27 Responses

  1. Steve
    Steve August 11, 2010 at 7:26 am | | Reply

    I agree that accurate continuous monitoring can be a good thing. Unfortunately, that doesn’t currently exist. Hell, the thing is calibrated with a relatively inaccurate monitor.

    As a 30 year veteran of the diabetes war, I employ common sense to analyze my “static” finger-stick blood sugar measurements. With regards to the post restaurant high blood sugar, if I had eaten a big meal, checked my blood sugar (which is what I do), and had a high reading, I would have known to take more insulin. You never totally trust what the pump says. Come on, we aren’t robots.

    This post sounds like a sales pitch, including corny anecdotes, for something we don’t need. We are used as cash cows already. Stop pushing costly inaccurate CGMs. The best, most cost effective technology we have are test strips. Used with experience and common sense, I have achieved a 5.7 A1C, and my 10 year old daughter’s is 6.2. We’ve done this without “ending up in the emergency room” (ooh scary!). When something better comes along, you won’t have to pitch it like snake oil to get people to use it.

  2. Bernard Farrell
    Bernard Farrell August 11, 2010 at 7:55 am | | Reply

    Will, just placed an order. I really liked the Tiger book, can’t wait to read the new one.

  3. Michael Hoskins
    Michael Hoskins August 11, 2010 at 8:30 am | | Reply

    I hadn’t ordered any, but am now on that (as soon as I find my wife’s credit card…) Thanks for sharing, Wil, and so much for connecting us with him again Amy! Great rundown of the CGMs! In my ongoing decision-making about whether or not to take the plunge, I’ve now got another great spot of wisdom to take into account.

    “…breaking into a Godiva Chocolate shop in the middle of the night.”

    LOVE IT!

    And For The Record, it was only once and the charges were dropped. So there.

  4. Monica
    Monica August 11, 2010 at 8:40 am | | Reply

    This article truly depicts the benefits of a CGMS with the current available technologies.

    The question is, what’s next?

    The problem with current CGMS devices is that there is no efficient way of dealing with the data generated from the device. Sure, you can look at the graphs and make dosing adjustments from there, but it is kind of like using an electronic compass and a map to guide you on the right path.

    For example, if your blood sugar is 200 and is rising at 3 mg/dL per minute on your cgms, you think you may need a bolus of X, with a temp basal of duration X and with the amount of X to get you on the right path. Usually it works and gets you on the right path, but sometimes you make errors and you overcompensate and go on the opposite path. Then you have to rely on the cgms again to get you on the right path.

    Unfortunately, there is no definitive standard for dosing based on the numbers or trends generated from the device. It is trial and error. The design of the device limits users from making more proactive decisions in care, too, because having 4 or 5 operational buttons versus a touchscreen monitor limits users when sorting though data.

    What we really need is a device that brings the pump, cgms, and blood glucose meters together in a touch screen interface. Like a diabetes operating system that manages the data properly, and can apply formulas, statistics, and rules for when blood sugars get out of range, the rate of change of the blood glucose, and the displacement of the out of range numbers. This would act as a GPS for a person with diabetes because it could give further recommendations and insight about out of range numbers. It would almost give directions and a roadmap to getting on to the right path for blood sugars. You would be able to easily track what strategies work versus which strategies do work. A diabetes operating system with data management tools would be a whole lot more efficient, and would sort of be a GPS for diabetics.

    As an electrical engineering major, I know that all RF devices can communicate using the same cellular antennas used on mobile phones. However the data that is sent from pumps and other cgms devices are encrypted so there are limitations. I also don’t recommend having it integrated in to a cell phone due to safety and security reasons. I truly believe that a company such as for example Intel Health could make a mobile device for diabetics that could link all of the data together using RF, IR data ports, USB ports, and 3g mobile internet.

    I hope this was insightful. This is where I believe CGMS and Diabetes technology needs to go.

