Slashdot Mirror


Google Proposes 'Needle-less' System For Drawing Blood (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Google has published a patent for a needle-free blood draw technology which could be incorporated into a wrist wearable or hand-held device. The patent filing explained that the system releases a pulse of gas into a barrel or 'hollow cylinder', containing a 'micro-particle' which can break through the skin and draw a small sample of blood. According to Google, once the drop of blood forms it is drawn up into the negative pressure barrel. This technique is a quicker and less invasive alternative to using needles, or other blood measures which administer pin pricks to the finger to release the blood. The patent, which is still pending, suggests that the mechanism could also provide a replacement for glucose testers used by diabetics.

91 comments

  1. DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Excellent, now when we browse the net, random websites can track us with our DNA.

    1. Re: DNA by binarylarry · · Score: 2

      Yeah but think of all the cool free shit you'll get, scro!

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  2. Still sounds like a needle to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Hollow cylinder/barrel? Check!
    - Breaks the skin? Check!
    - Uses negative pressure within the barrel to suck in the blood? Check!

    That sounds a fuck of a lot like a needle to me, it's just made of gas instead of metal!

    1. Re: Still sounds like a needle to me! by binarylarry · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sounds like a hypospray to me. Didn't those fail because they hurt like a motherfucker?

      Google is a god damned search engine, not a doctor!

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:Still sounds like a needle to me! by pepty · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Still if it is a more convenient way for diabetics to get results, kudos. But if it is Google trying to compete with Theranos in the "we're going to measure 100+ different analytes from a teensy drop of blood drawn from a skin prick" market, they should probably confirm which analytes can be measured reproducibly in skin prick samples BEFORE announcing that they are measuring them. Theranos seems to be getting quite a comeuppance for not realizing that blood from a skin prick != venous blood.

    3. Re: Still sounds like a needle to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong universe. Google is well on its way to becoming Omni Corp.

    4. Re: Still sounds like a needle to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know perhaps 40 years ago, maybe 42, when I was a kid we got in a long line at my school to get some sort of shot. I can't remember whether it was an early flu shot or something else. But the new hotness at the time was indeed a hypospray (or needle-less injector). It did indeed hurt more than a needle. Quite a bit more actually. It was also the only time I have ever seen one. I don't know if they died off so quickly due to ineffectiveness, pain, or expense, but I never saw another one. I just checked Wikipedia for "jet injector" and it turns out they aren't used anymore due to cross-contamination and passing diseases like hepatitis from one injectee to another.

    5. Re: Still sounds like a needle to me! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Wrong universe. Google is well on its way to becoming Omni Corp.

      More like Umbrella Corp.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    6. Re: Still sounds like a needle to me! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a hypospray to me. Didn't those fail because they hurt like a motherfucker?

      Google is a god damned search engine, not a doctor!

      Air "needles" in your arm, ads up your ass - be thankful it's not the other way around.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    7. Re: Still sounds like a needle to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong universe. Google is well on its way to becoming Omni Corp.

      Wouldn't you need successful new projects? Google isn't very good at that.

    8. Re: Still sounds like a needle to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is a god damned search engine, not a doctor!

      Google should stop trying and failing to do new things and focus on making it possible to keep older Android phones patched with security updates. God dammit, Google! Focus!

    9. Re:Still sounds like a needle to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeezus, Google's not analyzing anything. The patent solely covers a method of blood extraction, not analysis. Presumably, you could use Google's device to get the blood sample and then use an ordinary glucose monitor to analyze the sample. The figure included in TFA and patent doc was just an example of a potential application of the blood extraction device in use with probably some kind of smart watch.

    10. Re:Still sounds like a needle to me! by pepty · · Score: 1

      Google is analyzing ... everything. 23andMe (funded by Google Ventures) is just the one you hear about most.

    11. Re:Still sounds like a needle to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But not with this device. Its just a fancy hi-tech lancet.

    12. Re: Still sounds like a needle to me! by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Those are just letters in the Alphabet...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    13. Re: Still sounds like a needle to me! by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Omni Corp didn't seem particularly "successful" to me. At least not from the 3 documentaries that I watched. Their attempts at new businesses seemed to be spectacular failures. Only the original 'Products' company seemed to make money hand over fist...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    14. Re: Still sounds like a needle to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong universe. Google is well on its way to becoming Omni Corp.

