Interesting standpoint, one which I disagree with. You are making a causal connection of rise in diagnostic tools => overtreatment. What is your evidence for t

Interesting standpoint, one which I disagree with. You are making a causal connection of rise in diagnostic tools => overtreatment. What is your evidence for that, apart from overtreatment increasing? I think sea levels have risen since then too, are they also an effect of too much diagnostics? Clearly, if the data was just noise, people would eventually stop caring. But you'd have to be pretty cynical to think one of the major tech companies of the world releases a diagnostic device that has an S:N ratio that high. A more likely explanation for the overtreatment is simply that people are getting richer, and society is providing more care -- to a fault. I know this first hand, I have had invasive surgery done that I would've been better without -- because the doctor thought it maybe might be a good thing for the future. Spoiler: it worsened the problem. I think if it were the case that we all suffer from a bit of a-fib every now and then, and that these diagnostic tools will give false positives for this reason, then that would be news to the medical community and thus progressing our understanding. People would be told, "your watch is telling you this but we know better now." Apple might update their detection algorithm. It's such a small price to pay for the obvious advantage of preventing loss of life.