The irony is so bad, I'm having seizures

Did you intend to close the anchor tag?

Well, anyways, those religionists always had a funny distinction between "superstition" and "religion," and between "other religions" and the "one true religion."

So much fun when a charlatan calls a charlatan a charlatan!

New Humanist has a post about this, including a link to a PDF with full reiki guidelines: http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2009/03/pot-kettle.html

Crystals. It's all about da crystals.

Where do they come down on homeopathy?

In spiritual terms, using Reiki carries "important dangers" because the therapy is based on the theory that illness can be healed by re-balancing "universal life energy", or Reiki, by a laying on of hands by a trained master, and that clashes with Christian belief, the bishops said.

"True healing can only be achieved by dousing oneself with magic water," the bishops added, "or by asking disembodied spirits to cure illness by assuaging them with promises of future good behavior." Several of the bishops reddened, then added further "Look, we really don't know how any of it works, we just know any bit silliness that takes coin out of our pockets can't be good."

It's what has typically made for skeptics, the competing claims about woo.

Basically, your honest believers set about to prove that their own beliefs were the correct ones, using objective evidence/methods. What they usually found was that neither system of woo had any backing.

But of course that means that the intellectually honest were effectively out of the church. Of course that means that those left are still concerned that the other system of woo is "wrong," because they need their own to be "right."

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Sometimes the jokes just write themselves...

This is incredible. Superstition is not faith. Faith is not superstition.

So when will the Vatican be publishing its own dictionary?

@#4 foolfodder
"Unfortunately, New Humanist was unable to find a reiki practitioner to comment on the scientific credibility of the Vatican stance on condoms and the spread of HIV..." (from the article)

Indeed, the Vatican also always had an interesting distinction between their own scientific credibility and others'.

But I hear the Pope is calling in a feng shui master for St. Peter's. The saints' relics give off some very negative qi.

Wow.

Just wow.

How is it possible they don't get it?

No, stop! I'm twitching so badly, I think I've damaged something.

Didn't we tell you NOT to eat your irony meter?

A certain part of my mind always wonders if these things are a way to get...er sexually stimulated..without the stigma of prostitute visitations. The less dirty part of my mind just lumps it in with the rest of the crazy magic healing junk.

So much fun when a charlatan calls a charlatan a charlatan!

ahh, reminds me of the story of the Cardiff Giant:

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

THE OIL OF THE SICK

"The oil used in administering the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick is called Oil of the Sick. It is one of the three Holy oils blessed by the bishop of the diocese at his cathedral on Holy Thursday morning, the other two Holy Oils being Holy Chrism and the Oil of Catechumens, which is used in Baptism.

"Oil of the Sick is pure olive oil—nothing being added except the blessing of the bishop. Its appropriateness as part of the outward sign of Anointing of the Sick is evident from the healing and strengthening effects which are characteristic of olive oil."

@#13 Phillip Kahn
"How is it possible they don't get it?"
Yes, they do get it. They understand things. Just look at their stance on HIV and condoms in Africa. They understand, but they are evil. That is all.

well .... it is April fools day innit !

For "Jesus and Mo" readers:

SPOING!

@#19 XymbionicX
"well .... it is April fools day innit !"
A more appropriate April fools joke is for the pope to suddenly act reasonable.

This is why I plug my irony meter into a surge protector . . .

. . . IYKWIMAITYD!

(ahem)

No kings,

Robert

So here is my understanding of their reasoning, in a computer science style...
Let's consider two functions, both of which will return true or false:
VBS(concept) - Returns true if concept can be Verified By Science
VBC(concept) - Returns true if concept can be Verified By Cathlic dogma.
Their Good/Bad function would then be:
(Good/Bad for Cathlics)
GBforC(concept)
{
if(VBC(concept)==true and VBS(concept)==true)
return Good
else
return Bad
}
Let's run a few tests:
GBforC("Reiki") = Bad
GBforC("Supernatural") = Bad
GBforC("Mind reading") = Bad
GBforC("Non-catholic religions") = Bad
GBforC("Prayer") = Bad OOPS!
GBforC("Transubstantiation") = Bad Uh Oh!
GBforC("God") = Bad Crap!
Well... they must have stopped before they got to "Prayer".

"no-man's-land that is neither faith nor science,"

Damn, you mean now there's a third magisterium? It must be overlapping, though, since the Bishops feel entitled to criticize it.

From the article: "Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief," said the USCCB doctrine committee in a document issued Thursday.
From my mind: Neither Christian belief nor Reiki therapy find support in the findings of natural science.

I love my industrial-strength Irony Meter™ brand irony meter. It stands up to anything. They tested it by hooking it up to a PC with ten windows open, each on a page belonging to a well-known idiot individual or organisation - Ray Comfort, Vox Day, WND etc. - and it held.

Still, once I opened that link it did start to buzz and smoke just a little...

@#23 ThirdMonkey
Of course, their true function would probably be an "or" - religion is their one big "exception."

This Facility has Operated 18 0 Days Without an Irony Meter-Related Injury.

Damn, you mean now there's a third magisterium?

Sure, it is every bit as large as the one that religion covers: the set of things that are true but completely without evidence. It is also known as the empty set. The Holy Father can go kiss reality if he doesn't like it.

Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief...

In spiritual terms, using Reiki carries "important dangers"

So if they're so sure Reiki is bogus, where is the danger? I guess they hate competition.

Dang, this not only blew the input fuse, but also several spare fuses blew in sympathy. Time to order another gross of fuses.

@#29 Free Lunch
"Sure, it is every bit as large as the one that religion covers: the set of things that are true but completely without evidence. It is also known as the empty set. The Holy Father can go kiss reality if he doesn't like it."

A correction there: surely there are things that are true, but are unknown, and therefore, without evidence. Perhaps you mean to say, the set of things that religion can claim to know.

"There is a radical difference between Reiki therapy and the healing by divine power in which Christians believe: for Christians the access to divine healing is by prayer to Christ as Lord and Savior, while the essence of Reiki is not a prayer but a technique," the bishops said in a statement.
And then there's the fact that "neither the Scriptures nor the Christian tradition as a whole speak of the natural world as based on 'universal life energy' that is subject to manipulation by the natural human power of thought and will," the bishops said."

Competing religions, competing forms of the supernatural. Christians believe that the 'universal life energy' is named God, and through the 'natural human power of thought and will' one can make mental contact with this person-like energy, and manipulate it by humbly asking it for favors. It will then grant them through psychokensis, as it uses the power of its thought and will to manipulate the physical realm.

Yeah, that's so totally different than what the New Agers believe.

Believing in either God or chi requires the same kind of faith (ie try to see if it works and then trust your personal experience.) The bishops seem to think that the fact that reiki "finds no support in the findings of natural science" means that it should be rejected.

I thought science couldn't say anything about the supernatural? Guess it can.

@#30 Bad Albert
"So if they're so sure Reiki is bogus, where is the danger? I guess they hate competition."

Of course, this is evidence that Catholics know that their practices are bogus scientifically, but such bogus things still have some "spiritual effect," even if they are bad - i. e. they know that their good "spiritual effects" are also bogus.

They should get at least partial credit for noting that the practice was not supported by science. Baby steps toward rationality? "Good little Bishops, you almost have got it right."

@#33 Sastra
All the superstition is, of course, essentially the same creed, just expressed in a different language. Perhaps they Catholics the essential sameness, and they just want to ensure that this is directed towards obedience towards their particular church, and in this case, the pope. They fear competition, because then it would take away obedience to their own particular church. Perhaps it is just all a matter of power.

www.10ch.org -

Forgive me, I was referring to all of the evidence that exists whether it has been discovered or not. Or, in English, Science is true and the other two are bull because they will never have any supporting evidence.

What would they know about the natural sciences, anyway? *scoff*

In health terms, using a therapeutic technique that has no scientific basis "is not generally prudent..."

