On the 'StripSafely' web site I can only find one page that has any references. That is the 'Issues' page and it has 10 references. Those ten references reduce to just one - the meeting on May 21, 2013 sponsored by the Diabetes Technology Society which invited two experts who had tested blood glucose meters. A referenced text, costing $85 from "The Gray Sheet" (less than one vial of some test strips so I figured I'd buy it) doesn't say much more. The multivu summary is free and better:
Two other links are irrelevant. The EU link is about changing EU regulation of *all* medical devices. They pretty much say regulation is ineffective. The worries about competitive bidding in ObamaCare are part of the ongoing debate about ObamaCare and, being hypothetical, are essentially a political statement.
So there is *one* reference. Of course, we also have the research previously referenced in discussions on tudiabetes.org, which, if I remember correctly, found maybe one or two meters out of the 15-20 tested being out of range by the current US standards.
The actual studies (three of them, two by the same EU based author) are, however, all available from the DTS web site (thank you DTS!) The two September articles are available for free here:
The January 2013 article by Brazg is in the archives, but must be purchased ($55), see here:
There is also a criticism (in the strict sense, an analysis) by Andreas Pfützner ($55). I believe DTS will make these all free in due course (but it looks like it could take up to a year.)
I haven't analyzed the original papers yet, I will probably do so, but I do note that the EU author was using DIN (German) or ISO standards, not the US ones.
Meanwhile the references StripSafely give refer to quotes by journalists and pundits, never directly to the original authors. I have three issues with the StripSafely Issues (;-) page:
1) 'cheap'; the first and most prominent attribute which is presented in quotes (aka scare quotes). The reference is number (3), to CloseConcerns, yet the attributed article is not on the web site given (according to Google - the link provided is just to the head of the site). I traced the article title (via Google) back to an abstract of the original DTS meeting produced by the journal. (Google yourself using the title). The word 'cheap' does not occur in that abstract.
This alone makes me extremely suspicious of the StripSafely site: four separate attributes are to the CloseConcerns website, but they are all to the same article. I cannot find that article on the CloseConcerns website, or, for that matter, on the diatribe web site (diatribe.us). When I search for the article name I find only an abstract.
At this point I went back to other commenters on the original source - the May symposium - looking for a 'cheap' source. On the multivu summary I found David Klonoff, using 'some low-cost meters'. He is president of DTS, but in this context he was apparently summarizing. There is a substantial semantic difference between 'some low-cost meters' and the end rendition 'cheap', the latter implies 'all'. Please see the multivu quotes of the Klonoff interview, or buy the Gray Sheet summary which has different quotes but not the 'low-cost' one.
2) Competitive bidding; a full two paragraphs of the article after the CloseConcerns 'cheap' attack are devoted to competitive bidding in ObamaCare. Once again this is primarily attributed to "Close Concerns". I maintain that this is an irrelevant to the issue of the accuracy of BG meters and is, IMO, a political discussion.
3) 'Asia[n]'; this is racist. There is no credible attribute to the whole paragraph, the reference to the EU issue is to the EU press release which asserts a general lack of regulation and cites breast implants and hip replacements as the evidence. The paragraph reads like it was written by a lobbyist; it sandwiches two unrelated and unattributed statements that are barely meaningful between an irrelevant anchor sentence.
There are too many issues here with regard to how or why this web site was constructed for me to be able to offer any constructive criticism. I think tudiabetes.org needs to step back from this and ask itself what the real issue is.