Sarcasm Alert!:was-Once again, a bloodless, jabless glucose testing method

[Guest guest]

Sarcasm Alert!

I've had this disease for 7 years now & these devices (or " the cure " ) are

always just around the corner, or when they come out they are horribly

expensive (the Glucowatch, etc.).

IMHO, testing as we now have it is no big deal, pain-wise so I wish they

would work on getting the cost of the strips down to something reasonable

instead of always trying to make the new high-tech breakthrough. But, then, the

strips are where they're making their money!

It's sort of like the " hydrogen fuel-cell car " that everyone is waiting for

to answer our energy problems when there are technologies available right now

that work but aren't as glamorous & don't make good news stories.

I expect these new, wonderful non-invasive testers to be available about the

time that I see " pigs flying " !

End of sarcasm!

, T2, etc...........

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/4378/

Once again, a bloodless, jabless glucose testing method has been

invented! They keep inventing more and more of these devices. I just

wish they'd let us use one some day!

[Guest guest]

, I'm testing frequently these days and my fingers are sore but I

totally agree with you. I'd rather have sore fingers and have cheaper test

strips. Medicare is taking over prescription meds in January and I fear

getting cut back on the 300 I'm receiving now which is barely enough.

Laurel

IMHO, testing as we now have it is no big deal, pain-wise so I wish they

would work on getting the cost of the strips down to something reasonable

instead of always trying to make the new high-tech breakthrough. But, then,

the

strips are where they're making their money!

\End of sarcasm!

, T2, etc...........

[Guest guest]

, I'm testing frequently these days and my fingers are sore but I

totally agree with you. I'd rather have sore fingers and have cheaper test

strips. Medicare is taking over prescription meds in January and I fear

getting cut back on the 300 I'm receiving now which is barely enough.

Laurel

IMHO, testing as we now have it is no big deal, pain-wise so I wish they

would work on getting the cost of the strips down to something reasonable

instead of always trying to make the new high-tech breakthrough. But, then,

the

strips are where they're making their money!

\End of sarcasm!

, T2, etc...........

[Guest guest]

, I'm testing frequently these days and my fingers are sore but I

totally agree with you. I'd rather have sore fingers and have cheaper test

strips. Medicare is taking over prescription meds in January and I fear

getting cut back on the 300 I'm receiving now which is barely enough.

Laurel

IMHO, testing as we now have it is no big deal, pain-wise so I wish they

would work on getting the cost of the strips down to something reasonable

instead of always trying to make the new high-tech breakthrough. But, then,

the

strips are where they're making their money!

\End of sarcasm!

, T2, etc...........

[Guest guest]

It'll never happen, . We are their cash cows, and they depend on

us to buy their yachts and mansions. Sue

On Saturday, August 6, 2005, at 10:34 AM, rogerhlmn@... wrote:

>

> IMHO, testing as we now have it is no big deal, pain-wise so I wish

> they

> would work on getting the cost of the strips down to something

> reasonable

> instead of always trying to make the new high-tech breakthrough. But,

> then, the

> strips are where they're making their money!

[Guest guest]

It'll never happen, . We are their cash cows, and they depend on

us to buy their yachts and mansions. Sue

On Saturday, August 6, 2005, at 10:34 AM, rogerhlmn@... wrote:

>

> IMHO, testing as we now have it is no big deal, pain-wise so I wish

> they

> would work on getting the cost of the strips down to something

> reasonable

> instead of always trying to make the new high-tech breakthrough. But,

> then, the

> strips are where they're making their money!

[Guest guest]

It'll never happen, . We are their cash cows, and they depend on

us to buy their yachts and mansions. Sue

On Saturday, August 6, 2005, at 10:34 AM, rogerhlmn@... wrote:

>

> IMHO, testing as we now have it is no big deal, pain-wise so I wish

> they

> would work on getting the cost of the strips down to something

> reasonable

> instead of always trying to make the new high-tech breakthrough. But,

> then, the

> strips are where they're making their money!