Gosh. I look forward to their bibliography of citations that support the scientific basis for "prayer to Christ as Lord and Savior" as a therapeutic technique.

you shouldn't joke about that, my great great grandfather died of severe irony seizures...

I want to know what Reiki practitioners think about the frackin' crackers. It sounds as if they could maybe reach some common ground on transubstantiation.

(Darn, nothing comes up in PubMed when I search on the phrase "prayer to Christ as Lord and Savior." Damn heathen NLM!)

Superstition = "untrue things that other people believe"

Faith = "things that other people believe are untrue but I KNOW are true, goshdarnit."

Science = "things which remain true or untrue regardless of who, what or how many believe whatever."

Sigh. ~rolls up sleeves~

At the risk of your Happy Gang coming down on me like a herd of turtles, I think it needs to be said that when someone does Reiki, they are doing something that both parties are aware of, that has a real effect (if only deep relaxation), and that many people find soothing and rewarding.

Exactly what is being done I can't precisely say, but I compare it to the earliest days of magnets -- how long have we known exactly what a magnet does, and how?

The practice itself is pretty straightforward, with a few simple preparatory steps before a treatment, and no shaking of rattles or wearing of befeathered masks.

I would be very interested to see detailed research on what happens during a reiki session -- brainwaves, blood pressure, increased body heat (especially in the hands), pulse, endorphin or dopamine levels, etc. But I know something happens. Having had and given many reiki treatments, I stand by at least that minimal statement of fact.

Noni

To HH, #7:

rofl!
Well done!

"Oil of the Sick is pure olive oil—nothing being added except the blessing of the bishop..."

I trust it's extra virgin olive oil at least?

Lourdes:

With 66 declaired miracle healings to it's history and only 80,000 visitors per year for the last 100 years how can you give up a .00000825% of a chance that you'll be healed by a miracle?

How could anyone afflicted with terminal cancer, an amputated limb, a genetic disease, or neurological disorder give up those kind of odds! Of course you'd have to spend what little money you haven't on medical bills traveling half way around the world to drink from a spigot touched by thousands of sick people every day!

"in the realm of superstition, the no-man's-land that is neither faith nor science,"

Ok, so if you plot these as a spectrum from science to religion with superstition in the middle, isn't that admitting that religion is even more "out there" than superstition?

Hold on Kema @ #48,

Does that mean that all an amputee would have to do is visit Lourdes about a million times and their chances of being healed would be over 100%? Or does that mean if we get a million or so amputees and cycle them through, at least 1 of them is bound to get healed?

I never was that good at statistics.

Ladies and gentleman, you can forget Lourdes! As has been mentioned, the healing effects attributed to those waters are few and far between.

However, I've discovered REAL healing POWER! I've gotten several colds or viruses over the years and by drinking the tap water I get in my house I have somehow recovered from ALL of them. EVERY SINGLE ONE! Now THAT'S results!

God has dictated to me that I must not profit off this gift so should any of you wish to partake of this blessed healing water, just send me $20 to cover shipping and handling and I'll send you a bottle of this amazing healing water for FREE!

ACT NOW! Don't suffer needlessly!

Limit, 500 bottles of water per customer.

Thank you and God Bless!

...and no shaking of rattles or wearing of befeathered masks.

Well there's no fun in that.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH! Oh, that crazy collection of Catholic nincompopes.

Makes me think of what Mark Twain had to say:

If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Great pitch Dahan. But I think you need more scare. Something like - your chances of lip cancer increase if you don't consume the water. Or, it helps your immune system as well as your soul. How can you afford not to get this water?!

Overall though, pretty good sell IMO.

Argh. I think my italics tag didn't close.

I am the Duchess of HTML Failure.

PZ, now you're just trying to piss off Kwok-a-duck ;-)

Noni Mausa,

Relaxing things are relaxing.

Sure we might not have understood magnetism for a long time but we could measure and observe the fields (indirectly but still) and their effects in a repeatable and objective experiments and they obeyed all other known models and laws for fields.

Not so with reiki. Yes, something happens. You get relaxed and that can help. With things that relaxation helps with. Which is what you're talking about. It can't cure cancer. If they marketed themselves as half assed massage therapists and only made claims that were observable and measurable in an objective and repeatable way nobody would call them woo. But they don't.

Noni Mausa #45

I would be very interested to see detailed research on what happens during a reiki session -- brainwaves, blood pressure, increased body heat (especially in the hands), pulse, endorphin or dopamine levels, etc. But I know something happens. Having had and given many reiki treatments, I stand by at least that minimal statement of fact.

Yes, something is happening. It's called "the placebo effect."

Pointing that out isn't dismissing it, by the way. It can be very powerful, and beneficial. At the last Randi convention, Ben Goldacre ("Bad Science") argued that we need to really analyze what's going on when placebos 'work,' because it will help us understand a lot more about how the brain/mind works -- and its relationship to health and pain management. But we can't really study the placebo effect if it's cluttered up with a lot of false claims about "healing energy" or "water with memory."

If you're knowingly giving a placebo and yet telling your clients that you're really manipulating their life energy, then there goes honesty and the movement away from 'paternalism,' and towards allowing patients to understand and make informed choices in their health care. Mommy is telling a wee fib to make the little ones feel better.

Does that mean that all an amputee would have to do is visit Lourdes about a million times and their chances of being healed would be over 100%? Or does that mean if we get a million or so amputees and cycle them through, at least 1 of them is bound to get healed?

I never was that good at statistics.

Nah, each visit doesn't build up, so it's like flipping a coin. Every time you flip a coin it's 50/50. It doesn't matter what you flipped the last time.

So it's like that, but your odds are .00000825% of a chance each individual time.

Also, unfortunately, among those amputees hoping to regrow their limbs there would also be cancer patients, the comatose being wheeled in on their hospital bed (*sarcasm off* yes, seriously, this happens... *sarcasm on*), and just the greedy bastard with the flu taking away the magical healing properties of the water away from the desperately ill. An amputee just hasn't been lucky enough yet to "win" the Lourde lottery.

Kema @ #58:

An amputee just hasn't been lucky enough yet to "win" the Lourde lottery.

But then again, as we all know, God Hates Amputees.

@#57 Sastra
"Mommy is telling a wee fib to make the little ones feel better."
Yep. The disadvantage of the placebo effect is that it requires fibbing.

'it takes a thief....' as they say

Teapot Atheist has the same story with a very similar title, but days older. See link.

#44: good definitions

Superstition = "untrue things that other people believe"
Faith = "things that other people believe are untrue but I KNOW are true, goshdarnit."
Science = "things which remain true or untrue regardless of who, what or how many believe whatever."

Slightly different:

SUPERSTITION = things that others belief to be true without verifiable and testable evidence

FAITH = things that I belief to be true and I'm deeply insulted when you ask me for verifiable and testable evidence

SCIENCE = things that we should accept (not believe) because they are supported by mountains of verifiable and testable evidence

But then again, as we all know, God Hates Amputees.

And cancer patients
and the mentally disabled
and the comatose
and the diseased
and the ...
and the person with a tape worm eating a hole in the person's intestine
and the ...

Janine

Where do they come down on homopathy?

They've laid their share of hands..

I'm a bit confused by this. There are alternative medicine forms that contradict Catholic doctrine.

I also really like how they say both that Reiki doesn't work and that it might expose one to "malevolent forces." Do they mean demons? And if it doesn't work, why would that happen?

Annointing with oil isn't just for Catholics. My brother is a fundamentalist evangelical ministister in the Grace Brethren version of christianity. He regularly performs healing ceremonies by annointing with olive oil (from the "Holy Lands" of course). I believe there is also some "laying on of hands" and the mandatory prayer, or casting of spells.

And yes, anything similar done by any other religion or any other version of christianity is called superstition by my oh so holier than thou brother.

I still don't understand though why an omnipotant god doesn't know that a sick person needs to be healed unless someone points it out to him (her? it?).

neither the Scriptures nor the Christian tradition as a whole speak of the natural world as based on 'universal life energy' that is subject to manipulation by the natural human power of thought and will," the bishops said.

