Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 I recently saw a TV commercial for a new meter from Ascensia that doesn't require coding. Sue > But, either way, glad he's doing OK after all. I still don't get why > some of these meters take > all this 'coding' I'm hearing about. Why'd they make life so > difficult? The little chip you slip > in at the back of an Accu-Chek seems to be SOOOO much easier, and a > lot more > foolproof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 Oh, and the Ascensia commercial claimed that readings could be off by 40 some per cent if meters are coded incorrectly. (Other meters, of course.) Sue On Saturday, July 16, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Rotramel wrote: > P.S. - There was a recent thread about just how far off your readings > might be if you did not code your meter properly. This is an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 At 10:40 AM 7/16/05, Rotramel wrote: >Does anyone remember Mike Brown, the newbie who left because he did >not like getting yelled at by so many people? He said that I could let >you folks know that his readings in the 500s were false. His son set >up his meter, and forgot to explain that Mike had to change the meter >code when he changed vials of test strips. Mike is running in the 80- >120 range and doing fine. I'm glad it was just his meter that was messed up. I hope he now knows that it's good to not wait for others to tell you what to do but rather to know about your own equipment and about your own disease. If I remember correctly, what he was eating at the time seemed to make those 500 numbers believeable. It wasn't as if he was doing low carb and still seeing those kind of high numbers.... sky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 Well, that's good to know. If you're continuing to email him maybe you could get him to become more involved in his own care. This is such a foreign concept to so many people, but we know how important it is. He should certainly learn how to re-code his machine and not depend on his son or anyone else for such basic stuff. Vicki Mike Brown Update > Does anyone remember Mike Brown, the newbie who left because he did > not like getting yelled at by so many people? He said that I could let > you folks know that his readings in the 500s were false. His son set > up his meter, and forgot to explain that Mike had to change the meter > code when he changed vials of test strips. Mike is running in the 80- > 120 range and doing fine. > > > > P.S. - There was a recent thread about just how far off your readings > might be if you did not code your meter properly. This is an example. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 I thought the 500#s were at the docs, at diagnosis - and that his 'rising' numbers were in the 200s? Point's still the same: user error. But, either way, glad he's doing OK after all. I still don't get why some of these meters take all this 'coding' I'm hearing about. Why'd they make life so difficult? The little chip you slip in at the back of an Accu-Chek seems to be SOOOO much easier, and a lot more foolproof. SulaBlue > > >Does anyone remember Mike Brown, the newbie who left because he did > >not like getting yelled at by so many people? He said that I could let > >you folks know that his readings in the 500s were false. His son set > >up his meter, and forgot to explain that Mike had to change the meter > >code when he changed vials of test strips. Mike is running in the 80- > >120 range and doing fine. > > I'm glad it was just his meter that was messed up. I hope he now knows that > it's good to not wait for others to tell you what to do but rather to know > about your own equipment and about your own disease. If I remember > correctly, what he was eating at the time seemed to make those 500 numbers > believeable. It wasn't as if he was doing low carb and still seeing those > kind of high numbers.... > > sky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 At 01:44 PM 7/16/05, SulaBlue wrote: >But, either way, glad he's doing OK after all. I still don't get why some >of these meters take >all this 'coding' I'm hearing about. Why'd they make life so difficult? changing the code isn't exactly rocket science. sky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 perhaps not for genius artists like yourself who never makes mistakes but there are people out there in your perfect world that do have problems with mechanical things. They also have problems reading thermometers etc. Perhaps we , not so perfect, dmers should hire someone to do all this high tech stuff for us so we dont upset the genius' of the world. You are so quick to judge. Jan >But, either way, glad he's doing OK after all. I still don't get why some >of these meters take >all this 'coding' I'm hearing about. Why'd they make life so difficult? changing the code isn't exactly rocket science. sky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 > Does anyone remember Mike Brown, the newbie who left because he did > not like getting yelled at by so many people? He said that I could let > you folks know that his readings in the 500s were false. His son set > up his meter, and forgot to explain that Mike had to change the meter > code when he changed vials of test strips. Mike is running in the 80- > 120 range and doing fine. > Hi - and Mike? I wish him well. However, I am not surprised. He needs to take charge of his own treatment; his doctor wasn't aware of the faulty meter setting when he said that 256 was nothing to worry about. I suspect, and hope, that he is still lurking (hi Mike and any other Lurkers:-) but even if he isn't, he learnt something before he departed. That is one heck of an error though, simply from an incorrect code set. Cheers, Alan, T2 d & e, Australia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2005 Report Share Posted July 23, 2005 Alan, Yes,I do remember Mike. It's good to hear ,he found out what the problem was & corected it,also good to hear he is doing fine. Thank you for letting us know. From Southern Ontario Alan wrote: > Does anyone remember Mike Brown, the newbie who left because he did > not like getting yelled at by so many people? He said that I could let > you folks know that his readings in the 500s were false. His son set > up his meter, and forgot to explain that Mike had to change the meter > code when he changed vials of test strips. Mike is running in the 80- > 120 range and doing fine. > Hi - and Mike? I wish him well. However, I am not surprised. He needs to take charge of his own treatment; his doctor wasn't aware of the faulty meter setting when he said that 256 was nothing to worry about. I suspect, and hope, that he is still lurking (hi Mike and any other Lurkers:-) but even if he isn't, he learnt something before he departed. That is one heck of an error though, simply from an incorrect code set. Cheers, Alan, T2 d & e, Australia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.