I know, Church practice in 2009 still is not to interfere in epilepsy medication.”

On what planet-Teegeeack?

By: Mitsu Too

Mitsu Too — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 01:13:45 +0000

“It is my opinion that if a newspaper felt that there was no ground for litigation, they would not just put the article down upon a simple notice.”

Aphari there is a reason why the phrase “Sue them in England” exists. Whereas in US courts the person doing the suing has to prove how they were harmed or libeled, in England the person being sued has to prove everything that is printed. England is known as the Mecca for libel tourism which is why so many books end up not being sold in England. People from all over then world that aren’t even British citizens can sue any author, newspaper, publisher, etc. even if they also do not live in England for libel. Even if you choose to ignore the lawsuit you risk having a judgement against you in “absentia” because you did not respond. So it is not so “simple” as you put it. Do you believe that LRH was a war hero BTW since you did not respond to that earlier?

By: apaheri

apaheri — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:28:26 +0000

I will try to answer in just one post because yesterday I tried to post the missing links of my post and I could not so I figured that one can only post once a day or that there should be a delay between two consecutive posts or something like that. I will see if this one goes through.

“apaheri

“Please stop falling back on the Tory thing. Just like the Cult of $cientology you only seem able to beat just one dead horse.

Address the fact that Co$ is just a money hungry cult, fair game, and how it goes as far as it can to silence it’s critics. Tell us what you think of the fact that Hubbard was found with enough drugs to put down an elephant in his system upon death.”

I am not going to address some old topics because I think it is not the place here to enter in a full debate about things that have been beaten to death already.

Nor do I “fall back on Tory”. I answer to arguments that has been made about it. If you have no more things to say about it I won’t either.

“You’re kidding, right? I thought it was common knowledge that a simple threat by the cult, with their leigon of slimy lawyers, is generally all that’s needed to get an article taken down. (Or a book-The Complex ring a bell?)”

It is my opinion that if a newspaper felt that there was no ground for litigation, they would not just put the article down upon a simple notice.

“Why did Hubbard say this about seizures?

But the doctors keep them on something to prevent this. Its just a tranquilizer and they keep them on that one year, year in and year out. And then you come along as an auditor and you try to audit the pc and you tell the pc that hell have to go off that drug. And then all of a sudden, why something will happen from someplace or another that the pc will tell the doctor that they have been taken off the drug by the auditor. And the doctor will call up plaintively asking you to please put her back on the drug because she needs this.”

The remark he makes on this tape means that you can get in severe trouble trying to get epileptics off their medication. That I know, Church practice in 2009 still is not to interfere in epilepsy medication.

By: Beth

Beth — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:34:08 +0000

My son suffers from epilepsy.
He lost oxygen at birth due to the cord nearly choking him to death.
As a result he is special needs.
I have met many special needs children, and I’ve never heard of anyone having seizures due to autism.
I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but in the course of my son going to special ed schooling we’ve met every medical condition that probably exists in children, and some have autism.
Epilepsy is the result of a brain injury.
That injury can occur at birth, and usually surfaces before a child turns 18. Adults can develop epilepsy later in life but that is generally due to a severe blow to the head, ie: car accident, fall, etc.
The Travoltas lawyer put out a statement that they had Jett on Depakote. My son is on that medication.
The lawyer said that Jett was having 4 seizures a week, was put on Depakote which reduced the seizures to 1 every 3 weeks. Over time, he said, the seizures returned to once a week. He also went on to say that the Depakote was harming his liver, and that after consulting with their doctor, the doctor agreed Jett should be taken off the Depakote. First, that is malpractice IMO, and second yes, it can hurt your liver but that is why you do at the very least 2 blood workups per year.
Over time you can build a resistance to a certain medicationsfor seizures, and will have seizures, and if you gain weight for example the dosage needs to be increased or it will become less effective.
My son is on Depakote, but he hasn’t been throughout his life. When another medication wasn’t working and he had a breakout seizure the medications have been changed. If the Depakote wasn’t working for their son another could have been added, like Tegretol.
Depakote is not the only medication for epilespy on the market.
Any doctor who takes a child off anti seizure medication, especially one experiencing grand mal seizures is out of their minds. That’s why I can’t believe the lawyers statement.
If Jett’s seizure were not controlled or couldn’t be did the Travoltas ever try the diet of high fat? Did they explore surgery which has in a lot of cases ended seizures for children like Jett who had so many seizures?
I don’t know what Scientologists believe, but if they can’t accept flaws in a human being, or refuse to believe that some people do have afflictions involving the brain then why would they medicate the brain?

By: Daily Mail Threatened By Church of Scientology - Cult information from cult expert Steve Hassan

Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:23:52 +0000

[...] is a summary extract from the full article as it appeared on Glossip, Jan. 2009 (Full Article [Cached]) which cites the full article at WhyWeProtest Full Article [...]

By: TunaGhost

TunaGhost — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:38:36 +0000

Autism is not a psychological disorder, it is a neurological disorder and thus not within the realm of “psychosomatic” illnesses as described by the Church of Scientology. If the Travoltas’ son was indeed autistic, there would have been no problem from the Church if they treated him as such.

The only suspicious note in this tragedy is the fact that his nanny’s medical credentials are suspect (if not entirely fictional).