  5. Chas Bergson
    Chas Bergson August 11, 2010 at 8:53 am | | Reply

    While I am not on insulin or the pump, I swim for 40 minutes a day (Ocasionally to 45 – 50). I also walk for 45 minutes, primarily uphill.

    I have thought of a CGM particularly because of the exercise and following. However, to the best of my knowledge none of the CGM’s on the market can take 40 minutes under water.

    Chas Bergson

  6. MoHo
    MoHo August 11, 2010 at 11:45 am | | Reply

    Hey Chas, you’re misinformed. I swim all the time along with wake boarding and surfing (in salt water!) and my Dexcom works great. The only issue you may have is the sensor adhesive doesn’t last as long so you may need to change sensors more often. The receiver is not waterproof so you’ll be incommunicado for the time in the pool but the sensors will work fine. It’s worth it, believe me.

  7. Melitta
    Melitta August 11, 2010 at 11:54 am | | Reply

    I think a really key issue, that does not seem to be addressed, is which brand of CGM? I got one brand, found that getting it correctly calibrated was nearly impossible, and that it was wildly inaccurate. Others have had the same experience with that brand (and mind you, I am a technogeek who has happily and successfully worn an insulin pump for 12 years).

  8. LL
    LL August 11, 2010 at 1:04 pm | | Reply

    I agree, there is a problem with brands.
    One is giving lots of folks trouble, one is temporarily off the market and one won’t allow you to consume Tylenol products (which some of us need).
    The choices are few, and there are problems out there.
    Heck, my HMO doesnt even get ordering pumps or supplies right.
    Throw this at them and it could be a huge mess……
    Poor coverage doesn’t help any either.
    And I have to wonder, if you have a really really good A1c, maybe you need this because you are constantly running lower than low.
    As my Endo and I discussed, if you are over-consumed with numbers, this could bring information overload.
    I’m not convinced this is yet the way of the future, at least not in its current state.
    I’m in favor of getting it for those who really need it, but I dont think it’s meant for everyone.

  9. Annie Overman
    Annie Overman August 11, 2010 at 3:18 pm | | Reply

    I have had a pump for some 15 years and added the CGM about 2-3 years ago. At first I had a horrible time with inaccurate numbers and calibrations and was even told NOT to use the “link” meter (bc it sends and calibrates with every reading). After about 9 months of choosing my own calibrations and having quite variable data, my brother (a new diabetic and engineer/computer nerd) recommended that I give the “link” meter another try and it honestly works almost perfectly this time around. I can’t tell you why, (I’m not the nerd), but it really has worked. I’m pregnant, so have been checking about 15 times a day and calibrating with each reading no matter what the rate of change at the time is and my CGM (medtronic) is reading better than ever and has been quite useful. I just wish my OB had some idea of how to use or read or be interested in the data.

  10. Az
    Az August 11, 2010 at 11:52 pm | | Reply

    The issue for myself (and those living in Australia) is that so far only the Medtronic CGM has been approved for sale in Australia leaving us with only one choice but but real issue is that it is still not covered by insurance :(

  11. William Lee Dubois
    William Lee Dubois August 12, 2010 at 8:24 am | | Reply

    Thanks all for your comments!

    To respond: Bernard; thanks for the kind words (and for the donation to the starving author’s royalty fund!).

    Michael: I always suspected that you were the Godiva Bandit.

    Monica: What’s next? Many exciting things, assuredly. I agree that there is a problem of data overload with our current devices. In fact, I have a whole chapter devoted to the subject in the Fingersticks book.

    Yes, CGM is trial and error, and more like having a compass than a guide, but it beats the heck out of having no compass at all. True, there is no definitive standard for dosing, as you point out, but there never can be. We all differ too much. Insulin sensitivity is different from diabetic to diabetic, and from day to day and hour to hour within any one person.

