-SWS wrote:
<snip>
Because if I was a newcomer contemplating ASV pressure experiments, and I read banned's implied advice, I'd probably assume that highly-experienced banned just gave me the ASV-experimentation "go ahead" based on low risk assessment. And when highly-experience dsm lends credence to banned's ASV risk assessment, I'd assume that dsm has also garnered numerically sufficient ASV outcomes to endorse that implied low-risk assessment of banned's.
Again, not to offend either of you two. Risk assessment is always a worthy topic of discussion---and especially among the scant few ASV users we have.
<snip>
SWS
I am always very mindful of the reality that in these early days of growing ASV use, that the early adopters are more than likely special cases. It is essential to refer people to their RTs. If someone comes here & asks for suggestions in how they might vary the adjustments it makes sense to try to determine if they understand wht they are doing. I also tend to think that we have a lot of very smart people who come to cpaptalk & am certain the majority wouldn`t like being treated as dummies. But, caution is the safe approach in providing advice.
With Banned`s quip about the current machine hitting a brickwall, I laughed to myself as it was sooo Banned a remark. I personally believe I can set up a Bipap Auto to almost mimic a Vpap Adapt SV except for the speed of response. But the Bipap AutoSV has so many parameters one can play with which gives it a broad range of target users. I like both machines for different reasons. I do enjoy Banned`s lack of political correctness
DSM





