Kelly Preston Dies @ 57

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 100 percent Scientology would not let her treat it with conventional meds until too late.

I was under the impression that Scientology is fine with typical modern medical treatment of physical illnesses but completely against the typical modern medical treatment of mental illnesses. Am I wrong? I watched “Going Clear” and a few of the first episodes of Leah Remini’s show.

I was under this impression, too, that there was nothing in the writings that banned modern medicine.

Having said that, it's hard for people who are not inside the church to really know what exactly is expected of those in the inside based simply on the published writings and public statements.

My understanding is that mental health treatment is an issue. There was speculation that David Miscavige's wide was mentally ill and was being kept from receiving treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had absolutely no idea she was even sick. Did anyone else? How very sad.

Good for them. It’s refreshing to see a celebrity keep something quiet. And shows that it can be done, if your mother/publicist isn’t calling the entertainment press to let them know.

Dp why do you say this? When Michael J, Fox revealed his Parkinson's disease it helps everyone. It brings awareness to it and helps raise money for a cure. Cancer isn't something to be ashamed of, pp!

A person's medical record is also very private. Some people do not wish to disclose it to others. You need to respect the patient's wishes.

My dad died from terminal cancer and he was VERY private outside of our immediate family. He did not even want our extended family to know for a long time.

He said to me that once people know you have cancer that is all the see. He did not want to be treated differently or people to act differently around him.

It's not everyone's job to raise awareness.

And she spent her final few years on 'Autism Awareness' because of her son. Wth? Was she supposed to be the poster woman for everything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had absolutely no idea she was even sick. Did anyone else? How very sad.

Good for them. It’s refreshing to see a celebrity keep something quiet. And shows that it can be done, if your mother/publicist isn’t calling the entertainment press to let them know.

Dp why do you say this? When Michael J, Fox revealed his Parkinson's disease it helps everyone. It brings awareness to it and helps raise money for a cure. Cancer isn't something to be ashamed of, pp!

Do you really think people aren’t aware of breast cancer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had absolutely no idea she was even sick. Did anyone else? How very sad.

Good for them. It’s refreshing to see a celebrity keep something quiet. And shows that it can be done, if your mother/publicist isn’t calling the entertainment press to let them know.

Dp why do you say this? When Michael J, Fox revealed his Parkinson's disease it helps everyone. It brings awareness to it and helps raise money for a cure. Cancer isn't something to be ashamed of, pp!

A person's medical record is also very private. Some people do not wish to disclose it to others. You need to respect the patient's wishes.

My dad died from terminal cancer and he was VERY private outside of our immediate family. He did not even want our extended family to know for a long time.

He said to me that once people know you have cancer that is all the see. He did not want to be treated differently or people to act differently around him.

It's not everyone's job to raise awareness.

My mother did the same thing with her diagnosis and sheese after she died and some people learned about it (no one particularly close) they were mad that they weren’t informed. I fielded a few exasperated phone calls from these people who felt they were entitled to my mother’s medical status.

[Anonymous]

When I heard the news I immediately thought something doesn't sound right here. Between the evils of Scientology and Travolta's very not well-kept secrets, to her just all of a sudden passing away and him revealing it in the way he did with no other indications she was sick before this, it just seems strange.

I'm wondering if it isn't the truth at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will scientology find him a new wife eventually? Will he marry the nanny or nurse?

What a horrible comment. What is wrong with you? It was clear he was deeply in love with his wife.

DP. He may have loved her but is quite well known for his trysts with males, regularly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will scientology find him a new wife eventually? Will he marry the nanny or nurse?

He'll marry someone in the church. I know divorce is really hard in scientology.

Uh, death of a spouse doesn't equal a divorce so I think this is a moot point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very sad, way too young. I wonder if hormones from IVF brought on the cancer.

Fair thought. I also wondered that about Elizabeth Edwards (former VP candidate’s wife) when she got virulent breast cancer following two pregnancies in her late 40s/early 50s.

First thing that came to mind here too - Kelly’s super late pregnancy at 48 and Elizabeth Edwards. It is so awful and unfair. I think they (science) will establish a link between advanced maternal age plus hormonal treatments plus breast cancer. Ugh.

In Kelly's case, she was a drug user and heavy drinker until her late 40s. That's a lot of accumulated "bad stuff."

What is Scientology’s view on drinking, drugs, and partying.

They do not care if you drink as long as it doesn't interfere with your ability to be a paying, attending, active part of the church. They need all the Hollywood people after all.

If you try to get clean, they reject traditional therapy and you have to do it through their scientology sobriety program which is what Kelly apparently did in her late 40s.

[Anonymous]

I respect and understand her desire and right to keep it private. I also understand people who knew and loved her feeling angry and hurt that she kept it private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I respect and understand her desire and right to keep it private. I also understand people who knew and loved her feeling angry and hurt that she kept it private.

No one is entitled to know your personal business. Angry and hurt because someone didn't disclose their terminal illness. That is so ass backward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I respect and understand her desire and right to keep it private. I also understand people who knew and loved her feeling angry and hurt that she kept it private.

No one is entitled to know your personal business. Angry and hurt because someone didn't disclose their terminal illness. That is so ass backward.

I know they were not entiled. Maybe they wish they knew so they could have expressed their love to her directly or wish they could have said goodbye or would have been there to listen or just be with her or help her family. Or to not help if they did not want it. She was part of a community. No of course, it was not owed and i don't mean feeling anger due to ego, I just mean a lingering sadness in some people who loved her in not having known. I don't see that as backward, I think it is just human.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ladies - don’t have kids so late in life. Studies show there is a very strong link to breast cancer. RIP Kelly

Disbelieving. How could there be a link?

That's only if you have your first child late in life.

https://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/NotHavingChildrenorHavingFirstAfterAge35.html#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20women%20who%20give,term%20protective%20effect%20%5B8%5D.

Women who give birth to their first child at age 35 or younger tend to get a protective benefit from pregnancy [6-11].

Breast cancer risk is increased for about 10 years after a first birth [8]. Then, it drops below the risk of women who don't have children [8].

The younger you are when you have your first child, the younger you are when you get the protective effect of pregnancy [8-9].

Women who give birth to their first child at later ages have a higher risk of breast cancer compared to women who have their first child at younger ages [6-12].

For example, women who give birth for the first time after age 35 are about 40 percent more likely to get breast cancer than women who have their first child before age 20 [6]. For these women, the increased risk from a first pregnancy is never fully offset by its long-term protective effect [8].

Women who are over age 35 when they give birth to their first child also have a small increased lifetime risk of breast cancer compared to those who never give birth [9].

[Anonymous]

What about the benefits of breastfeeding? Read something about how it changes the breast in a way that is protective going forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about the benefits of breastfeeding? Read something about how it changes the breast in a way that is protective going forward.

Holy hijack asshole alert. What about them? Cite some facts or you are speculating on the lactation habits of a dead woman and inadvertently blaming her for her early death. Sick f*ck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the benefits of breastfeeding? Read something about how it changes the breast in a way that is protective going forward.

Holy hijack asshole alert. What about them? Cite some facts or you are speculating on the lactation habits of a dead woman and inadvertently blaming her for her early death. Sick f*ck.

I was referring to the generic stats in the post above about breast cancer risk for women in general. Good Lord.