    As to a GPS for diabetes, it will happen someday. Touch screen technology is still pretty new, the reason we have 10-year old technology to treat our diabetes is because it takes that long to get from design though FDA approval. I know that many designers at pump companies would love to transmit data to cell phones, but the government is standing in the way. The FDA will not accept an application that, for instance, says “the information will be transmitted to a Blackberry.” It has to be a specific model, and by the time an application gets through FDA the model is obsolete and no longer made.

    I’d love to see our CGM transmitters send to multiple devices, so parents and spouses could have a companion monitor. Of course, right now the telemetry range on most CGMs is pretty limited. I think we could also have more intelligent software to help us with the data from the CGMs, technology is not the limitation here: liability is.

    But you have great ideas. I hope you’ll put your electrical engineering education to work helping build the next generation of devices.

    Chas: the CGM monitors are not waterproof, so you’ll need some sort of case that is. Sensor and transmitters do just fine in the water.

    MoHo: Do you cover your site with something like an IV 3000?

    Melitta: I didn’t address which CGM is best because there isn’t one answer. The CGM that is best for me may not be the one that is best for you. There is an extensive appendix in the Fingersticks book that covers all the various things you should think about when comparing one system to another that might be helpful to you in figuring out which is the right one for you! As to the unnamed brand with the calibration issues, it actually can be calibrated and can be amazing. See chapter 9 to learn how to do it.

    Az: bummer and double bummer.

  12. Steve
    Steve August 12, 2010 at 9:22 am | | Reply

    Fingersticks are still the best way. CGMS are inaccurate and burdensome. The amount of data, largely inaccurate, confuses most consumers. It is being pushed for profit, not patient benefit. This story reads like an infomercial with its “witty” antecdotes, and scare tactics “emergency room”.
    Come on, we aren’t robots. When I have food, I check my blood sugar, and adjust accordingly, even if my pump says not to. It’s a machine to HELP me control my blood sugar. I’m the one driving.
    We are all different. There is no all encompasing formula that will tell us exactly what to do to maintain control. We have to use what we feel are the best tools to get the job done. I used a CGMS when they were first introduced and it sucked. False alarms, bad readings, and I had to calibrate the thing many times a day. Just check your blood sugar and deal with it.

  13. David Parker
    David Parker August 12, 2010 at 11:53 am | | Reply

    Thanks for the nice article, Will, but I’ll second Steve’s remarks.

    It seems to me from the anecdotes I read that some folks who swear by the value of their CGMs like to run roughshod over any sort of a meal plan, the fundamental requirement of good diabetes management. How so? Well, for example, Will says he goes to an inappropriate restaurant and eats entirely too much of the wrong meal. Then he relies on his CGM to get him back on track. That’s not good management and it’s not really improved by the CGM system. One can argue that, realistically, all folks do that sort of thing occasionally. It seems to me that a CGM (as used by adults anyway) only encourages some sort of poor decision making.

    I like technology as well as anybody but I’m not convinced it’s appropriate for me.

    David P.

    (Full disclosure: I don’t use a CGM and I have an A1c of 6.0 and have pumped for 30 years.)

  14. Sarah
    Sarah August 12, 2010 at 12:16 pm | | Reply

    The real benefit of a cgms in my opinion is for my 5 year old; he’s had it since he was 2, and it’s been SO much easier for dealing with a small child, and getting his A1C below 7 (finally). I also have type 1, and I tried his, and it didn’t seem to help me much. I did learn some things on it (e.g., that I tend to go up after exercising), but I always could feel the lows long before the thing would alarm. The FDA should approve the use of the cgms in children.

  15. Lynn
    Lynn August 12, 2010 at 12:36 pm | | Reply

    I agree with Steve also.
    First of all, we have only a few choices where to purchase this product from. One is currently not selling, one is constantly being complained about by users and with the last one you cannot use Tylenol products. Some of us like our Tylenol.
    The theory that every diabetic must have one of these (and I have seen that in other forums) is silly.
    Not every diabetic wants or needs one.
    If you are running your Bg’s so low that you are constantly needing this for alerts, that isnt a good thing.
    If you cannot feel them, that’s a good reason for using one.
    We also need to remember, not everyone can afford these systems.
    Some HMO/insurance companies will not pay, unless there are dangerous incidents reported from the patient (extreme lows mainly).

