Jew World Order

Susanne Posel ,Chief Editor Occupy Corporatism | Co-Founder, Legacy Bio-Naturals

Back in 2014. Journalist Sharon Profis conducted an experiment on 5 different heart rate monitors (HRMs) and found that it would be more accurate to use “the ol’ finger-to-the-wrist method”.

When tested against an EKG machine, HRMs did not hold up. Profis wrote: “Most of the trackers employing optical sensors were only accurate (or close to accurate) at my normal resting heart rate of about 70-80 BPM.”

However, HRMs have received a big product endorsement that could influence public opinion.

Consumer Reports (CR) has come out in support of 2 HRMs, as the accuracy of this technology is being questioned in a new lawsuit .

In a study conducted by CR on the Charge HR and Surge HRMs, the organization stated that they were effective in accurately assessing heart rates.

The issue with the CR report is that it focuses on 2 types of HRMs and does not account for other products on the market. Fitbit has been accused of underreporting the user’s heart rate “by a wide margin” which could put the user at risk when performing “high-intensity workouts”.

CR’s report “suggest[s] that the errors might not be as widespread as implied by the lawsuit.”

According to the lawsuit, HRMs provide “wildly inaccurate and dangerously low BPM numbers” which could endanger user’s health. For example, in testing experiments, the user’s heart rate was “significantly higher than what the device reported”.

The court documents cites “a case where a user’s personal trainer recorded their heart rate at 160 bpm [beats per minute], but the device only read 82 bpm.”

When it comes to the accuracy of Fitbit, a lot is at stake. In April of 2015, Manulife Financial’s John Hancock unit offered their customers and employees at least a 10% discount on insurance premiums for wearing a fitness tracker which can record their gym workouts, steps and other physical activities.

To sweeten the deal, a free Fitbit tracking device was offered to help achieve fitness goals and keep the insurer in the know about the health of the customer or employee.

Jamie Court, spokesperson for Consumer Watchdog (CWD), explained this program “is essentially a medical surveillance system. This may look like a carrot to lure new customers, but it’s ultimately a stick.”

The push for Millennials who are conditioned to use more potentially invasive gadgets as a target is assisting with social acceptance of insurers being able to track customer’s health and possibly “build tools that will be used to deny people coverage.”

Court said: “If you’re hit by a car or something happens, insurance companies would go ahead and raise your rates. The more data they get, the more they can use it against us.”

Related Posts

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 23, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 22, 2016

Susanne Posel ,Chief Editor Occupy Corporatism | Co-Founder, Legacy Bio-Naturals

Back in 2014. Journalist Sharon Profis conducted an experiment on 5 different heart rate monitors (HRMs) and found that it would be more accurate to use “the ol’ finger-to-the-wrist method”.

When tested against an EKG machine, HRMs did not hold up. Profis wrote: “Most of the trackers employing optical sensors were only accurate (or close to accurate) at my normal resting heart rate of about 70-80 BPM.”

However, HRMs have received a big product endorsement that could influence public opinion.

Consumer Reports (CR) has come out in support of 2 HRMs, as the accuracy of this technology is being questioned in a new lawsuit .

In a study conducted by CR on the Charge HR and Surge HRMs, the organization stated that they were effective in accurately assessing heart rates.

The issue with the CR report is that it focuses on 2 types of HRMs and does not account for other products on the market. Fitbit has been accused of underreporting the user’s heart rate “by a wide margin” which could put the user at risk when performing “high-intensity workouts”.

CR’s report “suggest[s] that the errors might not be as widespread as implied by the lawsuit.”

According to the lawsuit, HRMs provide “wildly inaccurate and dangerously low BPM numbers” which could endanger user’s health. For example, in testing experiments, the user’s heart rate was “significantly higher than what the device reported”.

The court documents cites “a case where a user’s personal trainer recorded their heart rate at 160 bpm [beats per minute], but the device only read 82 bpm.”

When it comes to the accuracy of Fitbit, a lot is at stake. In April of 2015, Manulife Financial’s John Hancock unit offered their customers and employees at least a 10% discount on insurance premiums for wearing a fitness tracker which can record their gym workouts, steps and other physical activities.

To sweeten the deal, a free Fitbit tracking device was offered to help achieve fitness goals and keep the insurer in the know about the health of the customer or employee.

Jamie Court, spokesperson for Consumer Watchdog (CWD), explained this program “is essentially a medical surveillance system. This may look like a carrot to lure new customers, but it’s ultimately a stick.”