      More like Umbrella Corp.

      More like Aperture Science!

    15. Re: Still sounds like a needle to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jet injectors might hurt, but they didn't catch on primarily because they were prone to contamination across users or from the environment.

    16. Re: Still sounds like a needle to me! by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

      I think they tended to inject bad stuff into people too.
      What happens when there is nasty bacteria on your skin and the pulse of the gas pushes that into your blood stream?

    17. Re: Still sounds like a needle to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there

    18. Re: Still sounds like a needle to me! by xtronics · · Score: 1

      Exactly!

      I remember them - hurt like hell. Not only that - inject dirt from the skin that caused infections.

      Here is the clue - the article does not mention "pain". To hard to figure that question might count? Why don't journalists do the obvious research to ask about even the basics? Bad idea - bad article.

    19. Re: Still sounds like a needle to me! by KGIII · · Score: 2

      They were quite common when I was a lad. If you move, they scar. I still have one but you can't see it - it's under a tattoo. They were used, when I was enlisted, for our inoculations. I was born in 1957 but spent most of my years living on or near base as my father was a career Marine.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:Still sounds like a needle to me! by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Honestly, the complexity and description of this really reminds me of those needleless injectors. They're kind of notorious for bruising and actually being more painful than a fine needle - which is why no one with diabetes (including myself) use them. There's no way anything involving air pressure and vacuum barrels is going to be smaller than most lancing devices. It could be useful for mass high-volume testing in hospitals or something... But even with the removal of needles there are so many contamination concerns still.

      Also, in general, fingersticks for diabetics will eventually be relegated to being a calibration reference for CGM systems like Dexcom's G4/G5 (I believe Google Life Sciences is partnered with Dexcom now...) Technically you're not supposed to use a CGM to make treatment decisions without a fingerstick, that said - many diabetics (including myself) do make treatment decisions based on their Dexcom. You can make this system as convenient and painless as possible, it's not going to replace an automatic reading every 5 minutes.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  3. Surely you mean less invasive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because needle-less systems are nothing new.

  4. As a diabetic by jimmybuffet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a diabetic I have to say this sounds pretty cool. Pricking fingers 3-4 times per day sucks. I would be happier if they found a way to restore insulin production to my pancreas, but I'll take what i can get.

    1. Re: As a diabetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Sure, until you realize that the device also does the analysis AND sends the results to Google. Fucking horrible assholes.

    2. Re:As a diabetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a diabetic I have to say this sounds pretty cool.

      I'm also a diabetic and I have to say that I'm not impressed. Pulling blood through skin with physical force means piercing the skin which is what a needle already does. What does this device offer except sending the results to Google (no thanks) and high cost? Needles, glucose meters and test strips are proven, simple and reliable technologies available at very low cost. We don't need drug companies or Google coming into this market and finding ways to increase the price of daily glucose monitoring with unnecessary whiz-bang tech. It really pisses me off when companies come into an existing treatment market for a chronic disease and find ways to increase prices for no reason. They did it for asthma inhalers and now they trying to solve the "problem" of glucose monitoring being "too cheap". Beware, newer isn't always better, especially in drugs or medical treatments.

    3. Re: As a diabetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calm down, man. You really need to get back on your meds, AC. Your paranoid schizo utterance makes everyone feel embarrassed for you. FYI, the patent and TFA are only about the needle-less blood extracting device and not any glucose monitoring device that may be connected to it. The figure of one included in the TFA and patent are only shown as an example of application using the device.

    4. Re:As a diabetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This drug trial has shown very promising results, but its too early to see if it represents are a long term solution.

      New Type 1 diabetes treatment restores production of insulin | Daily Mail Online

    5. Re:As a diabetic by xeoron · · Score: 2

      I once saw in Popular Science back in 2002, I think, that a university had developed a tattoo that changes color so that a diabetic would know when they had a low blood sugar, therefore not needing to take blood samples all the time. It is a shame that it never became a option for people.

