Let's skip the bullshit and get to the main issue: have you even read the article we're discussing? Because, if you had, you would've realized that it refers to the use of CGM for "almost anybody", which is what I take issue with. Please read things before losing your shit 
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Dr. Tro Retweeted Dr. Tro
Allow me to refer you to this which addresses your question to “almost anybody”https://twitter.com/doctortro/status/1185003789721448450?s=21 …
Dr. Tro added,
Dr. Tro @DoctorTroReplying to @ikitorp @venkmurthy @GidMKExpanding the indication to type 2 diabetes (not on insulin), prediabetes, GDM, metabolic syndrome, hyperinsulinemia, reactive hypoglycemia, overweight/obesity seems quite reasonable - that becomes roughly 80% of the populations. Basically everyone who’s not a cardiologist1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, this is both an excellent illustration of the perils of double counting and the perils of overconfidence in behavioral interventions. The list of indications is over-broad & misrepresented; the practical utility of monitoring (ie. will it work as intended) is overestimated.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
No citation or clinical experience, no argument.pic.twitter.com/9CYSDG0LWs
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, pls provide citations for your bombastic claim that at least 80% of the population will benefit from CGM based on your selective clinical experience with its use in a tiny non-representative fraction of the population. No citations and no relevant clinical exp = no argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Evidence is the literature is there https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29380542/ … The rest is clinical experience which I do have and you don’t have
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Interesting strawman there - no one is arguing about the utility of CGM for T2DM I'd love to see the evidence for benefit in people with, say, pre-diabetes
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Ahh yes it makes plenty of clinical sense that an a1c of 6.49 wouldn’t benefit and an a1c of 6.5 would It was clearly written the rest is “clinical experience” Please explain how that would be a strawman... you people are exhausting
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Well, in this case "clinical experience" is basically taking your word for it. I don't know you nor your experience That being said, I'm optimistic for the use of CGM for some people with pre-diabetes, but even then the evidence isn't there yet
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Also, yet another strawman - I never said that there'd be a benefit for people with HbA1c 6.5 but not 6.49
Not sure if you're aware, but pre-diabetes is a range. I can refer you to the WHO or ADA criteria if you'd like 
-
-
Okay great so you agree that the utility of a cgm may no different at 6.49 prediabetes and 6.5 diabetes .... glad we cleared that up
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Probably much less useful for an HbA1c of 5.9 tho
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.