Duh. Only a good, old-fashioned, Catholic exorcism can restore life energy. I thought everyone knew that!

"Oil of the Sick is pure olive oil—nothing being added except the blessing of the bishop. Its appropriateness as part of the outward sign of Anointing of the Sick is evident from the healing and strengthening effects which are characteristic of olive oil."

`I told you butter wouldn't suit the works!' he added looking angrily at the March Hare.

`It was the BEST butter,' the March Hare meekly replied.

We all make Pope dolls, and do a mass voodoo ritual.
They'll laugh and point when it doesn't work.
We say, "ya, we already knew that... are you getting it now?"

Joshua @66,

I also really like how they say both that Reiki doesn't work and that it might expose one to "malevolent forces." Do they mean demons? And if it doesn't work, why would that happen?

No, they mean "malevolent forces" - the antagonist to the divine will.
When they say it doesn't work, they mean therapeutically; but the very act of appealing to powers beyond is the essence of the religious experience, an exposure of the soul - and to appeal to other than the Divine is, at best, foolish, and at worst anathema.

Sastra's post @33 explains the apparent conundrum.

It's a frackin' massage!, crackerheads!

I think its pretty clear PZ Barnum need some healing at Lourdes. Dear God, we ask that you have mercy on a mean little man with a crotch-centric compulsion for daily Catholic-bashing.

Should he be cured, add him to the Lourdes miracle list....
http://www.lourdes-france.org/upload/pdf/gb_guerisons.pdf

Wow! Just...wow! As someone into history it always amazes me how groups of people(like Christians)just hate having a sense of irony. To be fair this prediliction isn't limited to religious folks, although most people identify with some religion or belief system so there probably is a correlation there. I'm just wondering, how is this different from Christian Science? (I'm actually being serious because I've deliberatly kept myself ignorant for the sake of my brain and to keep my blood pressure from going up at the immense stupidity that allows children with treatable diseases to die waiting for the G-man to show up.)

Out of curiosity I looked up Reiki Healing and found the five practices people should engage in. Presented for your amusement:
The secret art of inviting happiness
The miraculous medicine of all diseases
Just for today, do not anger
Do not worry and be filled with gratitude
Devote yourself to your work. Be kind to people.
Every morning and evening, join your hands in prayer.
Pray these words to your heart
and chant these words with your mouth
Usui Reiki Treatment for the improvement of body and mind
The founder , Usui Mikao

Here's where I found the "way of Reiki".

http://www.reiki.org/faq/WhatIsReiki.html

"Its appropriateness as part of the outward sign of Anointing of the Sick is evident from the healing and strengthening effects which are characteristic of olive oil."

That's ironic in its own right (or its own rite, as the case may be): practically the only time anyone gets this sacrament is as part of the last rites, when they're dying.

I tried my best to capture the Catholic logic and depict it graphically...

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll225/Fmagyar/NewMagesteria.jpg

So I'm guessing the next big church scandal we'll hear about is how someone has quietly swapped the 'Extra Holy Extra Virgin Olive Oil' for Canola oil as a 'cost cutting measure'.

"No wonder my arm didn't grow back!" says enraged church-goer, Betty Crotchbutt.

And then there's the fact that "neither the Scriptures nor the Christian tradition as a whole speak of the natural world as based on 'universal life energy' that is subject to manipulation by the natural human power of thought and will," the bishops said.

Oh. You don't say. Hmm. So that eliminates praying that an impending disaster spares one's self and one's friends and loved ones and all the casual passers by too? What of all the frantic, last minute prayers that go apparently unheeded?

After all, what is prayer except the "natural human power of thought and will" sporting a religious makeover? This is the usual dodge. Exempt people from personal responsibility. Diagnose us all as sick, stricken by a cudgel from the past. Original sin. Only one way to fix that! Just (simply, only, merely, inattentively) believe!

Classic Fail.

Omnibenevolent indeed.

"Oil of the Sick is pure olive oil—nothing being added except the blessing of the bishop..."

I trust it's extra virgin olive oil at least?

It's super-extra virgin, raised in a cloistered convent olive oil.

The last link in this section has a nice slideshow explaining Reiki: http://is.gd/qcfT

re the Molly awards.

just thought to say

i'm here for your scintillating itellectual beauty.

now.

for a small couple of queries.

what's going on when the placebo effect kicks in?
(religion can't live without it)

and

why is gold(exept in a very few instances)regarded as valuable all over the world?

I read a story in a book about your eye and casting a beam out that may be on point here.

Anyone remember?

may,
it's malleable, pretty, heavy and useful for many purposes (corrosion free under normal circumstances - don't try fluorine) and it's rare enough and non-carcinogenic. Just from the top of my head.

Kema @ #64:

And cancer patients
and the mentally disabled
and the comatose
and the diseased
and the ...
and the person with a tape worm eating a hole in the person's intestine
and the ...

Oops, sorry, I assumed everyone here would know what I was referring to: http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/

Wow.

Just wow.

How is it possible they don't get it?

A disturbing number of nurses and mental health care professionals are being suckering into believing Reiki and TT (Therapeutic Touch) offer legitimate medical benefits. This is having a detrimental affect on the quality these people are prepared to offer. And far from "doing something that both parties are aware of, that has a real effect," many practitioners find themselves making poor medical decisions based on fallacious magical thinking:

In '99, I was 29, and working in a private psych hospital. I was taking a break in the back room. I was suddenly jolted by the loud sound of shattering glass, and a messy series of thuds. I ran into the Nursing Station. The glass window to the patient corridor had been shattered, and my rapidly cycling, schizophrenic patient, was slowly trying to get up from the floor, and staring at the medication cart. I was alone in the station, I had to control my patient, for both our safety, and he was ignoring my commands. I had no choice but to try and bring him flat to the ground, and restrain him. I started shouting "Code Green!" (Which was the hospital, all staff code, for patient restraint.) I noticed that the other RN on duty was running toward the Nurses Station, so I assumed she would use the phone, and page the Code Green. I jumped on the patient. He was delusional, tough, and combative.

The RN arrived in the Nursing Station, witnessed the struggle I was loosing, and I think she panicked. Instead of procedure, she pointed at the patient and I, with her arm outstretched, she started to subvocalize, and draw things in the air. I told her to help me. She said was helping. She was calming the patient. It was Reiki! I was astonished.

http://www.skepdic.com/comments/reikicom.html

Delusions and self-deception have a way of coming around and biting the people who tolerate them on the ass.

"From the article: 'Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief,' said the USCCB doctrine committee in a document issued Thursday."

Hey, one out of two ain't bad!

My old religion (50 years ago) thought I would be good at healing so I was anointed with the ability to 'heal by laying on of hands' (no joke - the Mormons).
So if you will only pray to me I will heal you.

not to play devil's advocate or nothing...i've 'had' 'reiki' done on me before, not for any necessity, but purely for curiosity (a friend of a friend was a 'practitioner'. while i think (and thought at the time as well) it's bullpucky, i must admit that there was an interesting sensation associated with the process... there was a bit of abnormal heat from the hands and almost a tingling, and i've always been curious about this was accomplished....it was almost like the friction heat you get when you rub your hands together really fast, but it wasn't obvious what he was doing to generate this friction.

anyone else out there ever experimented with reiki, or better yet know how the charlatanism is performed?

Healing by "laying on of hands" sounds familiar...

"...a bit of abnormal heat from the hands..."

Did you measure it with a thermometer, and compare it to thermometer readings from the hands of people performing other kinds of massage?

If not, how do you know it was abnormal?

It couldn't have been a purely subjective impression, could it?

Do you often get massages, and think about hand heat while you're doing so, and so had a subjective sense of what was "normal" in such a situation?

Just wondering.

Oops, sorry, I assumed everyone here would know what I was referring to: http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/

Oh, I know what you were talking about, chgo_liz.

I just think it's worth pointing out that, assuming God exists, he hates a lot more than just amputees. The Bible makes that quite clear.

