any kind of therapy or approach that doesn't bring $$$ back to the pharmaceutical companies (involving long term treatment with supplies) is immediately abandoned
So... you're saying that they spend millions of dollars on clinical trials, and then they abandon these products? Because there have been plenty of trials for non-invasive glucose meters -- unfortunately, they all fail horribly at producing consistently accurate readings.
A person without diabetes should not be experiencing large excursions in blood glucose, so presumably this device should not be helpful for non-diabetic dieters.
It could have many uses. I'd like to know my exact insulin spike when I drink a coke for example. If insulin spike[1] can be correlated to glucose levels in the blood (which is theoretically possible) then trying to minimize the spike gives you a better chances of never getting diabetes :-)
Isn't that the whole theory behind Atkins and the low carb movement? Some dieters want to minimize their blood sugar spikes. But don't want to prick their finger to test that.
Anyways, I am thinking that these guys WILL deliver a device, but it won't be the miracle in technology everyone is expecting.
Yes, but generally speaking what I'm really saying is: Technologies like the one in question, that can increase the life quality of a large part of the population have a better chance of being developed by minor companies, group of individuals (as in this case) or outsiders (Google, Apple, etc.) rather than a Pharmaceutical company that has an already well established product in the market with a positive revenue stream.
So... you're saying that they spend millions of dollars on clinical trials, and then they abandon these products? Because there have been plenty of trials for non-invasive glucose meters -- unfortunately, they all fail horribly at producing consistently accurate readings.