Two have said they would if I get a retinologist to vet the necessity, one will bypass that requirement (the same one who would bypass the perpetual aspirin requirement.)

Question is, is he savvier and/or ,more sympathetic (or whatever), or --- less conscientious?
More research on my own...

Yesterday I found online on an ophthalmology board I somehow joined, a lecture on the pros and cons of aspirin after the Watchman Procedure. (They are doing studies in China too, but they're in the preliminary stages.)

She's even relatively nearby (2 hours or so), which is something since I live in a medical wasteland. At least, my overworked PCP just responded to my (long - so much to explain) email request for an obligatory referral.

Tomorrow, I'll try to make an appointment. (She was booking into October as of Friday).

I'll only hope my eye doesn't start bleeding again in the meanwhile.

Just to add frosting on the cake of my dilemmas, my local retinologist (whom I just met with after months, I thought to inject me), informed me he doesn't do injections on people WITHOUT ACTIVE BLEEDING.

No, this is not standard protocol but I suspect he may be acting according to some cabal of retinologists who have decided for economic reasons* to do it this way (I see plainly on line - right here on another CONNECT site - that many people have their sight saved by more patient-welfare oriented treatment. For instance at the Mayo Clinic.). They are clearly NOT only getting injections after all hell breaks loose, but prophylactically.

(All clinical trials state repeatedly, that "in the field" patients fare worse in terms of visual acuity than they do in clinical trials - WHY? Because they/we are "under-treated." )

Another challenge to (try to) protect my doomed vision and advocate for myself!

There! More than you ever wanted to know about "wet" macular degeneration.

*The shots cost well over $2000/apiece.