A member of a women's group I belonged to was a Reiki practitioner, and demonstrated it for one of our programs. Lights were lowered and pleasant new-agey music played softly as she led us in relaxing exercises and encouraged us to feel our connection to the earth and stretch towards that clear white light from the center of the universe. (Several women claimed they were indeed zapped thereby, and were astonished at the majority of us who felt it not.)

She then performed a treatment on a volunteer, rhythmically passing her hands slowly over the volunteer's head, shoulders and torso. Okay; so far it's like other meditation techniques, and I could sorta drowse until this was over and we could hit the dessert table.

Then Ms. Reiki began flicking her fingers to get rid of the bad energy she'd drawn out of the patient! Durn near busted myself to prevent howls of laughter from escaping. I did NOT join the cluster of credulous requesting her business cards & making appointments. Dessert was tasty, despite its possible contamination by any bad vibes roaming the room after their eflicktion.

Pleasanter concept than corpse-crinklets, however.

God, they brought that bullshit to the wellness center at my LAC, intending to attract gullible morons from the pre-med society and the pysch department. They did.

There's a reason everyone knows the grad-bound Bio majors are smarter.

A verbal warning is not enough.

Coming next from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops: The Reiki Horror Picture Show.

why are you concerned with the bishop warning ? are you a Catholic ?

Simon,

where do you live?

I want to break into your house and take a dump on your living room floor.

since you seem to think breaking into places you're not wanted is just fine, I'm sure you won't mind, right?

you are most welcome my friend as you wish... fool !

so you're fine with people breaking into your house and crapping on the furniture?

good to know.

at least that explains your persistence here.

I'm sure your god frowns on your behavior, though.

forgive the minialness of the text in this post I don't know how to mess with the HTML....oh and long time reader, first time poster:

"the therapy is based on the theory that illness can be healed by re-balancing "universal life energy", or Reiki, by a laying on of hands by a trained master, and that clashes with Christian belief, the bishops said...."

I found this:

"LAYING ON OF HANDS
In both the Old and New Testaments a significant symbolic action denoting various meanings. Examples: Israel giving his parental blessing to Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 48:18); Moses passing his authority to his successor (Numbers 27:18); Joshua receiving the spirit of wisdom to lead his people (Deuteronomy 34:9); Aaron preparing the ram for sacrifice (Exodus 29:10). In the New Testament its symbolism took on a further and deeper meaning: Jesus blessing the children (Matthew 19:15); Jesus bringing the official's daughter back to life (Matthew 9:18); Peter and John calling down the Holy Spirit on the Samaritans (Acts 8:17). After Pentecost the laying on of hands especially denoted the conferral of the powers and authority of the episcopacy, which Christ had given to the Apostles. In the Catholic Church the sacrament of orders: the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate are administered by a bishop through the laying on of hands.

All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission."

at the site:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=…

quite hypocritical but that doesn't surprise me in the least......

The RCC says "don't do this because it's superstition"
Hokey Smokes Bullwinkle!
Does anyone besides me think ... Pot... Kettle... Black... ?
No Reiki, but Lourdes is fine. . . Uh, right.

The Catholic Church wants to monopolize credulity.

How is it possible they don't get it?

When you've got a 1700 year old scam going to steal money from unenlightened people...what is there to get?

You don't get it, SiMoN. PZ Myers hasn't harmed anyone. There was no one in that cracker. Even Catholic theology indicates that the Jesus-ness wouldn't stay in the cracker outside of the ceremony; that was brought up in a previous discussion.

So what has he done that's harmful? Asked people to question their faith? You don't have to listen; you don't have to visit the blog.

But you do, and you are behaving in a rude, intrusive, and immature fashion.

But to take one thing seriously-- you are finding fault with PZ for discussing the bishop's pronouncement against Reiki, because he's not a Catholic. By your own logic, the bishop has no business telling anyone what he thinks of Reiki, since he doesn't believe in it.

At what point does this pile of shit reach a critical mass (no pun intended) and collapse under its own weight ?

If Bishops directed a fraction of their criticism of other superstutions to their own superstition faith, we would be freed from the iron age death cult and... they would be jobless.
I guess that answers the question of why they dont get it...

Ruler rapping? No no no. Disciplining. When my old aunt traind to be a nun, they had to whip themselves to drive out worly desires. The whips (called disciplines) were made by another order (the Poor Clares) in case the Mercy Sisters made whips for themselves that didn't hurt.

Not making this up.

The National Academy of Sciences should write a pamphlet asserting that "science, religion, and Reiki are all different ways of understanding the world" and so don't really conflict with each other. If Christianity qualifies as a peer of science, then any other superstition should receive the same respect.

PZ, you owe I and other epileptics an apology for the title of this post, and the ways in which we are mocked in the comments.

Epilepsy is a serious, life threatening disease. It has severely limited my career and will probably drive me out of my current job, as much as I love it.

"Twitching"is a stereotype of a very complex disease, and is a juvenile, ignorant way to characterize the disease.

It is especially galling when historically, epileptics have been attacked by the very religious people you criticize. We are called 'possessed', 'witches', and suffered terrible torture.

It's not a damn joke.

http://www.epilepsyfoundation.org/

Try replacing you title with "The irony is so bad, it gave me cancer."

apparently, the irony was also so bad, it gave me poor grammar. Oh well, was steamed.

PZ, you owe I and other epileptics an apology for the title of this post, and the ways in which we are mocked in the comments.

No he doesnt.
The fact that you have epilepsy is regrettable,but there are other worse conditions out there for a start(cancer,as you rightly stated,for one),and if there is one thing I can not stand,its when people that are for one reason or another personally/emotionally too invested in a topic,demand and request everyone else to "respect" their condition/belief,and bludgeon everyone that dares to criticize their view with the cudgel of "intolerance" and "mocking".

Realize that you have a sensitivity here from personal involvement,please,and that not everyone is out to hurt or mock you.

Wow, clinteas, you don't get it. As another sufferer of epilepsy, I second what bug girl has said. It's so easy for people who are NOT afflicted to make light of such a serious disorder. "There are other, worse conditions," you say? Look buddy, you've obviously never had, nor have you ever witnessed, a tonic clonic seizure. Is cancer worse? Maybe. Depends on the kind. Is epilepsy worse? Maybe. Depends on the kind. Does it make sense to judge whether or not to hold your tongue about a disease only by the degree of its severity? Not a whole lot.

You need to realize that when people say things like PZ has said (and he has said these things repeatedly) that they ARE hurtful. It's one thing to marginalize people who hold beliefs counter to yours, but a very different thing to do it to people who CAN'T HELP that they have a disease or disorder.

Yes, we are sensitive because we are afflicted, but that does not mean that our complaints are not to be taken seriously.

Bottom line, clinteas: You're a dick.

Look buddy, you've obviously never had, nor have you ever witnessed, a tonic clonic seizure

Havent had one,correct,have witnessed,and treated,hundrets,in adults and children.
You can call me a dick if you like,all Im asking is that you try to realize that nobody here was out to insult epileptics.
Probably asking too much I guess.

Bug girl, you forgot forced sterilization and social ostracism!

If you're a neurologist, then you ought to be an advocate for the people you treat. Then again, I've dealt with many neurologists and have found most of them to be self-important, condescending pricks.

Maybe PZ and some of the commenters here didn't realize that they were being hurtful and offensive. I have a tendency to doubt that, however, especially because PZ has done this kind of thing before.

My magic is more real than your magic, nyah, nyah, nyah!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seizure#Seizures_without_epilepsy

SC, OM: Oh my. You're right. That makes it all okay!

Seriously, get bent.

So? I've got epilepsy too.

The problems we have had for most of history were down to superstition. There is still some of that about but the problem now is straight ignorance. And you fight ignorance with facts and self-assertion not hypersensitivity. The facts are not hard to come by and self-assertion is something easily learned. I thought that most of us here were into fighting ignorance, anyway.