    6. Re: As a diabetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calm down, man. You really need to get back on your meds, AC. Your paranoid schizo utterance makes everyone feel embarrassed for you. FYI, the patent and TFA are only about the needle-less blood extracting device and not any glucose monitoring device that may be connected to it. The figure of one included in the TFA and patent are only shown as an example of application using the device.

      Typical response of either a Google employee, shill or fanboy. Always condescending and clueless. And sad really.

    7. Re: As a diabetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical response of either a Google employee, shill or fanboy. Always condescending and clueless. And sad really.

      Typical response of the conspiratorially schizoids whose tenuous grasp of reality provides endless entertainment for the rest of us. Please, go back on your meds, AC. This is getting pathetic now.

    8. Re: As a diabetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's right though isn't he? That's exactly what they'll do. Just like they've done it for everything else.

    9. Re:As a diabetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insulin pump with built in glucose meter would be much healthier, and saves the multiple pricks because it's just continually attached.

    10. Re:As a diabetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm also a diabetic

      No you're not, AC. You're nothing more than a pathetic Slashdot anti-Google troll.

      What does this device offer except sending the results to Google (no thanks) and high cost?

      No results are sent to Google, dumbass. Nowhere in the TFA or the patent application does it mention sending any results to Google, or, for that matter, analyzing the extracted blood sample . This is just a device patent that only covers a method of blood extraction, nothing more. Read TFPA if you don't believe me.

    11. Re:As a diabetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The average list price of an insulin pump is around $6,500, and related pump supplies typically cost $1500 per year. That's fine if you've got the insurance to cover it, but millions of diabetics don't.

    12. Re:As a diabetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too. But I'll be quite curious about damage to the skin, and corruption of the sample by vacuum drawing it through the skin.

    13. Re:As a diabetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And laser spectroscopy, which has led to at least 3 stock frauds. (The Dreambeam, the Diasensor, and the Sugartrac devices, none of which worked moreh than 30% of the time on more than one calibrated subject.)

      Spectroscopy just doesn't work for this: you can't isolate the spectral responses form the overlap with all the other components of blood, and the signal distortion of going through skin and other tiesues.

    14. Re: As a diabetic by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      It's only so that Google can select more appropriate ads for you, depending on your sugar level. Do you really want ads for doughnuts when your sugar level is already high? ;-)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    15. Re: As a diabetic by cosmin_c · · Score: 1

      As a doctor I would never consider safer a thing that is continually piercing your skin, or worse, is perpetually indwelling in a blood vessel. The danger of infection, thrombosis, autoimmune response and a lot of other nasty stuff is just too high. Not to mention that long term iv lines are also subject to the danger of abuse or misuse (albeit this only applies to some people).

      Genetic therapy for diabetes holds a lot of promise, restoring the pancreas' ability to secrete insulin is the only cure, anything else is just treatment.

      And I do disagree with the big pharma tendencies of looking into treatments mainly rather than cures, although there is a fine line here between being wary and tinfoiling stuff.

    16. Re:As a diabetic by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if you use a spear or, in this case, a bullet, either way you end up with a hole in you.

    17. Re:As a diabetic by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I am kind of surprised that I remembered this:
      http://science.slashdot.org/st...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    18. Re: As a diabetic by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I've a sibling with a picc and a port. The picc is a Y with two inlets. I pay for the vast majority of hear health care and it's costly but that's the way the cookie crumbles. She's also diabetic and wears an insulin pump. It's pink. She's also mentally ill. She's pretty well fucked. I don't envy her but that morphine drip does look like it'd be fun. She's got flat veins so they have started to run out of places to put the picc. She's got the port for TPN. :/ Yeah, she's screwed. She wants hospice, end-of-life care, after the holidays but that could be the mental illness or it could just be that she's sick of the shit. I don't blame her and such will be provided.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    19. Re:As a diabetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have heard anecdotes (<-- disclaimer) that Type Twos do well on a (very) low-carb diet (thus not requiring external insulin, as there are very little sugars/starches ingested that need to be mopped up). Blood sugar is kept at a good level from stored fats, which are only tapped as needed - no excess levels and some report having gone for ages without the need to control insulin levels. Especially when excess abdominal/pancreatic fat is shed, insulin production may tend to normalize. I'd guess this would depend on the severity and progression of each individual's condition, though. One would probably still need to check blood levels and won't be able to avoid drawing blood for some time....

