Snowden (who really does, apparently, have epilepsy) helps an epileptic.

[MADem]

177. The person doing Snowden the favor WAS, in fact, doing Snowden a favor.

The article put him in an heroic light, with his epilepsy at the center.
And no one was shopping a canard:

ca·nard
kəˈnär(d)/Submit
noun
1.
an unfounded rumor or story.
"the old canard that LA is a cultural wasteland"
2.
a small winglike projection attached to an aircraft forward of the main wing to provide extra stability or control, sometimes replacing the tail.

Snowden's epilepsy is not a "canard." It is a FACT. His mother's epilepsy is not a "canard." It is a FACT--she even has a service dog, named Ginger.

You do realize that the person who wrote the article in the OP is the WOMAN WHO WAS HELPED BY SNOWDEN?

Do you realize that Snowden's own experience with epilepsy was what enabled him to tell his counterpart at the remote location precisely how to help the woman?

It was a First Person Account from the woman who was helped, speaking of her experience with Snowden. Not a rumor. Not an innuendo. Not a Reaganesque "I'm not gonna pick on an invalid" remark (which didn't help one whit--MD had other issues, but that wasn't one of 'em).

This is a "Look at Snowden, what a good guy, he came to the rescue from thousands of miles away" story. Of course, no one has bothered to read it, apparently, so how would they know?

I found the story interesting because while I have seen stories that reference the epilepsy, this is the first I've seen of a story that puts Snowden in the room, talking about it. Every other time I've read about this condition, it's been through a reporter. It was never clear to me, at least to my satisfaction, that he even HAD epilepsy. I wondered if he just grabbed onto that diagnosis as an excuse to take unpaid leave because his mother had it and he figured he knew enough about it to get past any questions.

And why are you even hinting that there's something nefarious about epilepsy that is "exploitable" by "propagandists?" First, this is DU. Second, do you actually think this article is a secret? It's already bounced halfway round the world and been redistributed to a dozen or more outlets.

I am sure you don't mean to come across like you are saying "Don't talk about this topic, because someone might HEAR" but that is how you are coming across. And it's all irony laden, since Snowden is the one who wants every tidbit of information "out there," so why not this bit? After all, he's not some Nobody--he's a player in this exercise. He's fair game as much as any other public figure.

We're adults here and this is the 21st Century. Adults have been talking about mental health, brain injuries and illnesses, PTSD and TBIs with ever-increasing ease since Rosalynn Carter was First Lady. There's no need for any of that hushed "Think of the CHILDREN!" crap. This is DU. Progressives can talk about this topic in an adult fashion without having to look over our shoulders or speak in whispers. We can also talk about the effects of conditions in an adult fashion. If you have pancreatitis, you're not having the spicy meatballs. If you break a leg, you aren't running the 10K. If you have epilepsy, and Snowden does, and it might be inherited, his condition could very well impact his affect. Medical conditions can, as I've said elsewhere, result in changes--some good, some bad, some different. There's nothing wrong with discussing these changes either, and trying to guilt people into not discussing them is just wrong.

It is a MEDICAL condition, like Joe Biden's AVMs, like Ronald Reagan's dementia that he disguised by overplaying the hearing loss, like Richard Nixon's phlebitis that kept him off the stand, like Jack Kennedy's Addison's, like Tracy Morgan's broken legs/nose and internal injuries, like David Letterman's heart bypass--not a moral failing. REALLY. And there's nothing wrong with talking about it, even if one isn't Marcus Welby, MD. If we had to wait for subject matter experts for every topic, this would be a very bare board indeed.