Anecdotal - the most trouble I ever had was with a couple of non-specialist doctors who, when faced with someone who had epilepsy, a successful career, an IQ - whatever that means - of 140-odd and a willingness to fight her own corner both found that their brains had exploded!

Would clinteas agree that, sometimes, getting medics to acknowledge what they don't know can be quite a challenge?

This is not about "my disease is worse than your disease."
It's about stigmatizing people with a condition, and perpetuating stereotypes with a disease.

Epilepsy and cancer are BOTH bad diseases, and kill thousands of people yearly. Why is it ok to make fun of one, and not the other?

Good job completely missing the point, clinteas.

LM and bug_girl:

I agree with clinteas: No one is trying to run you down. It's perfectly fair to say you don't like casual remarks about seizures. That's letting people know how you feel. Great. Thanks for making that clear. And it's OK for you to then consider PZ and clinteas and me to be shits and to say so here. (You won't get banned from Pharyngula comments for berating PZ or others.)

I'm sure seizures are terrible. I haven't had any or watched any people having one; but I have seen animals having them and it looks real bad to me.

However: In a free country, you are guaranteed to be offended by some people, some times. I'm offended all the time.

Claiming that everyone should shut up is exactly the same thing that religous people are saying their critics should do: Shut up because they are offending them.

The corrective for offending behavior is social. In the anonymous world of the web, it's unlikely to have any effect. I don't have to live with you. This effect is pretty obvious from any reading of web forums. (I do worry that this effect is "assisting" in the erosion of our civil society by numbing people to bad behavior and making contemplation and self-examination less prevalent. It also makes people think that their opinion is more important than it is since there is no QA system (editors) involved on the web ...)

How about: The irony is so bad, it makes me believe in Baal?

I would say that any "reaction" to the irony, serious enough to be funny, is going to be a symptom of some one's syndrome or disease. As Heinlein said very well: "Every joke involves a badness [sic] for some one." Think through all the jokes you know -- it's true.

As my wife says, it's OK to joke on yourself. Often it's offensive to joke on others. (Maybe PZ has had seizures before, how are we to know?)

I have conditions that limit me as well. The only thing that bugs me is if people do things that aggravate/activate them. For instance, some one setting up a strobe light at your workplace would be a very bad thing.

All the best and I sincerely hope that your epilepsy is well-controlled (for your sake.)

Epileptics have mortality rate 3X general population:
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1187111-overview

SUDEP (Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy) is a common source of primary research:
http://tinyurl.com/ch8kua

This discounts the numbers of deaths that have known causes, due to not breathing, cardiac events, or other accidents (drowning, etc) during Status Epilepticus. That's thousands more.

There is a very high suicide rate with epilepsy as well.
http://tinyurl.com/c4v6a2

I repeat: it's not a joke.

If you would like to actually LEARN something about the disease, here's another resource:
http://www.aesnet.org/

If I said something on my blog that was ill-informed, insensitive, and perpetuating negative stereotypes, I would hope someone would call me out on it.

That is what I have done here. I have not said "shut up" or called for censorship.

I am horrified that clinteas says he treats epileptics, if this is the attitude he has toward our disease.

I repeat: Epileptics have been stigmatized and demonized for centuries by the very people PZ is criticizing for their religious asshattery.
Why does being a different sort of jerk make it ok?

LM and bug_girl:

I think you may have one thing to gripe about:

There may be some inconsistency here. I suspect people (here) would be more upset about gay jokes (for instance if told by Simon or some such) than they are by a joke involving seizures. (The data tell me that "gayness" is just as involuntary as epilepsy.)

Maureen: When I was formally diagnosed at 21 I was told without emotion that I would be on medication for the rest of my life and would never be able to have children. FWIW, I have a 16 month old daughter who is perfectly healthy.

JBlilie (@ 124): That's more along the lines that I was thinking. I doubt PZ would so callously make light of homosexuality, or of feminism, or of race, or of mental disability, etc. Epilepsy is just one of those things that not many people have much experience with. I'm sure that if he knew someone dear to him that suffered from seizures, he wouldn't have said that. That doesn't excuse what was said, mind you. He and others should learn from this and file it away for future reference. But like I keep mentioning, this is not the first time PZ has made a comment like this, so I'm a little more miffed than I would be normally.

Frankly, I'd be happy with a "Oops! My bad, sorry."

I am also epileptic and am not at all offended by the title of PZ's post. I'll admit that when I first read the title it grabbed my attention and I thought 'oh, I wonder where he's going with that'. But I quickly realized that he wasn't mocking me at all and was only touching on the potential for anyone to have a spontaneous, non-epileptic seizure - especially after such horrendous ironic sensory overload. I just don't see why I should be offended by anything that PZ wrote in his post.

Lisa: If you're not bothered, good for you. Others are.

The first time PZ made a comment like this, bug girl and I didn't get too bent out of shape (I found the post but don't know how to link it).

It's like repeated use of the word 'retard' around someone who has a mentally disabled child. Or saying something like "That's so gay." It's bothersome. It's insensitive. And it really gets on the nerves.

The more you know...

From the article:

"Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief,"

In other words, it's superstitous bullshit, but not their particular brand of superstitious bullshit.

LM,

I'm sorry that you were so badly treated at the time of diagnosis and even more glad that you have a daughter who must give you great pleasure. My daughter is coming up to 40 and you have reminded me that I did get some funny looks in the ante-natal stage.

Certainly medical training in both epilepsy and dealing with patients has often been deficient in the past.

I know that I'm lucky to live in a country with a National Health Service so that any test which was clinically indicated was there for me and my epilepsy medication has always been free - on the basis that it is more cost effective to keep me well than to deal with me in A&E all the time! OK, most of my teeth have fallen out because the medication which does the best job has that side effect but I'll live with that.

I hope that you and your daughter continue to do well but I do, seriously, believe that there's a role for those of us who do have both knowledge and experience to challenge ignorance and to refuse to be stigmatised.

I realise that's easier said than done sometimes. It can be time-consuming and emotionally exhausting but it has to be done and who better to do it than us?

All best wishes,

maureen

While I'm sure Professor Myers didn't mean any harm, I equally understand the hurt it's caused to epileptic readers. The difficulty is, I think, that so much of our casual language - and in particular, so much of the way we insult people - stems ultimately from marginalising and dehumanising several groups.

It's rather reminiscent of the long, arduous discussion we had on another thread over the use of the words "bitch" and "c**t" as casual insults towards women. Using those terms as insults is, in origin, a misogynistic practice. This doesn't mean that everyone who uses those terms is a misogynist. Most are not; indeed, many women use the terms. But these terms are so ingrained in our culture that most people don't think twice about using them - and they don't think about what they are really saying.

This is why I would contend - contrary to what many people here believe - that civility and politeness are important. Yes, there are people out there who deserve to be insulted. But consider that an insult doesn't always just hurt the person at whom it's aimed. And consider that profanities are not necessarily just words. I'm not calling for censorship; but I would contend that we would be better off if we all - and I include myself in this - tried to communicate in a more civilised way.

I thought it was pretty clear that PZ was talking about something so egregious that it induces seizures in those not normally prone to them, or, in other words, in those who do not have epilepsy. Such "provoked seizures" are an uncommon phenomenon, and claiming seizures solely for epilepsy is itself rather insensitive.

"...are not an uncommon phenomenon..."

To go back to the original topic (as interesting and informative as the whole epilepsy thing has been, but I'm not really qualified to comment intelligently on that). I've always been amazed at how people who have no trouble at all recognizing the just-so stories, fairy tales and superstitions of other folks as what they are, don't manage to recognize that in their own beliefs.

Some years I was listening to a segment of the Bible Answer Man on the car radio. His guest was someone who had just written a book on Mormonism. They agreed that those Mormons sure were whacky: what bizarre theology! Improbable miracle tales! Magic glasses, can you believe it?! Golden tablets that conveniently disappeared! Historical claims contradicted by archaeological evidence! Racism! Key doctrines changed for political expediency! They went on and on, gravely and sadly incredulous at those poor Mormons' gullibility and naivety.

