Google's Testing a Smart Contact Lens for Diabetics

34

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

legionera

Google can watch you piss now

avatar

MaximumMike

Google can already watch you piss.

avatar

MaximumMike

Google can already watch you piss.

avatar

JusTalkin

What kind of transmitter does it use and what does it transmit to? I would think that a transmitter that close to such sensitive tissue, not to mention your brain, would have to be very weak. I'm guessing that the lawyers are already lining up to sue for some kind of damages lawsuit.

As for how they would make money, I can see how they could transmit the information to your computer or smartphone and have ads on the screen the whole time that you are viewing your results. Probably would have to be connected to the internet to see the results just to make sure they were getting their ad revenue. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

If it's a IR beam then your worries are for naught. There are plenty of frequencies that could be used that don't harm people (or haven't been shown to hurt them over the 90 or so years we've been using them).

But I'm really betting this is going to be a microwave-infrared type signal just based on the size and power constraints of the product.

avatar

bigrigross

Cant tell if trolling or if crazy??? When it comes to medical devices, they are extensively tested. They may be talking about it now but I wouldnt expect it to hit the market for another 5 to 10 years. It has to go through certification, FDA testing, private testing, and lab testing. Also, there would be no ads. Its a medical device. So put your tinfoil hat back on and go back in the corner.

avatar

JonGaddis

I have worked in pharmacy and Durable medical equipment sales since 1997. The companies that make the glucometers and testing strips will fight tooth and nail to keep this from coming to market. They are making too much money off the testing supplies. Medicare covers these items as well. Its like a razor and razor blades. They give the meter out for free and make a boatload of money off the testing strips. There is a glucose testing machine that is similar to a pulsoximeter (the one you wear on your finger for blood pressure and oxygen levels in the ER ) but the glucose testing companies have shot that down, for you and me, because they have the right politicians paid up in the right places so it won't come to mass market. No "purchase one and done" with these companies. They make you come back for more supplies. The pulsoximeters that are out now for 50 to 100 dollars could test glucose levels, as well but, patents are in place by trolls to sue the pants off them if they try...

avatar

AFDozerman

But at the same time, who better to fight them than Google? You have to admit that, as "evil" as Google is made out to be, they are significantly less evil than most major cooperations.

avatar

pastorbob

My wife is an optician so she found this story very interesting. Of course she immediately starting trying to figure out how they would do it and wondering about the cost to patients and difficulties related to prescriptions etc. .

avatar

yammerpickle2

Way to go Google.

avatar

Ghost XFX

How long before we start seeing cybernetic implants?

Ghost in the Shell stuff underway...

avatar

vrmlbasic

I'd be more comfortable with this if it came from an company that derives its income primarily from medical/biotech products. With Google behind this my first question is: "Why does a company that makes its money by selling ads and user data want to help me monitor my blood sugar?"

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

I'd feel safer having Google, a company known for pushing boundaries in ways that generally help people, make this product rather than have a Bio-Med company work on this for several years with people completely unsuited to the task, have it cost several times more, and who's business model depends on people being sick and alleviating their symptoms instead of curing the body or working on preventative care.
The whole medical industry is a gigantic cluster f*ck of ridiculous. It's nice to see someone give them a kick in the pants.

avatar

DeltaFIVEengineer

As someone who works in the biomedical industry it saddens me that people are so uninformed, they believe this drivel. One of the primary reasons that all of these medicines/devices cost so much is because of the enormous cost of development. PhD researchers, FDA regulations, the facilities needed to produce medicines/devices, and years of development aren't cheap no matter how you look at it. Plus, the idea that these companies are intentionally not looking for a cure is tin foil hat theory at best. Just because you've discovered a cure for any disease doesn't mean you've discovered an inoculation against it. There is still money to be made from cures.

I work with some of the smartest people on the planet and let me assure you; if any of them believed they were even remotely close to finding a cure for any of the major diseases affecting humanity, they would do everything in their power to make it a reality. Also, I would be first in line to help them in any way I could. We are human beings who work for these companies and often are either related or know personally someone afflicted by a disease our companies are researching and/or produce medicines for. We work our asses off so you and the people you love can be free from these horrible afflictions.

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

Which is why companies that sell life saving medications cease to make them as soon as profit dwindles, regardless of whether or not people need them. It's also why instead of developing new and improved medications every 20 years they simply renew their patents on drugs by adding "innocuous but not necessarily beneficial" chemicals in order to keep profits artificially high and keep the actual effective drug under their control and out of a reasonable price zone.