      My own interest in the subject is because I am on chronic meds that raise the risk of insulin resistance. So I had to change my diet and shed some excess weight and become more active - want to avoid the type II route as far as possible. One caveat is that when following such a diet one has to be alert to getting sufficiently nutrient dense foods - which include enzymes and other co-factors that are not usually available in synthesized supplement form. I simply try to have a larger ratio of my daily intake consist of fresh/raw veggies (and the few fruit I'm allowed). Small portions of protein with meals. So nothing radically different than what any good dietitian would recommend, or even unpleasant.

      The only thing they frown on is obviously that I'm not limiting the amounts of "good"/"healthy" fats I'm ingesting (I use full cream dairy, real cow butter, virgin olive oil, coconut oil, etc, liberally - basically anything unheated nor chemically processed - which doesn;t leave one with all that much choice nowadays...) I'm taking that part of the official recommendations with the proverbial pinch, since I'm still losing fat, building muscle, and blood tests and other exams show that I (vascular system and various other organs) am in excellent shape.

    20. Re:As a diabetic by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      I have heard anecdotes (<-- disclaimer) that Type Twos do well on a (very) low-carb die

      There's scientific evidence now, too.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    21. Re:As a diabetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they probably will not be able to afford this new Needle-less System either. Cost of insulin pumps will go down in time.

    22. Re:As a diabetic by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      So you would save several small needle sticks a day to get pretty accurate results for thousands, if not tens of thousands of small needle sticks in the matter of a few minutes that I'd imagine aren't any more accurate.

      They already have devices that can give instant readings and alert if blood sugar is too low. They're called continuous glucose monitors. Unfortunately though they still require a stick.

    23. Re:As a diabetic by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Fascinating article re: Diabeetus type 2: http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    24. Re:As a diabetic by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      As a diabetic, I'm actually not too impressed. Remember needleless injectors? Yeah, they do exist and are still in use in cases where people want to give mass vaccinations in an assembly-line fashion, but they're actually much more painful than needles. This patent sounds a LOT like a needleless injector. All of that mechanical complexity is going to make it significantly larger (and hence less convenient) than a traditional lancing device.

      Its benefit is minimal since fingersticks are on their way to being relegated to being a calibration source for CGM systems. I believe Dexcom's goal is to reduce from 2 calibrations per day to 1 with the G6. Admittedly, I still usually do 3-5 fingersticks a day, but I used to do 5-8, more if I suspected my bloodsugar was being wacky.

      From one diabetic to another - under the assumption you're Type I - the Dexcom G4 was a life-changer for me. I would absolutely recommend it to any Type I diabetic. Being able to see my bloodsugar simply by looking at my watch (xDrip + NightWatch + Moto 360) is amazing.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    25. Re:As a diabetic by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      CGM's such as Dexcom's G4 are pretty close to this. The main disadvantage is you need to insert the sensor under your skin once every 7 days... But then fingersticks are only needed for calibration purposes after that.

      Well technically you're not supposed to make treatment decisions without a confirmation fingerstick, but... Most diabetics including myself will go for the carbs if there's any possibility the CGM is correct when it says 55.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    26. Re:As a diabetic by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Pricking fingers 3-4 times per day sucks.

      And shooting a ball (or other projectile) is going to be much better? Caveat - I'm not a diabetic, yet. But with both parents now insulin-dependent, and one of two siblings too ... I'm not in doubt about which way things are going to go for me.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    27. Re:As a diabetic by RH434 · · Score: 1

      It is probably sitting in some finger prick companies warehouse of patents, with all of the other better ideas they don't want to come to market.

  5. Wait a minute by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    ...the system releases a pulse of gas into a barrel or 'hollow cylinder', containing a 'micro-particle' which can break through the skin...

    So it's a freakin' gun? What happens to these micro-particles? You'll be filling your bloodstream with micro-bullets?

    I'd still choose the needle, thank you very much.

    1. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think shoving a needle into your body doesn't leave behind any micro particles?

