Whoa, let&#x27;s not put words in my mouth here.  First of all, I said nothing about denying people access to their medical data.  Once the tests are done, yes, it&#x27;s the patient&#x27;s data (and in the US, HIPAA concurs).  We&#x27;re not in disagreement there.<p>Secondly, there may be all kinds of other uses for glucose tests that one could <i>research</i>, but consumers running tests on themselves in an uncontrolled manner is not research.  I would never say that no other uses will ever be discovered, but let&#x27;s do that scientifically, please. My specific issue was with how diabetic glucose self-testing was used as rhetorical evidence that more blood tests help people, while failing to note that those tests are done to dose (potentially dangerous, fast-acting) medications, not to &quot;keep tabs&quot; on anybody&#x27;s diabetes in a diagnostic sense, as was implied by the omission.<p>You say below that &quot;people are coming around on glucose in the same way that we now understand that the cardio signal [...] are predictive of an enormous number of physiological and psychological phenomena.&quot; That&#x27;s a lovely hypothesis, but please tell me who these people are, and please show me the evidence of the predictive value.<p>Until then, the Credentialed Professionals are perfectly justified in shrugging their shoulders at post-prandial glucose data from healthy patients (who, contrarily, will demand that needless and dangerous follow-up procedures are ordered for them), and the companies selling consumers these tests will not be helping anybody become healthier. I could go on, but this comment sums up the societal effects better than I could, even referencing your &quot;ideal&quot; of the ECG for screening. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11694341" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11694341</a>