I know it wouldn't really happen, but I kept waiting for that head-slapping "Hey, just a minute here..." moment.

"Such "provoked seizures" are not an uncommon phenomenon, and claiming seizures solely for epilepsy is itself rather insensitive."

I agree. I have long Qt syndrome, and stress can provoke blackouts, seisures, and/or cardiac arrest.

PZ didn't imply that he was having any specific kind of seisure (other than one caused by irony), so there's no reason for anyone in particular, whether you suffer from seisures or not, to take offense from someone jokingly stating they had seisure caused by something not related to any real disorder.

If there is actually a disorder in which extreme amounts of irony causes a seisure, then you can ask for an apology.

Otherwise, no offense meant, I think you're being too sensative about your condition.

"There is a radical difference between Reiki therapy and the healing by divine power in which Christians believe:"

... one is controlled by Catholics. One is not.

But I was also offended by the title. I was severely burned by an iron. I demand that Dr. Myers change the title of the post too. Something along the lines of <Null>. Would that offend anyone?

Relax, LM and BugGirl - PZ nor anyone else is out to get you. But that chip is slipping. Keeping them balanced on your shoulder is difficult when you're jumping to conclusions and flying off the handle, eh?

@Jolene Cassa, yet if you do the maths, the actual numbers 'cured'* at Lourdes is significantly less than the numbers of expected spontaneous remission by chance of whatever ails them without even going to Lourdes. I.e. going to Lourdes is far less effective than simply waiting at home on chance for remission.

Read Sagan's Demon Haunted World.

*Accepting for the sake of the argument that these are genuine cures, which I don't BTW.

The word "seizure" is clinical, not pejorative. It refers to a physical symptom with many possible causes.

One of my children was prone to fever-induced seizures as an infant, which are common enough and have nothing to do with epilepsy. I did not assume that PZ was poking fun at infants suffering from high temperatures. Should I have?

Wait. People are getting upset at the use of the symptom seizure?

What if he had used black outs? Or twitching? Or migranes?

I pointed out that PZ has used a phrase *repeatedly* that perpetuates a negative stereotype about a group that suffers a severe medical condition as problematic.

It never occurred to me that anyone would be ass enough to interpret that as problematic. A lot of what is being spouted here is not actually related to what I said. I did not say that this is the only "proper" way the word seizure may be used.

I said that in this context, I find its usage offensive. And I am not the only one.

I would like to hear what PZ himself says.
And I am very sad that this blog, and much of ScienceBlogs, frankly, is such a hostile and combative environment.

hmmm... apparently things went wonky. Let's try again:
I pointed out that PZ has used a phrase *repeatedly* that perpetuates a negative stereotype about a group that suffers a severe medical condition.

It never occurred to me that anyone would be ass enough to interpret that as problematic. A lot of what is being spouted here is not actually related to what I said. I did not say that this is the only "proper" way the word seizure may be used.

I said that in this context, I find its usage offensive. And I am not the only one.

I would like to hear what PZ himself says.
And I am very sad that this blog, and much of ScienceBlogs, frankly, is such a hostile and combative environment.

I pointed out that PZ has used a phrase *repeatedly*

Do you have other examples? A quick search of the blog didn't turn up other non-literal uses by PZ, although I admit it was cursory and I may have missed prior occurrences.

A lot of what is being spouted here is not actually related to what I said. I did not say that this is the only "proper" way the word seizure may be used.

Huh? You said: "PZ, you owe I and other epileptics an apology for the title of this post, and the ways in which we are mocked in the comments." (Emphasis added.)

It sure sounds to me like you presumed PZ was talking about epilepsy from his single reference to "seizures" and single reference to "twitching". I honestly don't see why you interpreted him as specifically referring to epilepsy.

And I think it is ludicrous to demand that PZ apologize for what others said in the comments. If you think the comments are inappropriate, demand apologies from those who actually made them, and not the host of the blog.

I pointed out that PZ has used a phrase *repeatedly* that perpetuates a negative stereotype about a group that suffers a severe medical condition

Did you? Let's check:

PZ, you owe I and other epileptics an apology for the title of this post, and the ways in which we are mocked in the comments. Epilepsy is a serious, life threatening disease..."Twitching" is a stereotype of a very complex disease, and is a juvenile, ignorant way to characterize the disease.

Nowhere, not in the title, the post, nor the comments, did anybody mention epilepsy until you did. A reference to "seizures" does not constitute a reference to epilepsy, negative or otherwise. Nor does a reference to "twitching." There are no negative stereotypes being perpetuated here. Nobody with any specific disease was mocked anywhere in the comments. I am sure PZ is sorry that you were offended, but I don't see that he has anything to apologize for.

But next time, PZ, go with "howling fantods" instead, just to be safe.

OK, I am usually one for politeness, but I am completely confused. What, exactly is the problem? Please spell it out in clear language for dummies. I honestly can't see it.

Having seizures is a bad thing, in the same way as having a migraine or a broken leg or cancer is a bad thing. It's not a personal slur on anyone so far. Anyone can have an illness; no-one wants one. Is "The Stupid, It Burns" an insult to burn victims?

Anything that induces seizures is a bad thing. OK - we now have a personal slur, but it's against the inducer, not the inducee. Causing someone harm is bad, I think we can all agree on that.

But you two, bug_girl and LM, seem to be fighting the idea that a person having seizures is somehow a bad person who deserves no respect. If that were explicitly said, I would be entirely on your side. But I can't see it here, even implicitly.

You say it perpetuates a stereotype. How does it do that? And what is the stereotype? I'm personally not familiar with an anti-epileptic stereotype. AFAIK, it's an illness; famous high-achieving people like Julius Caesar had it; and some idiotic religious people think it means you have demons and have actually killed people in exorcism rituals.

What if he had used black outs? Or twitching? Or migranes?

Well, let's see. I get migraines. Debilitating migraines. Migraines that pretty much make it impossible to keep a full-time job. So let's replace "seizures" with "migraines."

"The Irony is so Bad, I'm Having Migraines."

Nope. I'm not offended. There's nothing offensive about the use of migraines or seizures in this context. It's just a bit of hyperbole.

Honestly, some people are just looking for reasons to get offended. Lighten up.

The title of this post does not refer to any clinical condition. I do not have epilepsy, but I do occasionally twitch...especially these little muscles under my left eye, when I see something mindboggling. Think Chief Inspector Dreyfus meeting Clouseau; it has absolutely nothing to do with any medical condition, but is a universal property of human beings.

You people are unbelievable.

You know how Obama made that Special Olympics joke and a bunch of people got upset? It's kind of like that.

I'm very sorry that so many of you can't understand why something like this could be offensive to people who suffer from epilepsy. It really is very sad that you can't see it from our point of view, or even attempt to.

This is the other post where PZ made a similar faux pas: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/they_let_anybody_onto_the_fa… (I don't know how to link with html, so deal with it). Note that neither of us freaked out. We are making a big deal about this NOW because there is precedent.

Maybe he forgot. Maybe he didn't read the posts in that thread. Or maybe he just doesn't give a damn. The point is, there are members of his readership that are sensitive about the issue. If he was a culturally sensitive individual, he might choose to use different language, just as others who are culturally sensitive choose not to use words like "retard" or "gay." It doesn't matter if he didn't MEAN anything by it. The words themselves are hurtful.

Consider yourselves informed. Modify your behavior, or don't. But at least now you know.

LM, seizures doesn't mean epilepsy, so come down off your high horse. I had a bout with seizures in my sleep many years ago when I was under heavy stress. The seizures went away slowly after the stress was removed, and I haven't had one in many years. It is bad thinking to put seizures only with epilepsy. Grow up.

Nerd, if you had multiple seizures, you have epilepsy, even if you haven't had a seizure in many years (with or without medication).

Folks, look. A non-epileptic casually talking about having a seizure is offensive to many of us who actually have them. I got miffed when Al Roker did it on the Today Show, too. Bug girl and I are letting you know. If you want to keep it up, by all means keep it up, but you should know that it makes you look like an ass.

