The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
the FDA would basically have to neuter the device such that the information couldn't be used for treatment purposes which means they either take away the real-time nature of it which is what makes it so valuable or give you a bunch of ranges and dilute the accuracy
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the FDA will very likely not allow such a device into a consumer market because the concern would be that such a device could be used outside of a prescriptive relationship with a physician to dose insulin
to make this a non prescription product there's a lot of steps we'd have to go through at the FDA and one of the things that we look at with respect to are our human factors on our software design if it weren't on prescription what would that software experience have to look like
it'll be a long time truthfully before these things are cheap because right now they're not really being targeted towards a consumer market there there are medical devices and so you know the economics of these things are very different they're going through a huge regulatory burden I mean the FDA really scrutinizes the way these things work for understandable reason because if you're gonna have a patient dose their insulin based on this thing you know it's got to be exceptional
and of course the challenge is it'll be a long time truthfully before these things are cheap because right now they're not really being targeted towards a consumer market there there are medical devices and so you know the economics of these things are very different they're going through a huge regulatory burden my hope is that in time as the demand for this and the public increases they're become second tier versions of these things
the FDA will very likely not allow such a device into a consumer market because the concern would be that such a device could be used outside of a prescriptive relationship with a physician to dose insulin
the FDA would basically have to neuter the device such that the information couldn't be used for treatment purposes which means they either take away the real-time nature of it which is what makes it so valuable or give you a bunch of ranges and dilute the accuracy
The FDA will very likely not allow such a device into a consumer market because the concern would be that such a device could be used outside of a prescriptive relationship with a physician to dose insulin.
Those are basically the two levers with which you could neuter one of these devices deliberately, which sounds crazy, right?
Post-meal glucose spikes in non-diabetics drive long-term cardiometabolic disease independently of HbA1c.
Wearing a continuous glucose monitor leads to personalized dietary improvements that hold up beyond 12 weeks.
Continuous glucose monitors meaningfully change behavior in non-diabetic adults beyond the first month.
CGM use in metabolically healthy adults induces orthorexic-style dietary anxiety without health benefit.