    My Endo and I discussed this, and we both felt the technology was still poor, and the numbers could absolutely drive certain people wonky.
    He keeps telling me I have a very good tool with my pump, and just need to use it the way it was intended.
    I tend to agree.

  16. Laura
    Laura August 12, 2010 at 1:48 pm | | Reply

    I’m with Steve also.
    (and having computer troubles so going to try this again).
    I dont think everyone wants or needs this kind of system.
    My endo and I discussed that I have a great tool with my pump, and I need to use it! We also discussed if I have so many extreme lows that this system would help me (or if I dont feel them). Neither applies to me. Then we discussed information overload, something I think weighs heavy on some people who set out to use the CGMS.
    I think people deserve them, and they should be covered but I’m not sure if your A1C is lower than low that you can claim medical necessity.
    Perhaps you’re running yourself too low and causing your own problems?
    I also think the choices right now are poor. One manufacturer is on hold, one everyone complains about and the other requires you to avoid Tylenol products.
    And I’ve seen people who are basing all their decisions on this technology, so clearly they dont get it………

  17. Meg
    Meg August 12, 2010 at 2:48 pm | | Reply

    One thing I find very disheartening about this post is that, after using a CGM for five years( continuously?), Mr. Dubois writes:

    ” Every week you can download a CGM to your computer and “Monday Morning Quarterback” your real-time decisions. You can look at what worked and what didn’t work in your diabetes therapy, and you can learn from those success and failures to improve your control.”

    Seriously? I’d like some technology that won’t leave me still searching for answers after five long years. I’m not willing to go to time/trouble/expense for what must just be an incremental improvement in control. Also, It seems like you’d have to suffer from OCD to actually look at the data once a week.

  18. Doug
    Doug August 12, 2010 at 9:05 pm | | Reply

    Wow … Lots of people saying ” I’m successful without it so you shouldn’t need it either ” or ” In fact I think its too expensive and unreliable so only idiots would use it ”

    Different solutions for different people. Most here that dont like CGMS are likely not the parent of a child who wakes up 3 times a might to check BG of a child. That parent wants ANYTHING that can help. Trust me CGMS is a HUGE help for that person impacted by diabetes.

    Everyones disease, medical team and lifestyles are different. At least be respectful of others choices and situations. We need to continue to improve treatment options and data. About 90 years ago Insulin was extracted from pigs and used to treat diabetes. The test equipment has improved from test tubes to BG strips to CGMS, BUT we are still using essentially the same drug as 90 years ago and still relying on diet and insulin to try to delay what were ( and in some cases still are ) fatal complications. I think we need to encourage anything that may help us get to fundamental changes to the treatment or perhaps cure. CGMS may not be that solution but it may be a stepping stone for corporations or a bridge for patients.

    One thing that would be Exceptionally helpful is if cgms systems were available for rent. For example – A parent without Ins coverage could ay out of pocket to use the system for a month to help get patterns down.

    Disclosure- dx 22 years ago – Pump user for 7 years – Navigator user for almost 3. Not a parent.

  19. Doug
    Doug August 12, 2010 at 9:10 pm | | Reply

    Wow … Lots of people saying ” I’m successful without it so you shouldn’t need it either ” or ” In fact I think its too expensive and unreliable so only idiots would use it ”

    Different solutions for different people. Most here that dont like CGMS are likely not the parent of a child who wakes up 3 times a might to check BG of a child. That parent wants ANYTHING that can help. Trust me CGMS is a HUGE help for that person impacted by diabetes.

