The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 53

wendybeth · 04-30-2006, 11:33 PM

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."

Scrooge McSam · 05-01-2006, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earkid

And yet when Rush's medical records were seized illegally no one in the media expressed outrage about that invasion of privacy? Hmm, pot, kettle, black?

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?

Gemini Cricket · 05-01-2006, 05:28 AM

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.

Nephythys · 05-01-2006, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earkid

While studying for my Doctorate in Audiology I followed Rush's struggle with sudden/progressive hearing loss with intense interest. The doctor's at the House Ear Institute in Los Angeles put Rush thru many tests to determine the etiology of his loss in order to determine whether or not a cochlear implant was indicated. They determined that he lost his hearing from a systemic viral infection that attacked the unique tissues and structures of the ear as if they were a foreign body. This is how Rush went from essentially normal hearing to a profound hearing impairment within six months. I am currently the audiologist for a patient who is suffering from the same ailment and, luckily, her hearing has stabilized at about a 60% impairment.

I know I don't post here much but I just wanted to add my .02 since I do specialize in ears.

As my final comment I will say that I think many are missing the true outrage of this investigation of Rush. How many times have we heard on the news lately how people are afraid that the president is illegally wiretapping and we have no privacy, blah blah. And yet when Rush's medical records were seized illegally no one in the media expressed outrage about that invasion of privacy? Hmm, pot, kettle, black?

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.

scaeagles · 05-01-2006, 06:55 AM

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

scaeagles · 05-01-2006, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

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.

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).

innerSpaceman · 05-01-2006, 07:18 AM

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.

scaeagles · 05-01-2006, 07:22 AM

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.

Gemini Cricket · 05-01-2006, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earkid

How many times have we heard on the news lately how people are afraid that the president is illegally wiretapping and we have no privacy, blah blah. And yet when Rush's medical records were seized illegally no one in the media expressed outrage about that invasion of privacy? Hmm, pot, kettle, black?

Quote:

From the January 10 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: I mean -- [Sen. Patrick] Leahy's [D-VT] comments the -- during his -- during his -- during his -- his question period were outrageous. And [Supreme Court nominee Samuel A.] Alito was just toying with him during the whole time. Leahy said that spying on Americans without a warrant -- that's not what happened! He's misstating the facts! Americans were not spied on without a warrant.

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?

Scrooge McSam · 05-01-2006, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Does this mean you believe in the infallability of the judicial system?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

That the ruling was proper?

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

04-30-2006, 11:33 PM	#521
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	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." __________________
	Submit to Quotes

05-01-2006, 05:28 AM	#523
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	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.
	Submit to Quotes

05-01-2006, 06:55 AM	#525
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Hi Earkid. Hope to see more of you around here.
	Submit to Quotes

05-01-2006, 07:18 AM	#527
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	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.
	Submit to Quotes

05-01-2006, 07:22 AM	#528
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	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.
	Submit to Quotes