LM, I was not diagnosed with epilepsy (ecg). You are just paranoid about your condition, and need to ratchet that back a notch.

It doesn't matter if you weren't formally diagnosed, hon. A lot of epileptics aren't. You had multiple seizures that apparently had a single cause over a period of time. It is entirely possible that if you experienced those stressors again, you'd have a seizure. You are epileptic. You don't need a doctor to tell you so for it to be true. It's the definition of epilepsy. Sorry.

Paranoid? About what? Not paranoid, just sick of being the butt of insensitive jokes.

seizures happen all the time on house, and I think only once the diagnosis turned out to be epilepsy. Are you saying that the good atheist doctor is wrong? ;)

An isolated seizure does not epilepsy make. They need to be recurring.

Also, everyone on House ends up bleeding from the anus. What do they put in the water there???

Also, everyone on House ends up bleeding from the anus. What do they put in the water there???

Yeah, and it happens just before a commercial break too. Coincidence? I think not.

Are we still at this?

LM,
for an epileptic you dont seem to know an awful lot about even the basic definition of the disease.
If Nerd had stress,or fever,or alcohol-related seizures,he does not have epilepsy.

Someone is always offended,I guess.I just hate how quick the cudgel of "intolerance" and "you mock us you [insert condition or belief here]-phobic pig" comes out.

What do they put in the water there???

It's Princeton. Need I say more...?

Really? When did they change the definition?

From the EFA website:
"Epilepsy is a medical condition that produces seizures affecting a variety of mental and physical functions. It’s also called a seizure disorder. When a person has two or more seizures, they are considered to have epilepsy."

"When a person has two or more seizures, they are considered to have epilepsy."

I'm not a doctor, nor do I have epilepsy, but don't the seizures have to be unprovoked?

When a person has two or more seizures, they are considered to have epilepsy."

Im sorry,but that is grossly incorrect.
3% of children have febrile convulsions,often more than 2 until they grow out of them,and they are certainly not considered epileptics.

If someone gets their head bashed in and has 2 seizures because of bleeding etc,they are not an epileptic.

Anyway,the point was that you felt offended where there was no offense intended,because you are too personally/emotionally involved,and think the world revolves around your condition.Its understandable,I see it all the time with any given special interest group,but it doesnt make it right or justified.

What does that mean, though? I have (focal) seizures every day that are "provoked" by tactile stimulation. Do I suddenly need to reclassify myself as non-epileptic?

Does a person with photosensitivity not really have epilepsy? Their seizures are provoked by light.

I don't agree with you, clinteas, and neither do any of the neurologists I've seen, and neither does the freaking Epilepsy Foundation of America. I'm actually beginning to suspect that you aren't really a neurologist. I don't think you ever explicitly stated that you are.

Clinteas, if you had a mentally handicapped child and someone near you said something like, "That's so retarded!" you might get offended, even though the person saying it probably meant no harm. And even if YOU didn't get offended, there are people who DO. That ought to be cause enough for people to try to be a little more sensitive.

Happy to agree to disagree.

Btw,
you assumed I was a neurologist,I didnt say anything about my job,just as you assumed that PZ was mocking you.

<>

I never made that assumption, thanks much.

So, just what is it about this whole concept that you aren't getting?

<>

If you aren't a neurologist you have no business treating people with epilepsy. I don't know what you are, but general practitioners (and all non-neurologists) do not have the knowledge or expertise to treat epileptics.

What the hell. My quoted text disappeared.

Oh well. You're smart folks. You can figure it out.

An isolated seizure does not epilepsy make. They need to be recurring.

Uh, was that supposed to help your case?

Alright, this seems to clear it up for me. Looking at the Epilepsy Foundation website, from their FAQs:

"When seizures continue to occur for unknown reasons or because of an underlying problem that cannot be corrected, the condition is known as epilepsy."

If you aren't a neurologist you have no business treating people with epilepsy. I don't know what you are, but general practitioners (and all non-neurologists) do not have the knowledge or expertise to treat epileptics.

From the Epilepsy Foundation of America website:

Which doctors treat epilepsy?
Neurologists, pediatric neurologists, pediatricians, neurosurgeons, internists and family physicians all provide treatment for epilepsy.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Sigh.

Sure, non-neurologists can prescribe meds to patients with epilepsy. But you know what happens when they do? The patient has a life-threatening reaction that can cause the skin to slough off because the doc wasn't familiar enough with the drug and put her on too high a dosage. WHILE SHE WAS PREGNANT.

Yeah. I was the patient. I've since switched to a certified epileptologist who knows what the hell he is doing.

If Nerd had stress,or fever,or alcohol-related seizures,he does not have epilepsy.

My case was stress related. I had been on a job search for over six months with little success when it started. EEG showed nothing. And they ended shortly after I started my present job. One of the Redhead acquaintances recently had some seizures, and she appears to have a menengioma. So seizures are not equal to epilepsy. I will not make fun of people with epilepsy or any health problem beyond their control. I've known too many people who have suffered strokes and polio to make light of such things. If I thought PZ was out of line I would say something. I took his remark as an innocent jest.

There is no known cause for my seizures. Countless EEGs and MRIs have revealed nothing. It's a mystery! And yet medication seems to work, but only because I've never had a tonic clonic while on medication (even though I still have focal seizures, as many as two dozen or more a day). I haven't had a tonic clonic seizure in over five years, but I could have one at any time. I'm certain that I will have one, if not more, sometime in the future. It's like living with a time bomb in your head, and you never know when it might go off.

I fully admit that I'm hypersensitive about it. I've been through a hell of a lot. It's been extremely traumatic, and I don't just mean the seizures themselves. Forgive me for taking such remarks as affront (intended or not, it doesn't matter to me), but I'll continue to do so.

So, PZ has a myoclonic twitch. Those are aggravating as hell, and I sympathize. It is also one of a host of symptoms associated with epilepsy.

Clearly, no one here is getting our point that the stereotypical model of epilepsy *is a crazy person like Chief Inspector Dreyfus,* just as PZ offered up. And it is a stereotype.

Twitching is not the only kind of seizure that happens. And epilepsy is a much more complex disease than seizures. We've given you evidence that it kills sufferers at a higher rate, that they can suffer horrible side effects from the "cure," and that we have been stigmatized through out the centuries, including this one.

Forgive us for thinking that when PZ raves against the idiocy of the church, he might also want to right an additional wrong. Silly us.

bug_girl,

Im getting tired of this,and fast.
You have epilepsy,we have noticed.
You think the world revolves around you and your condition,and everyone has to pay attention and be sensitive.We have noticed that as well.

Forgive us for thinking that when PZ raves against the idiocy of the church, he might also want to right an additional wrong. Silly us.

You are so far off,its not even funny.
Get over yourself.
BTW,there is no us,as in us misunderstood mocked epileptic monority,as the epileptic commenters upthread have made clear.

Bug_girl,

Clearly, no one here is getting our point that the stereotypical model of epilepsy *is a crazy person like Chief Inspector Dreyfus,* just as PZ offered up. And it is a stereotype.

Please, accept that we do get it.

Really.

clinteas@170:

misunderstood mocked epileptic monority<\b><\blockquote>

Did you mean minority or moronity?

Why are so many people offended by the idea of being culturally sensitive?

"I'll make all the retard, gay, and seizure jokes I want because I can, dammit! I don't mean any harm. Those "afflicted" just need to get over themselves! They are just words! I know my rights!"

You CAN say whatever you want. But things you say might just reflect badly on you. I totally defend your right to be an ass.

And just in time:
http://www.derailingfordummies.com/

" It’s very important to discount the Marginalised Person’s™ experience at every available opportunity. Apart from being simply outright hurtful and demeaning, it also forces them into a constant position of defense.
If a Marginalised Person™ gives you a personal testament, then you must immediately assume they are speaking on behalf of their entire group of people and be very quick to point out that it’s wrong for them to do so.

