Re: GlucoWatch 2 - don't bother
- From: RB <RB@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 17:11:09 -0600
On 30 Dec 2005 17:21:06 -0800, jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>I was excited to see the GlucoWatch 2 on sale in the US finally a few
>weeks back. So I went and accosted my doctor to sign the perscription,
>faxed over my documents and ordered it at the fabulous new "low" price.
>
>My expectations were already pretty low since I know someone who had
>the first version of the watch that didn't work very well and I've read
>
>posts from the UK where folks have not been overly impressed. But I
>still had hopes that perhaps it would provide _some_ value in
>monitoring trends at a minumum if not flat out accurate readings.
>
>It doesn't. It's pointless.
>
>I've been using it for several days now and it's just completely and
>utterly useless for anything whatsoever. The readings are sporatic and
>wildly inaccurate, like others I find it irritates my skin badly, it
>often wont calibrate at all and 3 times it just fritzed out entirely
>displaying garbage on the screen - no error codes no nothing. The
>watch had to be reset and a new back applied. Several times it simply
>would not accept the calibration entries - after entering 4 or 5 blood
>readings in over the period of an hour or so I just gave up and put
>another back on. Very flakey...
>
>To be clear, I've been wearing this in a nicely air conditioned office
>during the day in all cases. No persperation issues, no wild movements
>(unless you consider typing to be possibly disruptive), no hair on the
>arms, no nothing. Ideal conditions for such a device.
>
>It's not even good to let you know that you're trending up or down at
>all - Today I took finger sticks every two hours and monitored it
>against what the watch said (when it wasn't skipping for the mysterious
>
>"data" error reason). Starting at 6am my sticks gave me 121 in the
>morning, I was down to 111 by 8am, 106 at 10, 98 at 12 and so on - it
>was a pretty good day. The watch reported I was at 141 by the time it
>finally kicked in and started reading around 9am - then it went to 107,
>
>back up to 131, then 144, then a bunch of skips, then 130, then 104,
>then a bunch of skips followed by 124 etc... etc... it's all over the
>boards. Even recalibrating it again in the afternoon does nothing to
>improve it's accuracy or consistency. If it were off and at least
>generally liniar, that'd be ok, but this is just completely useless.
>
>And in case anyone was wondering - the "2" in GlucoWatch 2 does not
>mean it's new - mine was manufactured in 2002. Check your serial numbr
>when you get it - it'll be at least 3 years old. Pretty clear to me
>they're dumping these defective devices on the market at a cut price to
>
>make back as much money as they can before tanking completely. I can
>see why no one with a reputable name wanted to go in with these guys on
>
>this device - it's clearly not ready for prime time.
>
>Don't waste your money. It sounds like a nice idea worth trying, it's
>not. If you just can't help yourself and must try it - you can buy
>mine at a fraction of the price!
>
>-Jeff
If the Gluco Watch is as bad as you say then I would suggest filing
complaints with every regulatory agency you can find with copies to
the company.
Relying on this device for BG level readings could cause harm to you.
Become a big enough burr and I think they would gladly refund your
money.
RB
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Diabetes in pregnancy: sneaking in treats
- Next by Date: Re: Hello, newbie
- Previous by thread: Re: GlucoWatch 2 - don't bother
- Next by thread: Re: GlucoWatch 2 - don't bother
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
