KLM wrote:My work here is done.
As an interested observer, I have found this thread fascinating.
On the one side we have an xPAP user relating his experience and observations in an exceedingly detailed and quantitative manner, clearly stating assumptions and test methods, and describing actual measured machine performance.
On the other side we have a pontificating “guest” or “guests” offering well written and entertaining prose along with a few broad marketing generalizations.
Hmm . . ., whom to believe? (Me thinks to self for a few seconds.) Seems like a no-brainer to me. Actions speak so much louder than words.
The “I’m OK, You’re NOT OK” attitude displayed by our guest(s) is fairly typical of that seen much too often within the medical community and is a favorite tactic employed by physicians with difficult patients, as if numerous persistent personal attacks can change facts or that marketing hype is more important than actual results.
I would submit to our guest(s) that this line of thinking is seriously flawed. For example, the U.S. automotive industry tried this 30 years ago, and got their collective butts kicked by international competition which used little in the way of rhetoric; instead concentrating on providing performance.
As another example, perhaps hitting a little closer to the mark here, I would also submit to our guest(s) that this flawed line of reasoning you provide is the primary reason the medical community currently finds itself embroiled in massive lawsuits involving prescription drugs. By inflating performance claims, ignoring patient complaints, and resorting to personal attacks the medical community has established fertile breeding ground for the lawsuits.
Guest(s), if you really want to convince anyone on this forum of performance claims, you might try bringing verifiable data next time. Many of us have had our fill of unsubstantiated claims which led to poor treatment.
Regards,
Bill