    2. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're already full of particles. A few more may or may not make a difference. That part will probably be studied thoroughly before this even comes close to getting on the market.

    3. Re:Wait a minute by rastos1 · · Score: 2

      The micro-particles can be water droplets. Harmless int he bloodstream.

    4. Re:Wait a minute by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      In all seriousness, it kind of makes more sense to embed a device in the body, somewhere in the blood flow, based around Rfid style technology. Device stays inactive until a query is transmitted, then uses that energy to carry out a test cycle and respond. You eliminate every thing from the device beyond the energy conversion circuit, the testing circuit and the transmitter. It also only works when you want it to work, being passive the rest of the time. This would enable more device to be inserted to test for other things. Likely a standard set of rules to govern which testing devices are placed where, to facility testing, because something like that could become a default at birth addition for some individuals.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Said tests usually require reactants, making implantation troublesome.

    6. Re:Wait a minute by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      The micro-particles can be water droplets. Harmless int he bloodstream.

      Right. But the jet of gas necessary to propel a droplet of water with enough force to pierce skin isn't. There's a name for resulting type of injury:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    7. Re:Wait a minute by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      You just (mostly) described the Dexcom G4.

      Sensor wire that effectively acts as a fuel cell powered by glucose is embedded under the skin for 7 days. (measures interstitial fluid glucose concentration instead of measuring blood directly). On top of the sensor wire is a small clip that a transmitter clips into. This periodically samples data and transmits it with a very low-power RF transmitter (TI proprietary protocol) every 5 minutes. 6 months battery life for the transmitter.

      The new G5 system uses BLE, which takes battery down to 3 months despite being physically larger. :(

      Getting a sensor to last past 7 days is possible, but it becomes a game of chance. Past 7, risk of infection/scarring/biofouling increases. Longest I've ever worn a sensor was 13 days and honestly I'm not doing that again (that site is healing more slowly than I'd like...)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  6. How much blood? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This sounds like an engineering project in search of an application. Using a micro-particle in this fashion is relatively clever, but it doesn't solve anything useful as far as I can tell. It's basically using a micro-particle fired at high velocity into your skin with a negative pressure behind it, so once it punctures the skin the negative pressure in the tube draws up blood. Most people I know who do not enjoy the invasiveness of regular blood tests like diabetics are not so much concerned with needles, they're concerned with the prick and the pain and the opening of their skin to exposure. This does the exact same thing that a needle does but instead of using a mechanically driven needle, it's using a kinetically driven micro-particle. The key to new forms of blood testing technologies is not needle-less, it's non-invasive, and this is still invasive.

    So the big question is how much blood does it get through the micro-puncture? Is it enough to run a test? Glucose monitoring maybe, but not much more.

    What happens if the aperture membrane is off slightly or fails and the negative pressure pulls from the environment and not directly from the skin puncture, leaving the micro-particle in the body? Now you've just introduced a foreign object that will be hard to remove; the FDA would want to have solid answers to this question before it's ever sold. In fact, I'd say this is years of clinical trials use away from being an actual product, since it directly introduces a foreign body into the blood stream and appears to be intended for personal use (clinics have blood draw products for glucose monitoring that are way better than this), which means it would need a personal use CLIA Waiver which is very hard to get. This is at least 5-7 years of 3 Phase clinical trials before this was every something deployable.

    1. Re: How much blood? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All those things do not matter. All that matters is that they have a patent.

    2. Re: How much blood? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that matters is that they have a patent.

      For a device that's not needed, has many cheap, reliable and effective alternatives and no currently approved medical use. Sounds about as valuable as the IBM owned patent for the rocket propelled surfboard. At least that one is somewhat amusing as a curiosity in a museum exhibit of strange patents. This Google device, on the other hand, is neither useful nor interesting. The last thing our bodies need is to have more microscopic and hard to retrieve foreign bodies introduced into them with no good method of retrieval and it probably still stings too. This is better than a small spring loaded solid needle how?

