Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing our smart contact lens project (for diabetics)

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 184 posts

Re: Introducing our smart contact lens project (for diabetics)

#161

Post by jemfinch »

ShawnBird wrote: post #96
samstave wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes statements are statements. People needlessly attach emotion to the written word when there is no need. Happens millions of times a day on email...

It really comes down to phrasing. If they had said "Have you tried a ketogenic diet?" Or "Some people have found a ketogenic diet to be helpful with type 1 diabetes." it would be fine. Instead it came off as an order or command: "Switch to a ketogenic diet." One of the things about written communication is we only have your phrasing and word choice to inform us of your tone and meaning. It is vitally important to use…

From Paul Graham's "How to Disagree"[0]:

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.

    I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

[0] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

Re: Introducing our smart contact lens project (for diabetics)

#162

Post by lazerwalker »

I don't at all want to downplay the honest importance of this project — this is the true sort of real "tangibly improving people's lives" technology that not enough people are aspiring to these days — but the timing of this announcement is very strategic on Google's part. Days after people get VERY upset at Google for buying Nest, and moaning about Google's evil surveillance state, Google turns around and announces something that's a legitimate force for good in the world. Very clever.

Re: Introducing our smart contact lens project (for diabetics)

#163

Post by MrFoof »

trekky1700 wrote: post #92
MrFoof wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>type I diabetics with the best control are actually more likely to die from severe low blood sugars. I'm very much in this crowd. Type 1, AIC of 6.3, LDL cholesterol around 100, BP of 110/72-75. This is with completely manual testing and subcutaneous insulin injections. The problem of keeping your blood sugar towards an A1C of 6 is you have insulin reactions. Quite often, as you're being rather aggressive in keeping…

Just curious, how old are you and how long have you had it? I've had it for 11 years this February, and while my A1C is pretty terrible (high), the idea that I might not be able to detect lows eventually is pretty terrifying.

About 13 years. My big tipoff is feeling tired. I'm a night owl and stream on Twitch after a long day of consulting -- I'm NEVER tired before 1 or 2AM.

The most severe problems were the result of a new doctor in their residency changing my long-acting insulin to an intermediate that was also a 30% mix of fast acting, in an attempt to drive my A1C to under 6. This created a serious problem of wanting to give myself insulin for a meal, my blood sugar only being around 90-100 mg/dL, and then being unable to decouple the fast-acting from the intermediate since it was pre-mixed. I hemmed and hawed, but the attending stood by the decision to change to 70/30. I had to change 10 years of regimen instantly, which was fraught with peril.

Two serious episodes later, and a waiting room at a prestigious teaching hospital hearing someone scream, "Your stupid decision has nearly killed me twice", and I'm now back on the long-acting with insulin reactions being rather infrequent (twice a month), and nowhere as severe (catching it around 65-70 mg/dL). My A1C has trended up slightly (6.1-6.2 to 6.3-6.4), but I'd rather that than death by overdose.

Re: Introducing our smart contact lens project (for diabetics)

#164

Post by wmeredith »

lazerwalker wrote: post #162

I don't at all want to downplay the honest importance of this project — this is the true sort of real "tangibly improving people's lives" technology that not enough people are aspiring to these days — but the timing of this announcement is very strategic on Google's part. Days after people get VERY upset at Google for buying Nest, and moaning about Google's evil surveillance state, Google turns around and announces s…

Eh, I think that's a bit cynical. Google is a huge company. They put out tons of press releases.

Re: Introducing our smart contact lens project (for diabetics)

#165

Post by morganherlocker »

zaider wrote: post #154
morganherlocker wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, Panic Room. The movie in which a child has a severe low blood sugar, on the edge of death, and her mother administers here a large shot of... insulin! I could not believe it when I saw it. The treatment given in the movie would have killed her in no time. For future reference, in case anyone comes across a diabetic experiencing a seizure. Do not give insulin in this case. This will lower blood sugar further. What…

Why shoot it into the leg? Aren't most injections given in the arm? If it needs to go into a vein is it an issue of it reacting faster there?

For diabetics, you are usually injecting insulin, which should be rotated around parts of the body (any fatty area) to avoid scar tissue build up.

In this case, however, I was talking about glucagon, which is only given in emergencies (to messed up to ingest sugar). Glucagon needles are much larger than insulin needles, and can be shot straight into the leg through jeans. The arm would work too, but might be more likely to leave soreness. The main thing is to administer it as quickly as possible.

