> I am sorry your doctor didn't take it seriously

In a sense he did take me and himself seriously. By the accepted theory on apnea, my symptoms were impossible. Hence the dismissal. In the docs mind its as if I were arguing for ET or Loch Ness, etc. I appreciate your compassion but you should be sorry that my docs did not have an open mind.

> but I'd wait before accusing of "arrogance, condescension and non-sense".

Well, your comment on block-on-exhale was non-sense by your own standards and a pretty standard reply which you did not defend. If you point this out to a doctor they do not explain, they get defensive or dismissive -- just like you. Is that arrogance or condescension?, I forget. You wouldn't happen to be a doctor would you? BTW, I noted that you did not address the issue of the stats and I can see that might sound like a conspiracy but is not. Its just the way that the medical industry rolls but you have to dig in to get the details and most docs don't have the time and take the JAMA articles at face value.

> You make it sound like a conspiracy.

I hardly think my supposition that the docs have missed something here amounts to a conspiracy. No tinfoil required, just read medical history. How about the highschool girl who self-diagnosed Crohn's disease in biology class just last week that all her doctors had missed. Or Drs. Semmelweis and Oliver Wendell Homes who advocated hand washing during childbirth to prevent puerperal fever and were treated with "disdain and hostility" by their own colleagues per historical accounts. (Imagine their attitude if the patients had suggested that the docs wash their hands!)

And let's not forget how patients with ulcers were told the cause is spicy foods and stress until Drs. Marshall and Warren proved that H. Pylori bacteria was the cause. Do you think that patients who followed orders were accussed of cheating on spicy foods and, despite reducing stress levels, still had no relief? How much do you want to bet that 30% of those who followed the Rx under the wrong theory found relief and 70% of those who followed the Rx got no relief and gave up. Those who gave up were then omitted from the stats as "non-compliant" and the Rx of bland food and reduced stress was 100% effective "when used correctly" as reported in JAMA and by crocowhile. I could go on but I think you get the point -- doctors miss things and wrong cause yields no or limited cure, no conspiracy required.

> Why don't you go to a sleep center, see a sleep doctor and have a polysomnography done?

Tried that but it is a long and windy road with many tollbooths along the way and no assurance of reaching the destination.

> That way you'll make sure what the problem is. With a polysomnography they routinely measure the air influx in and out: if you have in but not out they'll see that, no need to "look for it".

This is an incredibly naive statement that makes me think that a) you are an academic and b) you've never had a medical condition that requires the doc to actually think.

Anyway, one sleep doc said the standard Rx no matter how I block is diet, CPAP then surgery. He was not open to the discussion that CPAP makes no sense for block on exhale and could not even confirm that the sleep test would identify that. I contacted a sleep tech who administers these tests and he said they don't look for block type, they just count blocks per hour that disrupt sleep. So many per hour and you qualify for CPAP per the insurance industry. I guess when all you have is a CPAP everything looks like a nail, or something like that.

> Good luck!

Thanks!

Fortunately, I am able to control my apnea on my own using a variety of techniques. However, I have no guarantee that this will remain so as I get older. Plus a medical professional solution would almost certainly be better. As I stated in my prior reply, I am hopeful that a medical researcher or doctor with an open mind comes across this thread and question the current apnea theory so a solution can be found. On that optimistic note, perhaps you can forward this thread to one of your colleagues. Thanks.