This thread has become a real annoyance to me, too.
This thread went south after Bina made a statement that SM shouldn't listen to one of my posts because there were inaccuracies. I asked her to point out the inaccuracies, and none were provided.
In the beginning of the thread, I mentioned that the CoaguChek S has been discontinued - and now I'm being asked if a person using is it doing so illegally. I wasn't even thinking that -- and if it was illegal to own or use this meter, I would also have been breaking the law the few times I used it. I can't even understand how Sandra could make the logical leap from my saying that the meters are obsolete to asking if I was implying that using her meter was breaking the law. Ridiculous.
As far as 'Who knows or cares why Roche gave you the information you said they did' (they did, I can scan a copy of the letter) -- I'm sure that Roche cares. They want to be sure to relieve themselves of liability if they knowingly allow a home user to use the meter for testing and that unauthorized user has a complication from relying on an erroneous test result. If Roche cared enough to warn this home user (me) against using the machine, it's certainly worth repeating to anyone on this forum.
I wasn't the one who dragged up the stuff about the CoaguChek S = and I'm certainly not the one who gave it stardom in this depressing set of messages.
These aren't anal e-mails flying back and forth. I like accuracy. I like truth. When attacked, I question my attacker or try to figure out what in my message was misunderstood.
This would not have started if Bina hadn't incorrectly said not to read my message because it had factual errors. There would have been no further messages from me asking where the errors were and no ridiculous assumptions by others that if I wasn't using an XS, I couldn't possibly know about how it works. There would have been no comments complaining that 'incision' is somehow different than 'poke,' making it sound like I was trying to scare away testers. My main comment - after saying that the XS is easy to use - was that I had some concerns about the dosing chart.
If I had ignored the statement about INR Testers being more complicated than Blood Glucose meters, this craziness may not have even started.
For anyone who still cares, here's what I was trying to say:
Blood Glucose testing is not much easier than INR testing with an INR meter. The steps are similar. You may need a bigger drop of blood for the INR testing, but there are lancets and lancing devices that will let you get that drop of blood. Although the electronics in the INR testers are more complicated than those in the Blood Glucose meters, the newest models have good quality controls and are fairly easy to use.
The dosing chart provided by SM was a bit troubling to me in the way it proposed management of dosing for people with high INRs.
THAT'S ALL
If we leave it at that, this juvenile thread can maybe stop here. (But it'll still be good to know where my post that seemed to kick this off made any errors)
This thread went south after Bina made a statement that SM shouldn't listen to one of my posts because there were inaccuracies. I asked her to point out the inaccuracies, and none were provided.
In the beginning of the thread, I mentioned that the CoaguChek S has been discontinued - and now I'm being asked if a person using is it doing so illegally. I wasn't even thinking that -- and if it was illegal to own or use this meter, I would also have been breaking the law the few times I used it. I can't even understand how Sandra could make the logical leap from my saying that the meters are obsolete to asking if I was implying that using her meter was breaking the law. Ridiculous.
As far as 'Who knows or cares why Roche gave you the information you said they did' (they did, I can scan a copy of the letter) -- I'm sure that Roche cares. They want to be sure to relieve themselves of liability if they knowingly allow a home user to use the meter for testing and that unauthorized user has a complication from relying on an erroneous test result. If Roche cared enough to warn this home user (me) against using the machine, it's certainly worth repeating to anyone on this forum.
I wasn't the one who dragged up the stuff about the CoaguChek S = and I'm certainly not the one who gave it stardom in this depressing set of messages.
These aren't anal e-mails flying back and forth. I like accuracy. I like truth. When attacked, I question my attacker or try to figure out what in my message was misunderstood.
This would not have started if Bina hadn't incorrectly said not to read my message because it had factual errors. There would have been no further messages from me asking where the errors were and no ridiculous assumptions by others that if I wasn't using an XS, I couldn't possibly know about how it works. There would have been no comments complaining that 'incision' is somehow different than 'poke,' making it sound like I was trying to scare away testers. My main comment - after saying that the XS is easy to use - was that I had some concerns about the dosing chart.
If I had ignored the statement about INR Testers being more complicated than Blood Glucose meters, this craziness may not have even started.
For anyone who still cares, here's what I was trying to say:
Blood Glucose testing is not much easier than INR testing with an INR meter. The steps are similar. You may need a bigger drop of blood for the INR testing, but there are lancets and lancing devices that will let you get that drop of blood. Although the electronics in the INR testers are more complicated than those in the Blood Glucose meters, the newest models have good quality controls and are fairly easy to use.
The dosing chart provided by SM was a bit troubling to me in the way it proposed management of dosing for people with high INRs.
THAT'S ALL
If we leave it at that, this juvenile thread can maybe stop here. (But it'll still be good to know where my post that seemed to kick this off made any errors)
