In conclusion, each of the bugs disqualifies (makes unreliable or even dangerous, harmful) the "software" of diabetes. I hope that once explained, these bugs are obvious. These bugs turn diabetes treatment into a trap: diabetes treatment makes diabetes worse. This makes diabetes technoscience a self-fulfilling science. The "software" of diabetes is completely false but its operation confirms the beliefs and forecasts of the actors (very sinister forecasts for the patients) or goes in the direction of their interests.
This proper functioning of the "software" confirms and reinforces the "software", that is to say the trust placed in it by the actors. The "software" works thanks to its bugs. The experiment confirms the theory, although the theory is completely wrong.
Let’s sum up: if the results of software or "software" confirm your beliefs and predictions, or point in your direction, why would you look for bugs? Actors disadvantaged by "diabetes" software are diabetic patients; but they have been left helpless whether they have the skills or not.
Are there other sciences which are in the same case?
The epistemologist Karl Popper strangely wrote that a scientific theory must be "falsifiable"; was he thinking about the technoscience of diabetes?
Did Philip K. Dick Think About Synthetic Insulin In His Novel "Death Substance"?