    Everyones disease, medical team and lifestyles are different. At least be respectful of others choices and situations. We need to continue to improve treatment options and data. About 90 years ago Insulin was extracted from pigs and used to treat diabetes. The test equipment has improved from test tubes to BG strips to CGMS, BUT we are still using essentially the same drug as 90 years ago and still relying on diet and insulin to try to delay what were ( and in some cases still are ) fatal complications. I think we need to encourage anything that may help us get to fundamental changes to the treatment or perhaps cure. CGMS may not be that solution but it may be a stepping stone for corporations or a bridge for patients.

    What would be very helpful is if CGMS system was available for Rent for a week or a month. That would allow a parent with no ins to pay out of pocket to use it for 30 days to track patterns in the child.

    Disclosure: Not a parent, Dx 22 years ago, pump 7 years ago, Navigator about 3 years ago.

  20. Matt
    Matt August 13, 2010 at 7:47 am | | Reply

    Great article! However, I disagree with these comments:

    “Touch screen technology is still pretty new, the reason we have 10-year old technology to treat our diabetes is because it takes that long to get from design though FDA approval. I know that many designers at pump companies would love to transmit data to cell phones, but the government is standing in the way. The FDA will not accept an application that, for instance, says “the information will be transmitted to a Blackberry.” It has to be a specific model, and by the time an application gets through FDA the model is obsolete and no longer made.”

    Regardless of the fact that touchscreens have been around for over 30 years, are touch screens really the answer here? Will that lead to better adherence? I don’t think anything could be further from the truth. The ergonomics of touchscreens are much more difficult to master and I would like to see that time and resources dedicated towards better software algorithms for artificial pancreas’, more accurate devices, etc.

    I also am interested in your source for the FDA approval process is 10 years. That seems grossly exaggerated. Of course, things move slower in big companies especially when you are staying compliant with International Standards and Good Manufacturing Practices for design processes, reviews, etc. but at the point of submitting a product into the FDA for 510k Clearance (Class II) the turnaround time is approximately 90 days until clearance. With very experienced personnel and a lot of money at their disposal, Large Medical Companies can spearhead almost any initiative they want to. I don’t see the problem being the FDA.

  21. William Lee Dubois
    William Lee Dubois August 13, 2010 at 9:57 am | | Reply

    More replies to comments:

    To Steve: (I wasn’t ignoring you, I somehow missed your first comment). So please remember that a limited-scope post covering one issue in CGM is a pale ghost compared to the deeper, broader, far-ranging discussion of the issues in a 350 page book. Meter accuracy is a huge, but not unsolvable, problem that I address in painful detail. And I respectfully disagree with you that accuracy doesn’t exist. But of course that misses the point. Even if a perfect meter existed, it would still only give a pin point of data that has no context. I believe it is context the can take control to the next level, and for that we need volume over accuracy.

    I’m sorry you regarded the post as a sales pitch. I work for a non-profit rural clinic, not a CGM maker. I get no money from the CGM companies. In fact the relationship is the inverse: quite a lot of my net worth has gone from me to them over the last half decade. And if you find my anecdotes are corny and snake-oil-like, well… Well I don’t know what to say. I don’t expect my writing style to appeal to everyone.

    I’m glad you haven’t ended up in an ER. I have. And so have 50,000 other diabetics every year in the US. Several thousand of them leave in body bags. I find it damn scary.

    To LL: I have used all of the brands. All have their own personalities, but all can work very well once you learn their quirks. The brand that gives lots of folks trouble requires a certain type of calibration discipline, which the maker has done a poor job of communicating. Trust me, done right, it gives very good readings. Tylenol can really send readings high for that other brand, but there are other pain killers. I used Advil instead, which has the added benefit of being an anti-inflammatory agent so it kills pain and may address the source of pain (granted, depends on the source of pain).

    Poor coverage is a huge, but improving issue. As to A1Cs, in our diabetes treatment program at my clinic, we get nervous about A1C’s below 6.0, they generally mask hypoglycemia. I think I already touched on data overload. A legit problem, but remember, no one reads a dictionary. Just because you have a ton of data doesn’t mean you need to use all of it.