[Guest guest]

Oh, I thought we bought our dentist's yachts and mansions,

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ml

Sue wrote:

>It'll never happen, . We are their cash cows, and they depend on

>us to buy their yachts and mansions. Sue

>

>On Saturday, August 6, 2005, at 10:34 AM, rogerhlmn@... wrote:

>

>

>>IMHO, testing as we now have it is no big deal, pain-wise so I wish

>>they

>>would work on getting the cost of the strips down to something

>>reasonable

>>instead of always trying to make the new high-tech breakthrough. But,

>>then, the

>>strips are where they're making their money!

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Oh, I thought we bought our dentist's yachts and mansions,

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ml

Sue wrote:

>It'll never happen, . We are their cash cows, and they depend on

>us to buy their yachts and mansions. Sue

>

>On Saturday, August 6, 2005, at 10:34 AM, rogerhlmn@... wrote:

>

>

>>IMHO, testing as we now have it is no big deal, pain-wise so I wish

>>they

>>would work on getting the cost of the strips down to something

>>reasonable

>>instead of always trying to make the new high-tech breakthrough. But,

>>then, the

>>strips are where they're making their money!

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, Lou, them too, LOL. And also our pharmacists and doctors. We

don't have enough money left to buy yachts and mansions for ourselves.

Too bad, I wouldn't mind having a mansion, but will let you have the

yacht. Sue

> Oh, I thought we bought our dentist's yachts and mansions,

> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest guest]

Yes, Lou, them too, LOL. And also our pharmacists and doctors. We

don't have enough money left to buy yachts and mansions for ourselves.

Too bad, I wouldn't mind having a mansion, but will let you have the

yacht. Sue

> Oh, I thought we bought our dentist's yachts and mansions,

> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest guest]

Yes, Lou, them too, LOL. And also our pharmacists and doctors. We

don't have enough money left to buy yachts and mansions for ourselves.

Too bad, I wouldn't mind having a mansion, but will let you have the

yacht. Sue

> Oh, I thought we bought our dentist's yachts and mansions,

> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest guest]

> IMHO, testing as we now have it is no big deal, pain-wise so I wish they

> would work on getting the cost of the strips down to something reasonable

I agree. I'm not at all interested in noninvasive. I'm interested in

continuous, or the ability to take as many tests as you want manually

without using strips. I'd be happy to pay a lot for such a meter.

I suspect that some of the hundreds of lurkers on these lists are

representatives from diabetes R & D. Are you listening people? Forget smaller

and faster. Focus on cheaper and more accurate.

Gretchen

[Guest guest]

> IMHO, testing as we now have it is no big deal, pain-wise so I wish they

> would work on getting the cost of the strips down to something reasonable

I agree. I'm not at all interested in noninvasive. I'm interested in

continuous, or the ability to take as many tests as you want manually

without using strips. I'd be happy to pay a lot for such a meter.

I suspect that some of the hundreds of lurkers on these lists are

representatives from diabetes R & D. Are you listening people? Forget smaller

and faster. Focus on cheaper and more accurate.

Gretchen

[Guest guest]

Gretchen wrote:

> I agree. I'm not at all interested in noninvasive. I'm interested in

> continuous, or the ability to take as many tests as you want manually

> without using strips. I'd be happy to pay a lot for such a meter.

>

> I suspect that some of the hundreds of lurkers on these lists are

> representatives from diabetes R & D. Are you listening people? Forget

> smaller

> and faster. Focus on cheaper and more accurate.

>

> Gretchen

Amen, sister! I wouldn't kick non-invasive out of bed were it

to come along, but cheaper, continuous, and more accurate is where it

should be headed.

Edd

[Guest guest]

Gretchen wrote:

> I agree. I'm not at all interested in noninvasive. I'm interested in

> continuous, or the ability to take as many tests as you want manually

> without using strips. I'd be happy to pay a lot for such a meter.

>

> I suspect that some of the hundreds of lurkers on these lists are

> representatives from diabetes R & D. Are you listening people? Forget

> smaller

> and faster. Focus on cheaper and more accurate.

>

> Gretchen

Amen, sister! I wouldn't kick non-invasive out of bed were it

to come along, but cheaper, continuous, and more accurate is where it

should be headed.

Edd

[Guest guest]

Gretchen wrote:

> I agree. I'm not at all interested in noninvasive. I'm interested in

> continuous, or the ability to take as many tests as you want manually

> without using strips. I'd be happy to pay a lot for such a meter.