  7. what is it with biotech and slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that you loose all sense of reality ?
    is it cause you have no sense of reality in anything, but since I know biotech i know you are wacko ?

    again and again we get posts about gee whiz stuff that rarely , if ever, pans out

    for instance, how much volume do you need to get an accurate representation ?
    is the volume released thru a micro hole the same composition as bulk blood ?
    how does this work ifyou are old and dehydrated ?

    imo, slashdot should have a rule about biotech stuff: no posts untill at least a successful stage 2 clinical trial or its equivalent; that would weed out 90% of the fluff

  8. Where are you theranos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Theranos with all your billions and 1 decade can't even come up with a single useful innovation

  9. Great, litterally gonna suck blood out of people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were already getting all my information from me, clearly that was not enough :)

  10. Do no evil they said. by Teun · · Score: 1

    So this is their way of fulfilling that promise of No Evil?

    Back on topic, yes this might be a nice solution to these single drop only analyses.
    Why it should be Google?
    I hope there will be safeguards against them including our body's make-up in their already scary data base.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  11. "Micro Particle" by ControlsGeek · · Score: 2

    My guess is the 'Micro particle' is a RFID chip with a tracking code broadcast from it.

    1. Re:"Micro Particle" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon ads will appear for you as you drive by.....

  12. Stupid human tricks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reminded me of one of those stupid human tricks I saw performed in my highschool years...
    It definitely IS possible to suck blood directly through your skin in the areas where it's thinner, without causing damage to it.

    Just thought I'd share that. Enjoy!
    -AC

  13. Where have I heard this before? by LordStormes · · Score: 1

    A thin, hollow cylinder breaks the skin, then uses negative pressure to draw blood up into it? Don't we have those?

    Oh, yeah. It's called a syringe

  14. Sorry, but no thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last thing I want is something that can introduce an air bubble into my blood stream.

    1. Re:Sorry, but no thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last thing I want is something that can introduce an air bubble into my blood stream.

      Said the AC who is apparently oblivious that diabetics do that everyday - often more than once - when they give themselves insulin injections with NEEDLES.

    2. Re:Sorry, but no thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last thing I want is something that can introduce an air bubble into my blood stream.

      Said the AC who is apparently oblivious that diabetics do that everyday - often more than once - when they give themselves insulin injections with NEEDLES.

      Um.. no..

      I have been diabetic for 20 years and there are a couple things wrong with your statements here.

      1- you say that diabetics introduce air bubbles into their blood stream every day.. If you are doing that you are injecting insulin wrong.

      You are supposed to push the air out of the syringe after you draw insulin into the syringe before you inject.. Diabetic educators everywhere tell you this on the first day and make sure you understand it and can demonstrate doing it right multiple times before the needle comes anywhere close to your skin!

      2- You imply that diabetics are haphazardly injecting air into their veins.. Insulin injections are subcutaneous which is under the skin , not into a vein.

      You are not supposed to inject air under your skin either.. though it is not deadly it is damaging and can make your ability to heal from the injection more difficult and can result in permanent scarring.

      You might want to talk to actual diabetics before you make a sweeping statement like that guy!

    3. Re:Sorry, but no thank you by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Depending on your insulin needle, you'll need to inject at least two of them, full of air, directly into the bloodstream, to be at risk unless you manage to get it into an artery in which case you'll need about .5 mL before you're even remotely at risk.

      This does not mean inject air. This means that you're better of using safe injection practices and spending that time making sure your kit is clean than getting every tiny bubble out of the rig. I no longer, often, use IV for my ingestion because I'm using sublingual Suboxone but I have made a great deal of study out of this. I always figured the doctor used a needle when they wanted the best bioavailability, why not learn how?

      There is, of course, some risk but it's very overstated and justifiably so but there's no real reason to be worried unless you're injecting a bunch of air straight into your bloodstream. Feel free to look this up. I have. You can probably also ask your doctor, I have, but they might look at you funny. My doctor knows that I'm an addict. If I can't be honest with them then why bother having them?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  15. Air in the Blood Stream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...could potentially kill someone. I suppose this is supposed to vacuum it out immediately, but I don't know what the risks are.