    And I agree, it is not for everyone. Nothing is.

    Annie: The CGM pump you first used had a very serious design flaw in sending all linked numbers to the CGM as calibrations points. This was a disaster. Thankfully, that has been corrected in the current generation of the system, but it no doubt is responsible for many people taking away a bad attitude about CGM. I’m glad you worked it out (mystery to me too, generally Med-T systems work better with fewer rather than more calibrations). Sorry to hear about your OB, but so long as it helps you be healthier, your baby will be too!

    Steve 2: (Same Steve? Maybe so.) Not an infomercial. I believe in CGM. You are not required to. I think consumers are confused by the technology because we lack good education in how to use it. As diabetes education is my life, that was my purpose it writing the book. Sound diabetes control starts with sound education. I guess my wit doesn’t strike you a particularly witty. But that’s the funny thing about humor: what tickles one person’s funny bone breaks someone else’s. I don’t try to be one thing or another. I just stick with being myself, it’s all I know how to do and it’s easier.

    And I agree with you that we are the drivers. Some folks do better with maps, some with GPS systems that’s all. Sorry you had a bad experience with the early ones.

    David: thanks for the kind words. I confess to being a better tour guide than a role model. But many, many, many diabetics “run roughshod” over good eating plans. That’s human nature. If a technology can help people like that (and like me) stay healthier, I view it as a good thing. One of the core principals at our clinic is that of harm reduction. Because we are in such a painfully poor place with so many economic, social, and cultural issues to surmount, we recognize that we’ll never be able to offer everyone the standard of care. That being the case, anything we can do to reduce harm is counted as a victory. No doubt working in this environment has shaped my world view when it comes to “what’s optimum” vs. “what will do.” Just like pumps aren’t for everyone, CGMs aren’t for everyone. Neither replaces the brain. They are just tools.

    Sarah: They are great for my peds patients, both for the patient and for the peace of mind it brings the parents. With very young kids, their BGLs can really turn on a dime, and they can’t always communicate well. The youngest kid I’ve worked with was a 28 pound two-year-eight-month T-1. She was such a small eco-system the smallest amounts of insulin or food or activity could change EVERYTHING.

    Lynn: It would be nice to have more choices. Even our list of insulin pumps to choose from has been shrinking in recent years! I’m not sure I’ve said every diabetic should have one. Well, maybe I have. But, if so, it was a stupid thing to say. Nothing on the planet is right for everyone (exception to the rule: oxygen). I’m both brittle and hypo unaware. The level of safety I get from CGM cannot be overstated. Some will no doubt accuse me of being overly dramatic, but I really believe I would not be alive right now without this technology. That’s why I (literally) bankrupted my family to keep using it in the early days when no one had insurance coverage for them.

    Laura: The whole insurance and coverage issue is so complex that I’ve got a whole chapter devoted to it.

    Meg: Yes, I’ve used for 5 years continuously. Well, I had one terrifying month when there was simply no money for sensors. And yeah, you CAN download every week. That doesn’t mean that I do. I’m brittle and hypo unaware. My over control and A1C are fine, but I find keeping that control is an evolving process and I need to tinker with my settings a lot. I guess what I was trying to advocate is that at first you should do frequent Monday Morning Quarterbacking then slip into some sort of maintenance mode.

    There are actually a number of different approaches to how to use CGM that range from OCD on one hand, to extremely reactive on the other. No one size fits all, and most veteran CGMers pendulum back and forth.

    Thanks everyone for all your thoughtful feedback, both negative, positive, and neutral. If any more comments are posted I’ll be sure to respond as best I can.

  22. Scott K. Johnson
    Scott K. Johnson August 13, 2010 at 5:42 pm | | Reply

    As an early follower to Wil’s writing about CGMs, I appreciate his approaches to helping others make some sense to all of this new information we have.