>

> I suspect that some of the hundreds of lurkers on these lists are

> representatives from diabetes R & D. Are you listening people? Forget

> smaller

> and faster. Focus on cheaper and more accurate.

>

> Gretchen

Amen, sister! I wouldn't kick non-invasive out of bed were it

to come along, but cheaper, continuous, and more accurate is where it

should be headed.

Edd

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 17:07:19 -0400, " Gretchen "

wrote:

>I suspect that some of the hundreds of lurkers on these lists are

>representatives from diabetes R & D. Are you listening people? Forget smaller

>and faster. Focus on cheaper and more accurate.

Amen. Cheaper, more accurate and continuous. I'd rather it stick in

rather than be implanted but either would be fine.

---

De Armond

See my website for my current email address

http://www.johngsbbq.com

Cleveland, Occupied TN

[Guest guest]

> , I'm testing frequently these days and my fingers are sore

> but I totally agree with you. I'd rather have sore fingers and

> have cheaper test strips.

Hi Laurel

You probably do this anyway - but I haven't posted my standard

" Painless Testing " advice lately, so hopefully this may help someone:

Wash your hands in warm water first, and shake them to get the

circulation going. Check your lancet - it should be adjustable. Mine

is Soft-clix, made by Roche and is usually painless. I get an

occasional tiny sting, and it lets me know if it's getting blunt

sometimes, but I've tested close to 4000 times in the past 3 years

without any trauma. That's from a guy who was, and is, needle-phobic.

Start with the second lowest setting (1 or 1.5), hold it firmly

against your skin on the side of a finger near the tip. Don't flinch

when you release the button. The button releases a spring-loaded tiny

needle which makes a tiny hole in your skin and instantly retracts.

Incidentally, using the sides has two advantages - there are less

nerve-ends than on the pads, and it doubles the number of test-points

so you can rotate through the positions.

Massage gently (milking a cow) until a drop of blood forms sufficient

to put on the test strip. If this setting doesn't provide an adequate

quantity, move the lancet setting up one notch for the next one. If

you got a large sample and it hurt a little, go to the lower setting.

And that's all there is to it. Sometimes it helps to shake your hands

a little more, or warm them up if it's cold. The manufacturers advise

changing the lancet needle every time; I change mine when I remember

or if it gets a bit blunt - that's about once a month or every 150

tests :-) You do what you are comfortable with.

Cheers Alan, T2, Australia.

--

Diet and not enough exercise.

I have no medical qualifications beyond my own experience.

Choose your advisers carefully, because experience can be

an expensive teacher.

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter

[Guest guest]

> , I'm testing frequently these days and my fingers are sore

> but I totally agree with you. I'd rather have sore fingers and

> have cheaper test strips.

Hi Laurel

You probably do this anyway - but I haven't posted my standard

" Painless Testing " advice lately, so hopefully this may help someone:

Wash your hands in warm water first, and shake them to get the

circulation going. Check your lancet - it should be adjustable. Mine

is Soft-clix, made by Roche and is usually painless. I get an

occasional tiny sting, and it lets me know if it's getting blunt

sometimes, but I've tested close to 4000 times in the past 3 years

without any trauma. That's from a guy who was, and is, needle-phobic.

Start with the second lowest setting (1 or 1.5), hold it firmly

against your skin on the side of a finger near the tip. Don't flinch

when you release the button. The button releases a spring-loaded tiny

needle which makes a tiny hole in your skin and instantly retracts.

Incidentally, using the sides has two advantages - there are less

nerve-ends than on the pads, and it doubles the number of test-points

so you can rotate through the positions.

Massage gently (milking a cow) until a drop of blood forms sufficient

to put on the test strip. If this setting doesn't provide an adequate

quantity, move the lancet setting up one notch for the next one. If

you got a large sample and it hurt a little, go to the lower setting.

And that's all there is to it. Sometimes it helps to shake your hands

a little more, or warm them up if it's cold. The manufacturers advise

changing the lancet needle every time; I change mine when I remember

or if it gets a bit blunt - that's about once a month or every 150

tests :-) You do what you are comfortable with.

Cheers Alan, T2, Australia.

--

Diet and not enough exercise.

I have no medical qualifications beyond my own experience.