It’s a diversionary tactic, designed to get them denying your accusation and so forgetting to continue to argue their point.

You will find that something very important to Marginalised People™ is stressing the fact that they are not all the same. This is because Privileged People® have routinely lumped them all together as one great big monolithic group who all look the same, act the same, think the same, speak the same, dress the same, eat the same, feel the same - you get the idea. And, of course, all of those monolithic behaviours are “other” than those of the Privileged®.

...It also works to suggest to them that their experience is worthless because it doesn’t align with everyone’s - particularly those that you’ve decided to favour. That is, the experiences that, to your mind, back up your prejudices. This is belittling and offensive in the extreme as you are essentially denying their reality. People’s personal experiences are important to them, so it’s likely they will, whilst getting increasingly hurt and upset, continue to try and defend and “prove” them to your exacting measures while you can bask in the satisfaction of knowing you have caused them distress.

Hmmmm. It's complicated. I do understand, or try to understand, where LM and bug girl are coming from.

I have two conditions (that I know of). One makes me faint frequently, when faced with almost any extreme or strange substance - heat, cold, pain, pot,... I don't like that I faint. It's associated with stereotypes of female fragility (though I see myself as otherwise strong), and it's caused me relatively serious injuries. Nevertheless, my friends tease me about it and I joke about it all the time, including here just the other night.

The other is more serious and potentially more embarrassing, and I do get upset and cringe when people joke about symptoms that are associated with it. However, these symptoms are associated with a number of things (and can happen to people with no condition at all), and so I can't take it "personally." It bothers me in a way, but I try to accept that we're joking about human frailty, out of experience or out of fear, and we share that.

Why are so many people offended by the idea of being culturally sensitive?

That is code words for "politically correct", which is codewords for don't do or say anything that may offend anybody. This stifles free speech, and allows hypersensative people to dominate discussions instead of rational people. People need to keep in mind the difference between deliberate insults and just casual reasonably polite discussion. PZ has said nothing to deliberately insult epileptics. In fact it is my stress related seizures PZ is talking about, not epilepsy. Focus on the context and not just the one word. Epilepsy isn't even mentioned by PZ.

Okay. Bug girl and I are not trying to stifle free speech. The whole point of this argument is that there need not be harm intended for harm to be done. It is not a difficult concept. We are attempting to raise awareness here; "Hey, when you say stuff like, "I'm going to have a seizure!" it bothers people who honestly suffer from seizures. It's not cool. So could you try to make a conscious effort to refrain in the future?" I fail to see how that is an unreasonable request.

You can try to pick this apart into as many tiny pieces and obsess over semantics as much as you want. We've stated our point, and time and time again people like you refuse to see that point.

I'll say it one last time: you are free to be as politically incorrect and culturally insensitive as you want. It's a free country and your prerogative. But don't get indignant and pissed off at us when we let you know in no uncertain terms that what you've said is hurtful.

I fully admit that I'm hypersensitive about it.

Then please try to deal with that.

@ SC, OM: I like the article bug girl posted so much, I'll appeal to it in this case as well:

"You're Being Overemotional -
It is very likely that the whole reason the Marginalised Person™ in question is debating with you is because they’ve made a conscious decision to speak out about these issues, despite the pain and heartache it can often cause them.

Therefore, the “you’re being hostile” bomb can often lead to an increase of anger and/or hurt. Sometimes it just leads to greater emphasis and exasperation in the argument.

It really doesn’t matter, because you can still use it against them by accusing them of being overemotional. You may wish to use the word “hysterical” instead. “Hysterical” is also a word laden with negative connotations, so it’s particularly effective. Using this one in discussions with women is highly advisable, as the opinions and feelings of women have historically been denied as mere “hysteria”, but it works against almost anyone. A great one to use with women as well is to ask them if they’re “PMSing”. Yes, it’s an oldie but a classic.

If you need more variety, some more handy argument winners involving speculating as to people’s neurotypical status: ask them if they’re “neurotic” or “schizo” for example. Implying people have mental health issues is a great way to dismiss their concerns; it’s also insensitive to people with actual mental health issues!

After all, proper “intellectual” discussions always involve detachment and rationality. What is “rationality”? It’s a way of approaching emotional matters devoid of sentiment, particularly prized by Privileged People® as it enables a continuing inequity of power that favours them: after all, if they aren’t emotionally attached to the topic by way of Lived Experience©, it is easier for them to be “rational”.

You're Taking Things Too Personally -
Similar to You’re Being Overemotional and yet with particular uses of its own.

You see, when you say “you’re taking things too personally” you demonstrate your ignorance that these issues ARE personal for them!

That’s highly insulting and is sure to rub anyone up the wrong way. That you're already refusing to consider their reality is giving them a pretty good indication of how the conversation is going to degress, yet the natural human need for understanding will probably compel them to try and reason with you, or at least to point you in the direction of some educational resources that will help you gain insight into their experiences. This can enable you to once again make a demand for them to personally educate you instead.

By denying the conversation is personal for them, you also reveal your own detachment: there’s really nothing at stake for you in getting into this argument, you’re just doing it for kicks. They will be all too aware of this, and it will begin to work on their emotions, preparing them nicely for the next steps you will take them through."

It really doesn’t matter, because you can still use it against them by accusing them of being overemotional. You may wish to use the word “hysterical” instead.

LM, I never accused you of being hypersensitive. You said you were hypersensitive. You. You're arguing with yourself.

PZ had a conniption fit, not a seizure. Look at the symptoms, and consult the Conniption Foundation for more information.

Derailing for Dummies. I'll have you know that this title is highly offensive to dummies everywhere. I hope you can realize how insensitive this flippant usage of a disabling condition is, and that you will consider renaming your article. Thanks.

Oooh, touche. Well, whatever. I personally think that my hypersensitivity is perfectly justified given my experiences, and I would also argue that hypersensitivity is not a bad thing. However, it's obvious that I'm not convincing anyone to more carefully consider their words and the effects that they may unintentionally have on others.

Carry on with your bad selves.

retard, gay, and seizure

Ah there it is. Category error.

Still, I hereby pledge that I will never again (even though I don't think I ever have) joke about somebody having a seizure.
"Howling fantods" is just better all around.

LM,

Let me tell you a little story. A few weeks ago I got upset with someone (from here, incidentally) through email because he made some comments about something I am hypersensitive about. I was angry with him despite admitting that I knew I was being overly sensitive. Hypersensitivity can be understandable (and yours in this matter is far more than mine in that), but it can't really be justified. It means not just sensitive, but excessively so. After a while, I emailed him to apologize, acknowledging that my reaction had been totally disproportionate. (Fortunately, he didn't hold it against me.) I'm not attacking you - I understand where you're coming from, and I hope I don't sound dismissive. I just think you might want to consider that something similar is going on here.

LM @183,

I personally think that my hypersensitivity is perfectly justified given my experiences, and I would also argue that hypersensitivity is not a bad thing.

Hm. I'd argue that sensitivity is a good thing, but consider how the prefix hyper applies here.

Wow. I've had episodes similar to Nerd's, of seizures during high stress/high fevers, I'm not epileptic, epilepsy does run in my family--making me very familiar with it, and I wasn't offended in the least.

As for being "culturally sensitive," whatever the fuck that is, I don't tiptoe around whining. Never have. Never will.

LM I can understand,and he us obvisously,but bug_girl,too far gone,as her 174 shows,way too far gone for any rational discussion.
Persecution complex,like any garden variety xtian retard.And mind closed.

I wasn't going to respond anymore, but wow, just wow. Clint, you are a rare specimen. How fascinating to see someone completely and utterly lacking in compassion, empathy, and sensitivity, and how fortunate that I do not know such people outside of the internet.

Also, I am a woman. I won't even touch the implications of your assuming that I am male.

Aquaria: Cultural sensitivity is pretty self explanatory. Take those two brain cells of yours and rub 'em together until you've figured it out. Or you could try Google.