    1. Re:Air in the Blood Stream... by KGIII · · Score: 2

      As stated above. None. Not even on an infant. You need a lot more air then the movies would have you believe. You'd probably have to simultaneously use tens and thousands of these for it to be harmful. There is, literally, no measurable risk here unless you want a contrived situation where somehow someone affixes tens of thousands of these things across their body, in just the right spots, at just the right depths, and manages to fire them all at once. You'd have better luck harming yourself with a stick of butter.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  16. Dr. McCoy would be pleased. by best+shot · · Score: 1

    From all the comments the sticks in the mud probably still believe America has the best health care system in the world. The way these Neanderthals are still going today it is a wonder anyone makes it out alive. The first thing they do for a hospital stay is start sticking you like a pincushion with IV needles because you "have to have them". This is so invasive and damaging to the muscle and nerve cells that they even have to change locations because that entrance can become plugged. My brother still has complications from his pancreatic infection because of the IVs he had during his induced coma not to even mention the drug resistant infection he got from the blood transfusions in the emergency room. The next thing to go will be the oxygen masks and tubes. Researchers in Japan found a way to oxygenate the blood by mixing it in with the blood much like a dialysis patient goes through. The patient is already hooked up with needles and just needs the equipment to mix and return the oxygenated blood back. Breathing is not even required. This would free up the person to be able to talk to their family or friends at life's end when their communication would be most important. I feel this was taken from me at my mom's and dad's passing because they HAD TO HAVE oxygen blown down their lungs. The comment by jimmybuffet is right on that the attention should be to restore primary function and not just manage a condition. They should not be allowed to make outrageous fortunes from others medical issues. That is just wrong on so many levels it is hard to believe that we have become so accepting to this as what our medical treatments should be. Some of us are going to have a better world because we insist on it and will not settle for just what is there. We haven't reached the Star Trek world of medicine yet but Dr McCoy would approve of noninvasive bioscanning. The medical system has helped a lot of people but they also cause some harm to others. We aren't there yet. Keep pushing on.

    1. Re: Dr. McCoy would be pleased. by cosmin_c · · Score: 1

      I am sorry about your losses and the things your brother went through, but taking the blood out of your body to mix it with oxygen and then reintroducing it back is really an immense risk added to the patient. Look up the risks associated with extracorporeal circulation, look up acquired von Willebrand deficit, look up venous thrombosis.

      You can say whatever you feel like, however it doesn't change the fact that external ventilation (look up NIV as well) is still the best way to get oxygen in the body who needs it. Same with canullas for getting iv medication as opposed to more long term solutions like picc or hickman lines which are associated with huge infection risks, thrombosis, etc.

  17. Glucose Testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been tried before and it turned out not to be viable after a 10 year wait for it..

    Google the term "Glucowatch" and you will see what a windup that was.

  18. FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazon ads will appear in you as you drive by.....

  19. Spring-loaded lancets? by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    What about spring-loaded lancets? They use a similar principle - a thin metallic spike is launched by a spring, pierces the skin and then it's retracted by the spring back into its sheaf. It's nearly painless and much less scary than a regular lancet. See here for a demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:Spring-loaded lancets? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Huh, that IS a regular lancet device...

      Well, at least as someone who has been a Type I diabetic for over 20 years, that's what I consider "regular"...

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  20. So puncturing the body with a foreign object ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    So puncturing the body with a foreign object can be called "needle-less" if the needle^H^H^H^H^H^Hforeign object remains in the body instead of being removed at the end of the procedure?

    Um okay.

    I don't know if I want to repeatedly shoot myself with micro-particles. Especially since injuries caused by injecting high-pressure gas under the skin aren't pretty.

  21. They need to take pointers from mosquitoes. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    The little critters can draw (small amounts of) blood fairly painlessly, if it wasn't for the reaction to their saliva.

  22. Think "Dig Dug". by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    You need a lot more air then the movies would have you believe.

    Think "Dig Dug", not "small 1ccm syringe".

  23. Left out by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    How many 'micro-particles' are required to self-assemble into the permanent tracker.

    1. Re:Left out by hlavac · · Score: 1

      Just one. Planting Evil Seeds is The Right Thing to do obviously

  24. Goverment Has Already Done This! by tmjva · · Score: 1

    It's called taxes.

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  25. Dammit Jim! by Puppet+Master · · Score: 1

    I'm a search engine, not a doctor!

    --
    The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!