Choose your advisers carefully, because experience can be

an expensive teacher.

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter

[Guest guest]

> , I'm testing frequently these days and my fingers are sore

> but I totally agree with you. I'd rather have sore fingers and

> have cheaper test strips.

Hi Laurel

You probably do this anyway - but I haven't posted my standard

" Painless Testing " advice lately, so hopefully this may help someone:

Wash your hands in warm water first, and shake them to get the

circulation going. Check your lancet - it should be adjustable. Mine

is Soft-clix, made by Roche and is usually painless. I get an

occasional tiny sting, and it lets me know if it's getting blunt

sometimes, but I've tested close to 4000 times in the past 3 years

without any trauma. That's from a guy who was, and is, needle-phobic.

Start with the second lowest setting (1 or 1.5), hold it firmly

against your skin on the side of a finger near the tip. Don't flinch

when you release the button. The button releases a spring-loaded tiny

needle which makes a tiny hole in your skin and instantly retracts.

Incidentally, using the sides has two advantages - there are less

nerve-ends than on the pads, and it doubles the number of test-points

so you can rotate through the positions.

Massage gently (milking a cow) until a drop of blood forms sufficient

to put on the test strip. If this setting doesn't provide an adequate

quantity, move the lancet setting up one notch for the next one. If

you got a large sample and it hurt a little, go to the lower setting.

And that's all there is to it. Sometimes it helps to shake your hands

a little more, or warm them up if it's cold. The manufacturers advise

changing the lancet needle every time; I change mine when I remember

or if it gets a bit blunt - that's about once a month or every 150

tests :-) You do what you are comfortable with.

Cheers Alan, T2, Australia.

--

Diet and not enough exercise.

I have no medical qualifications beyond my own experience.

Choose your advisers carefully, because experience can be

an expensive teacher.

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter

[Guest guest]

At 04:07 PM 8/6/2005, Gretchen wrote:

> > IMHO, testing as we now have it is no big deal, pain-wise so I wish they

> > would work on getting the cost of the strips down to something reasonable

>

>I agree. I'm not at all interested in noninvasive. I'm interested in

>continuous, or the ability to take as many tests as you want manually

>without using strips. I'd be happy to pay a lot for such a meter.

>

>I suspect that some of the hundreds of lurkers on these lists are

>representatives from diabetes R & D. Are you listening people? Forget smaller

>and faster. Focus on cheaper and more accurate.

>

>Gretchen

AMEN to that Gretchen!

Rick

[Guest guest]

At 04:07 PM 8/6/2005, Gretchen wrote:

> > IMHO, testing as we now have it is no big deal, pain-wise so I wish they

> > would work on getting the cost of the strips down to something reasonable

>

>I agree. I'm not at all interested in noninvasive. I'm interested in

>continuous, or the ability to take as many tests as you want manually

>without using strips. I'd be happy to pay a lot for such a meter.

>

>I suspect that some of the hundreds of lurkers on these lists are

>representatives from diabetes R & D. Are you listening people? Forget smaller

>and faster. Focus on cheaper and more accurate.

>

>Gretchen

AMEN to that Gretchen!

Rick

[Guest guest]

At 04:07 PM 8/6/2005, Gretchen wrote:

> > IMHO, testing as we now have it is no big deal, pain-wise so I wish they

> > would work on getting the cost of the strips down to something reasonable

>

>I agree. I'm not at all interested in noninvasive. I'm interested in

>continuous, or the ability to take as many tests as you want manually

>without using strips. I'd be happy to pay a lot for such a meter.

>

>I suspect that some of the hundreds of lurkers on these lists are

>representatives from diabetes R & D. Are you listening people? Forget smaller

>and faster. Focus on cheaper and more accurate.

>

>Gretchen

AMEN to that Gretchen!

Rick

[Guest guest]

Alan, thanks for the lesson. No, I'm not doing all of that. I need to work

with my lancet. I only punch my left hand since it hurts more on my right.

I wash my hands often but not always in warm water just before I test.

I've also been testing 15-20 times some days so lots of wounds. I'm having

a problem with going low with little warning some days so testing to avoid

treating if possible. I will lower my lantus again tonight and hope that

helps.

Laurel