    I personally love his writing style and witty anecdotes, and find that he has a skill for pulling me through his writing.

    I think that there are a lot more people out there who need help with all of this stuff than there are of those who have everything figured out (good for you, I’m jealous).

    I applaud Wil for dedicating his life to helping other people.

  23. Michael Ratrie
    Michael Ratrie August 17, 2010 at 8:01 pm | | Reply

    Thanks for the post, Will. Every year, I get closer to saying yes to CGM. The two things that hold me back are

    1) I don’t want to add ANOTHER device that also requires me to keep my fingerstick meter to calibrate it. It just seems like it would be very easy to get into a situation where the blind is leading the blind.

    2) I live on a sailboat with as limited amount of space, and I am frequently far away from “support” of any type. On top of that, my on the water activities, make it difficult to carry another device with me. CGM seems to be better fitted to a suburban, land-based life-style with i-pods, pads and always on internet.

    Am I completely misunderstanding CGMs?

    Fair Winds,
    Mike

  24. dan fahey
    dan fahey September 13, 2010 at 4:53 pm | | Reply

    My a1c runs between 5.8 and 6.2, I’m a type 1 of 43 years and a test a dozen times a day. But even so, I’m hit with severe lows more than I like (or my wife either).
    BUT I’ve yet to read convincing evidence these CGMs are accurate enough to change my regimen.
    Point me to reliable data that supports CGMs as bring ready for prime time.
    I don’t use a pump, but would use a reliable CGM.

  25. Joe
    Joe September 17, 2010 at 7:14 am | | Reply

    You did not address the negatives of CGM in this post. The title mislead me into reading a very very long post to get to the balanced part of the information… which never materialized. This blog professes to be a “goldmine of straight talk.” Where’s the straight talk here?

    I have a CGM. I can rarely get it to calibrate. I have wasted hours, cumulatively, on the phone with tech support. When it does calibrate, it is often 30-40% off… so I don’t even know if you can call that “calibration”.

    I switched pumps specifically so that I could use a CGM without having to carry around an extra device, as some brands force you to do. I loved my old pump. I absolutely hate my new pump. But I figured it would be worth switching to get the safety of an integrated CGM. I have hypoglycemia unawareness and the CGM was supposed to make me feel and be safer. Instead, I waste $40 per sensor and hours on the phone for something that rarely gives me any semblance of accuracy…. and therefore leaves me no safer. I am extremely unhappy with this product.

    The $1,000 transmitter is only designed to last 6 months. What happens then? If it stops working, you’re out of luck because that’s how long the warranty lasts. So… you spend ANOTHER $1,000 because the $40 sensors don’t do a thing without it. THEN you shell out $40 per sensor for sensors that only last 3 days and that expire very quickly and require a fairly narrow temperature window to remain viable. It’s a good thing my home has air conditioning because if it didn’t, my sensors would not make it through a New England summer. God forbid we reach 90 degrees on any given day.

    The CGM, at least the one I use, is a complete waste of money and I wish I had never switched pumps for it. Doctors should stop recommending them. My doctor’s recommendation was the only reason I went on this thing. Now, the manufacturer of my pump is planning to make a 7-day sensor that will cost even more.

    I’m not a fan of this device and I’m not a fan of this article. It is far from balanced and I truly wonder what kind of device manufacturer involvement there was in its writing. This is not a blog I will visit in the future.

  26. Doug
    Doug September 17, 2010 at 10:10 am | | Reply

    Joe
    You picked a troublesome CGMS from ( in my opinion ) a troublesome company.

    Your experiences are not typical of everyone that uses that system and ESPECIALLY not typical of users of other CGMS systems.

    Dont write off this blog because of one guest entry you dont agree with…

    Doug

  27. Hambamems
    Hambamems February 25, 2013 at 3:57 pm | | Reply

    vigrx plus for free reviews on vigrx plus ingredients vigrx plus pills

Leave a Reply