I saw this campaign a few weeks ago, felt very tempted, ultimately decided it was prudent to wait for the final product to be available. The discussion here ha

I saw this campaign a few weeks ago, felt very tempted, ultimately decided it was prudent to wait for the final product to be available. The discussion here has raised some interesting points pro and contra. Much hinges on how well the research state of the art supports the company's claims. My default assumption is that people will jump to conclusions, one way or another, without doing enough homework. Googling for key words in Healbe's brochure has turned up this academic paper which seems to confirm their method for noninvasive BGL measurement is at least a promising path: http://www.eejournal.ktu.lt/index.php/elt/article/download/4566/2588 http://www.eejournal.ktu.lt/index.php/elt/article/download/4... A similar article reveals interesting information about an attempt at noninvasive glucose measurement ten years ago: http://www.engr.uconn.edu/~mam10069/Docs/NonInvasiveGlucoseMeasurement.pdf http://www.engr.uconn.edu/~mam10069/Docs/NonInvasiveGlucoseM... "Report shows the device had correlation with actual glucose level by only 35.1% and in some cases it gave potentially dangerous measurements." (Not exactly a confidence booster, but ten years is enough to improve a lot.) Half an hour of homework has substantially decreased my trust in people who say it's flat out impossible in principle to do what HealBe claim to be doing. ETA: further academic paper links I've posted in other comments: http://dst.sagepub.com/content/8/1/54.short http://dst.sagepub.com/content/8/1/54.short http://knowledgetranslation.ca/sysrev/articles/project21/Ref%20ID%207984-20090628225926.pdf http://knowledgetranslation.ca/sysrev/articles/project21/Ref...