These are common practice. This shit happens all the time. I'm sorry you're such a great person but when profit comes before humanitarianism, you get our current medical system. Should you be paid for your services? Yes. Should you get to tyrannically rule a market for 40 years? No.
Also, I'm well aware of how the regulatory process for this happens. I'm also aware that the medical patent system is beyond broken. But if you're telling me that your medical company is working for the good of humanity like you're suggesting, then you're hazed. You work for profit; it just so happens that for a time you actually do some good in the world when you ACTUALLY make something new and improved.

Edit: And I don't like bio-meds because I've not had a good experience working with any of them. I'm sure there are competent ones but I've not run into them. Except for one of my old professors... but he was an EE before Bio.

avatar

legionera

Let's don't forget that there is of course another side and it ain't pretty. Google trying to pursue a wider public by harassing them with more ads via devices that correspond all our senses. Google representing a research institute that collects and sells human's interest to the hungry corporations.

just saying

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

Google sells knowledge for a profit. Bio-Med's sell you your life back at a profit, often without the promise that your life will in anyway look like what it did before.
Also, Google is doing really well a stirring the pot. AT&T is offering the fastest internet they can just to not lose to Google Fiber (they are still failing miserably). Now Google's going to come out with diabetic monitoring on the cheap... Medical-4-Profit will have to compete (or sue... Med companies love lawsuits). Either way, the consumer wins.

avatar

pastorbob

When a company has stock priced well over $1,000 per share I suspect they are looking at a wide variety of ways to become more diversified. I think you might be very surprised at how many different ways Google is doing just that.

avatar

AFDozerman

+1000. You deserve a couple of DGC.

avatar

Led Weappelin

This technology could obviously go far beyond helping diabetics. We are only scratching the surface on this.

avatar

AFDozerman

This is great news, although it's a bit bittersweet for me personally. Like the author, I have a dad who is diabetic, but he would never use this. The reason? Religion.

Both of my parents are diehard southern baptists and are adamantly against combining technology and the human body, even going so far as to shun biometrics because it is all "leading to the mark of the beast". My mom has actually refused to use a thumbprint scanner at her job to clock in and threatened to launch a religious discrimination lawsuit if they wouldn't let her continue using the 30+ year old punchcard system that had been in place. They both actually fought against my paternal grandparents and tried to keep them from letting my great-grandfather get a pacemaker.

Like I said, great news, but it's kind of sad to see for me because of what it reminds me of.

avatar

devin3627

they definitely don't like star trek then.

avatar

AFDozerman

Actually, my dad got hurt as a kid while playing StarTrek in a barn. He fell through a hole in the floor of a hay loft and the other kids thought he got "beamed up" ha ha. Come to think of it, that could be the whole start of this...

avatar

JosephColt

That is disturbingly sad....

Hopefully you will not continue on such ignorant actions as your parents. I will never quite understand how someone can fall into such a mindset.

avatar

AFDozerman

I honestly think it's a defensive mindset. The same way that people will stick with an inferior product even when a new one comes out, they are sticking with religion even as it is being disproven. Because of this, they respond by making their religious beliefs more and more strict, holding on tighter and tighter.

avatar

JosephColt

That makes sense. Technology is also doing what prayers are not, saving people. They are afraid to admit they are wrong, and it will make them feel ashamed and bad likely.

avatar

vrmlbasic

How do you disprove religion?

Reminds of a Metalocalypse episode, come to think.

avatar

AFDozerman

You can't. You can only pile on more and more circumstantial evidence. It's akin to saying "well, we don't have his prints on the murder weapon, but we do know that he has a grudge against the victim, going so far as to saying he was going to kill him, has bragged to several people that he was going to kill the victim, drives the exact same kind of vehicle as the getaway car was reported to be, and has the victim's wallet in his house."

Sorry if that example didn't make sense. I'm actually at a party and pretty drunk.

Metalocalypse? I didn't know that show was still running...

avatar

JosephColt

You don't disprove it. You cannot prove or disprove a belief, for the most part. I can say I belief that Jesus was actually a space dragon in human form who came to test mankind and judge it for its worth. You cannot disprove my belief, nor prove it. That's just how things work.

There isn't even a shred of proof that a God exists, or that the man Jesus was a true God of some form. The bible does not count either as it's written by man and unreliable source of information full of horrible fiction mixed with real life events. Religion came from a time when the world was a horrible place to live, and people needed some form of hope in those dark days.

avatar

MaximumMike

You guys are really doing a bad job with theology and the complicated philosophical dilemmas surrounding it. Please stop.

avatar

AFDozerman

Please, do elaborate...

avatar

MaximumMike

No thanks.

avatar

NSain

I was wondering how they were going to get a sample... from the announcement it going to sample tears. NICE!

avatar

brkKAB123

I'm a type 1 diabetic for over 34 years now. This is terrific to hear.