9 Responses

  1. Michael Hoskins
    Michael Hoskins August 4, 2011 at 7:45 am | | Reply

    Stellar point at the ending there, Amy. Thanks for reporting on this, my friend. D-Journalism at its best, in the blogosphere!

  2. Lauren
    Lauren August 4, 2011 at 9:43 am | | Reply

    WHOA!! This is soo cool!!!!!

  3. Sysy
    Sysy August 4, 2011 at 1:12 pm | | Reply

    I would wear the ugliest tattoo in the world if a florescent light gave me my blood sugar accurately. I really, really would.

  4. Saramy
    Saramy August 4, 2011 at 4:34 pm | | Reply

    Cool – I kinda always wanted a tatoo…. This one reminds of the olden days where we were checking sugar through urine tests where you were at one of several, loosey goosey levels (I vaguely, if not correctly recall) negative, 1+, 2+, 3+ or 4+. Or something like that. And that only indicated what was happening hours ago. So, If it only takes them ten years to figure out the specificity levels of sugar and evrything else with the tats, I’d say it is not fast enough, but still, pretty darn fast considering our history. Sounds like a great idea!!! Very interesting info – thanks!!!!

  5. June S.
    June S. August 4, 2011 at 5:44 pm | | Reply

    Sounds like a great idea. The big question, though, since I have no qualms whatsoever with pricking my finger numerous times per day (and night) – since I, too, used to test my urine – is this:
    How much will it cost?!!! Test strips are OUTRAGEOUSLY priced, and I thank God every day that I’m lucky enough to have insurance.

  6. mcityrk
    mcityrk August 4, 2011 at 6:54 pm | | Reply

    This actually showed up in this week’s edition [Sept/Oct] of the AARP magazine. Interesting of course, but when the money is not there to support it, that usually means the VCs see this as a dead-end money-pit until the researchers have themselves boot-strapped together a way to support it internally and have shown enough research success to bring the technology up to at least the stage where some limited human clinical trials have been approved.

    I say this as an ex-researcher in Madison WI who was part of the tech team working on implantable glucose sensing technology that eventually became the kernel upon which Dexcom was launched. Even very interesting research will languish for years until a critical mass of success has been achieved to permit VCs to roll the dice. You can’t blame them for avoiding the unnecessary risk of unproven technology, especially in the times we seem to be entering where extreme pressure will be brought to bear on constraining health care costs and commercial success of even successful technology may be in doubt.

  7. Uzma
    Uzma August 8, 2011 at 7:52 pm | | Reply

    ah, yes, the $$$ question. and yes, “bitter” ‘s the word

  8. Roxanne
    Roxanne August 10, 2011 at 6:48 pm | | Reply

    What good is something that’s only going to last a week? Make it at least 6 months and we’ll talk, but you’re going to charge me god knows how much for a tattoo that’s going to wash off? We’re looking at the price of the ink, the needle(s), to have someone do it, and the office visit. For a weeks worth of something I need a light to look at? Give me a 1/4 inch dot (that won’t wash off) that goes from green to red when my sugar drops to 75 and I’d love it.

  9. samuel donham
    samuel donham August 12, 2011 at 7:30 am | | Reply

    Infrared light through a fingernail has been picking up O2 sats for years, so one might think this technology is closer than the corporate mechanism is letting on. As a brittle T1, this kind of advancement would be huge-but realistically, this kind of change to the industrial complex of blood glucose monitering will be a painfully lethargic process.
    BTW, thanks for this website-

Leave a Reply