Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : CYGN -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Islander who wrote (64)	12/7/1999 1:59:00 PM
From: Neenny	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 135

Islander, I am still curious what if any direct contact you have with living with or care of a diabetic?? ..... However, the FDA approves or disapproves glucose meters (test strip method) on the basis of accuracy. Why is this being treated differently? Clearly you do not recall how questionable the results from the early glucose monitors were. The monitors that had to be calibrated before every use??? There was a wide range of variation that was acceptable. I suspect the early monitors started out much the same in accuracy as this watch will be. I also continue to question if they are not claiming the accuracy of the watch based on a need to Cover there A**es, in a sue happy country. Regarding Kids and the use of the glucose monitoring watch, hmmm, well not only do I have a diabetic husband, but I also have a diabetic nephew. Your concern about the child relying on the watch, comes back to the need in a child's life for responsible parenting. As with any new medical or technical advancement, improvements will continue to be made..... Jane

To: Islander who wrote (64)	12/7/1999 3:36:00 PM
From: StaggerLee	Respond to of 135

If it gives you a reading within 30% of accurate, and it gives it to you every 20 minutes throughout the day, that's a huge benefit. So what if the true level is 170 instead of 240, or 80 instead of 110? Close enough! I'd be happy if it merely said "High/Normal/Low" even without specific mg/dl figures. I think they're saying not to rely on the readings for dosage purposes to cover their own butts. In practice, everyone will rely on the readings, just like they rely on meters today. In my experience, if you shoot up frequently enough in small doses, the change in the dosage resulting from the watch's inaccuracy won't have any real impact. The only ones who will get into trouble are the folks who try to escape with only 1 or 2 shots a day.

To: Islander who wrote (64)	12/7/1999 3:57:00 PM
From: Puck	Respond to of 135

The finger prick method is imperfect in its accuracy to the same extent as glucowatch, so there's no change from the patient's perspective. Go to Yahoo and sift through all the press releases you can find about the advisory committee vote. You'll find ample corroboration for the fact I present.

To: Islander who wrote (64)	12/7/1999 4:53:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 135

I am a diabetic II. My HMO gives me blood monitoring equipment and supplies. In several years I have never been able to figure out what makes by blood sugar jump around. In particular, what makes it drop so suddenly through the safe area to low. A wearable nonintrusive glucometer would perhaps extend my life for several years. I am compulsive and non-suicidal. I couldn't eat if I measured high. I would instantly take a glucose table if I were low. I just hope the watch design is not so obvious that the wearer is treated as disabled. For many diabetics the watch will cost little or nothing. It will be helpful. It will encourage adherence to treatment regimes. It will extend many lives, IMO.