Any test that leads to unnecessary treatment is unsafe. That list typically includes anything with false positives. For example, excessive testing for certain cancers (like breast cancer) lead to higher death rates.
Here's a concrete example where poorly-understood genetic testing has led to unnecessary surgery, which is obviously not safe.
> Any test that leads to unnecessary treatment is unsafe.
The AMA argues against letting patients run their own lab tests too, and fortunately lost. While it is possible that people could make mistakes using their own data, but this is rare and certainly the data being available is a net positive for people.
Using your definition, wouldn’t it be more dangerous to only make the information available to rich people and prevent the information being available affordable? $100 for webmd is much cheaper than the tens of thousands it would cost to consult with specialists, counselors, and gps.
We need to look for ways to lower healthcare costs, not scare people about hypothetical dangers that just happen to be solved by very expensive tests and consults.
It absolutely is not hyperbole.
Any test that leads to unnecessary treatment is unsafe. That list typically includes anything with false positives. For example, excessive testing for certain cancers (like breast cancer) lead to higher death rates.
Here's a concrete example where poorly-understood genetic testing has led to unnecessary surgery, which is obviously not safe.
https://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20170412/misunderst...