Re: Introducing our smart contact lens project (for diabetics)

#166

Post by morganherlocker »

berkes wrote: post #142
mortov wrote: post #137

I'm amazed at how many people on HN are diabetic ! Could be an interesting study on cause/effect - is all this sitting at screens contributing to an epidemic or are there other factors ? Perhaps respondents are just self-selecting because of the subject matter ? It's also interesting how anyone who needs to track their blood sugars likes the idea of an easier and more convenient method - typical finger prick readings…

Please don't confuse Type I with Type II. Type II is caused by external influences, such as unhealty life-style, old age, or other medical conditions (which include genetic defects or other genetic variations). Type I is genetic. If you have the faulty genes, you get it. Regardless of lifestyle, health, country and whatnot. Another thing many people are confused with, is "severety of Diabetes". You can have "very sev…

I agree with you 99%, but would like to make a couple clarifications:

> Type I is genetic. If you have the faulty genes, you get it. Regardless of lifestyle, health, country and whatnot.

It is not entirely genetic. It is an auto-immune disease that has a complex, and not fully understood trigger mechanism. That said, type I diabetics still do not have any control over it.

> Type I is binary: you have it or you don't.

Generally true, with the exception of the "Honeymoon Phase" in which new diabetics will still produce small amounts of insulin for a year or two after onset.

That said, I agree with the sentiment all the way.

Re: Introducing our smart contact lens project (for diabetics)

#167

Post by lhc- »

magicalist wrote: post #44
caseydurfee wrote: post #18

Continuous glucose monitors have been around for a while. I'm not sure who this would help. The fundamental problem is that glucose levels in non-blood fluids do not exactly match blood glucose. The current monitor solutions use interstitial fluid in the skin. They still require the user to test themselves several times a day and recalibrate the monitor based on blood glucose, and they can't alert the user if their b…

> And there are basic hygiene problems wearing contacts while you're asleep, which is when monitoring would be most useful. If google has the technology to make contact lenses that you can wear 24/7 without getting ulcerative keratitis, that's more revolutionary than another way to monitor blood sugar overnight and extended-wear contacts (for up to a month, I believe) have been available for many years now.

I have these, and they are indeed good for a month. To be honest, I sometimes dont even notice and wear them longer.

Re: Introducing our smart contact lens project (for diabetics)

#168

Post by anon104 »

berkes wrote: post #142
mortov wrote: post #137

I'm amazed at how many people on HN are diabetic ! Could be an interesting study on cause/effect - is all this sitting at screens contributing to an epidemic or are there other factors ? Perhaps respondents are just self-selecting because of the subject matter ? It's also interesting how anyone who needs to track their blood sugars likes the idea of an easier and more convenient method - typical finger prick readings…

Please don't confuse Type I with Type II. Type II is caused by external influences, such as unhealty life-style, old age, or other medical conditions (which include genetic defects or other genetic variations). Type I is genetic. If you have the faulty genes, you get it. Regardless of lifestyle, health, country and whatnot. Another thing many people are confused with, is "severety of Diabetes". You can have "very sev…

I'd like to add that there isn't always a clear cut delineation between the types. For example, MODY is highly penetrant, heritable diabetes that fits neither classification. The idea that type 1 == genetic and type 2 == external is really no longer the prevailing view. The better description is the production of insulin where in type 1, there is a lack of insulin production and typically in type 2 insulin resistance (and possibly deficient insulin). The causative factors are complex and a combination of genetics and environmental factors. I'm a type 2 diabetic with none of the traditional risk factors (typical diet, and underweight), from a family with a high diabetes frequency (sister and father).

Re: Introducing our smart contact lens project (for diabetics)

#169

Post by anon104 »

berkes wrote: post #142
mortov wrote: post #137

I'm amazed at how many people on HN are diabetic ! Could be an interesting study on cause/effect - is all this sitting at screens contributing to an epidemic or are there other factors ? Perhaps respondents are just self-selecting because of the subject matter ? It's also interesting how anyone who needs to track their blood sugars likes the idea of an easier and more convenient method - typical finger prick readings…

Please don't confuse Type I with Type II. Type II is caused by external influences, such as unhealty life-style, old age, or other medical conditions (which include genetic defects or other genetic variations). Type I is genetic. If you have the faulty genes, you get it. Regardless of lifestyle, health, country and whatnot. Another thing many people are confused with, is "severety of Diabetes". You can have "very sev…

"Type I is genetic. If you have the faulty genes, you get it. Regardless of lifestyle, health, country and whatnot."

Also, this statement is not correct. From OMIM on type 1:

"IDDM exhibits 30 to 50% concordance in monozygotic twins, suggesting that the disorder is dependent on environmental factors as well as genes. The average risk to sibs is 6% (Todd, 1990)."

There are other studies with similar conclusions. Having the "faulty" genes does not guarantee disease manifestation because the disease is multi-factorial.

Post reply on HN