FDA posted Dexcom's notice that two lots of G7 sensors designated as scrap were stolen before destruction, sold by third parties, and may carry infection risk or reading failure depending on the lot. [1][2]

The scout memo identified a possible online-mainstream gap around dexcom's g7 warning is a theft and distribution-integrity story, but no verified same-session status URL is attached; this article keeps that online frame unproved and anchors the lot, label, and household action in the cited record.

The reader test for dexcom's g7 warning is a theft and distribution-integrity story is the lot, label, and household action: if a later source changes that record, the frame changes; if it only changes the argument around the record, the article should not pretend the evidence moved.

That makes FDA the starting point rather than the whole story, because a brief still owes readers the exact object to revisit when the next update arrives and a plain reminder that the most useful follow-up will change the record, not merely the volume of attention around it, especially when the public argument is moving faster than the source trail.

The empty X stack is a boundary: without a verified status URL for dexcom's g7 warning is a theft and distribution-integrity story, the piece does not claim a social-media consensus.

-- NORA WHITFIELD, Chicago