When he first lost his hearing it was assumed that it was probably due to auto-immune disease, but I am unaware that any definitive proof was made that established it for a fact. Since the news of his drug abuse was released, there have been many reports linking his drug of choice to sudden hearing loss: Palm Beach Post
Salon
Rx List
TalkRadio
USA Today
Miller Med Uni

....and there are about a zillion more, but these cover it pretty well. No article, including the most recent in Newsweek, states that his diagnosis was definitive. My daughter lost her hearing to an infection, and it took three years to establish that was the cause, largely because no biopsies could be obtained without destroying residual hearing. (And we had excellent documentation). She is friends with several children who lost their hearing, none of which have a specific diagnosis- just the usual 'probably viral or autoimmune'.

From the Salon article:

"Three days later, doctors at House told reporters that they were treating Limbaugh for "hearing loss resulting from autoimmune inner ear disease," or AIED. The doctors said that they based their diagnosis on Limbaugh's "medical history and hearing tests." However, they noted at the time that "Mr. Limbaugh does not display most of the symptoms associated with AIED."
House physicians issued a statement late last week in which they stuck with their diagnosis of AIED, despite the surfacing of allegations that Limbaugh had abused one of the drugs House previously identified as causing hearing loss. "The AIED diagnosis has not changed, and the House Ear Clinic continues to consult Mr. Limbaugh regarding his treatment for this disorder, and to follow up with him regarding his cochlear implant," they said.
In the statement, the House doctors said that hearing loss caused by an overdose of Vicodin-type drugs "usually occurs over a period of days," while hearing loss caused by AIED typically occurs "over a period of several weeks to months." Limbaugh's hearing loss reportedly took several months, from May through September 2001.
But Dr. Gail Ishiyama, a UCLA neurotologist studying the mechanism that triggers hearing loss in Vicodin users, said that there is no real way to tell the difference between AIED and Vicodin-induced hearing loss -- unless the patient confesses to drug abuse. "It can present very similarly," she told Salon Monday, "and unless the patient tells you that they're abusing the Vicodin or other pain medication, you wouldn't know the difference."

Mr. Limbaugh's records were siezed legally after the prosecuters followed Florida law by obtaining a search warrant and getting the approval of a judge. This only after allegations came to light of just what Mr. Limbaugh was up to. The ACLU contested that action and the whole affair was covered quite extensively in the media; so much for your "no one in the media" comment.

Surely you don't mean to equate Rush's troubles with our President's NSA records trolling adventures which are in VIOLATION of federal law and done WITHOUT judicial approval, none of which we were ever supposed to know about?

I watched a CNN special last night about AIDS and President Clinton was on. He spoke and took questions from the audience. I think he speaks very well. Very eloquent. I miss him a great deal.

People are saying his new portrait looks like Ted Koppel. Did anyone else hear this? I thought that was funny.
:D

Nice try :) But privacy doesn't matter if it's a conservative. Also, you can't bring reason and reality into a situation where the mold is set, but kudos for trying.

Hi Earkid. Hope to see more of you around here.

True. Does this mean you believe in the infallability of the judicial system? That the ruling was proper?

Just curious. I disagree with judicial rulings ALL the time, but we have to live with them. Just because the Supreme Court ruled that it was OK to take the private property of one private entity and give it to another private entity doesn't make it right (or even Consitutional, really).

Hey, he was just refuting the allegation that the seizure was illegal.

It's ok to explore things further, but I hope you are not implying that SMcS has to then justify his refutation of an obvious falsehood that was posted by someone else.

No - not at all. I am really just curious as to what he thinks of that particular ruling. That's why I started my response to Scrooge with "True", acknowledging that, yes, indeed, that was the ruling.

But Limbaugh himself is saying that the wiretapping without warrants didn't happen. So following his logic, what's there to get up in arms about?

If by infallible you mean "incapable of error or failure", then no. No system devised by man is infallible.

I do believe the ruling was proper. There was evidence to suggest Rush was involved in illegal activity.