The push for Millennials who are conditioned to use more potentially invasive gadgets as a target is assisting with social acceptance of insurers being able to track customer’s health and possibly “build tools that will be used to deny people coverage.”

Court said: “If you’re hit by a car or something happens, insurance companies would go ahead and raise your rates. The more data they get, the more they can use it against us.”

Related Posts

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 23, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 22, 2016

Susanne Posel ,Chief Editor Occupy Corporatism | Co-Founder, Legacy Bio-Naturals

Back in 2014. Journalist Sharon Profis conducted an experiment on 5 different heart rate monitors (HRMs) and found that it would be more accurate to use “the ol’ finger-to-the-wrist method”.

When tested against an EKG machine, HRMs did not hold up. Profis wrote: “Most of the trackers employing optical sensors were only accurate (or close to accurate) at my normal resting heart rate of about 70-80 BPM.”

However, HRMs have received a big product endorsement that could influence public opinion.

Consumer Reports (CR) has come out in support of 2 HRMs, as the accuracy of this technology is being questioned in a new lawsuit .

In a study conducted by CR on the Charge HR and Surge HRMs, the organization stated that they were effective in accurately assessing heart rates.

The issue with the CR report is that it focuses on 2 types of HRMs and does not account for other products on the market. Fitbit has been accused of underreporting the user’s heart rate “by a wide margin” which could put the user at risk when performing “high-intensity workouts”.

CR’s report “suggest[s] that the errors might not be as widespread as implied by the lawsuit.”

According to the lawsuit, HRMs provide “wildly inaccurate and dangerously low BPM numbers” which could endanger user’s health. For example, in testing experiments, the user’s heart rate was “significantly higher than what the device reported”.

The court documents cites “a case where a user’s personal trainer recorded their heart rate at 160 bpm [beats per minute], but the device only read 82 bpm.”

When it comes to the accuracy of Fitbit, a lot is at stake. In April of 2015, Manulife Financial’s John Hancock unit offered their customers and employees at least a 10% discount on insurance premiums for wearing a fitness tracker which can record their gym workouts, steps and other physical activities.

To sweeten the deal, a free Fitbit tracking device was offered to help achieve fitness goals and keep the insurer in the know about the health of the customer or employee.

Jamie Court, spokesperson for Consumer Watchdog (CWD), explained this program “is essentially a medical surveillance system. This may look like a carrot to lure new customers, but it’s ultimately a stick.”

The push for Millennials who are conditioned to use more potentially invasive gadgets as a target is assisting with social acceptance of insurers being able to track customer’s health and possibly “build tools that will be used to deny people coverage.”

Court said: “If you’re hit by a car or something happens, insurance companies would go ahead and raise your rates. The more data they get, the more they can use it against us.”

Related Posts

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 23, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 22, 2016

Susanne Posel ,Chief Editor Occupy Corporatism | Co-Founder, Legacy Bio-Naturals

Back in 2014. Journalist Sharon Profis conducted an experiment on 5 different heart rate monitors (HRMs) and found that it would be more accurate to use “the ol’ finger-to-the-wrist method”.

When tested against an EKG machine, HRMs did not hold up. Profis wrote: “Most of the trackers employing optical sensors were only accurate (or close to accurate) at my normal resting heart rate of about 70-80 BPM.”

However, HRMs have received a big product endorsement that could influence public opinion.

Consumer Reports (CR) has come out in support of 2 HRMs, as the accuracy of this technology is being questioned in a new lawsuit .

In a study conducted by CR on the Charge HR and Surge HRMs, the organization stated that they were effective in accurately assessing heart rates.

The issue with the CR report is that it focuses on 2 types of HRMs and does not account for other products on the market. Fitbit has been accused of underreporting the user’s heart rate “by a wide margin” which could put the user at risk when performing “high-intensity workouts”.

CR’s report “suggest[s] that the errors might not be as widespread as implied by the lawsuit.”

According to the lawsuit, HRMs provide “wildly inaccurate and dangerously low BPM numbers” which could endanger user’s health. For example, in testing experiments, the user’s heart rate was “significantly higher than what the device reported”.

The court documents cites “a case where a user’s personal trainer recorded their heart rate at 160 bpm [beats per minute], but the device only read 82 bpm.”

When it comes to the accuracy of Fitbit, a lot is at stake. In April of 2015, Manulife Financial’s John Hancock unit offered their customers and employees at least a 10% discount on insurance premiums for wearing a fitness tracker which can record their gym workouts, steps and other physical activities.

To sweeten the deal, a free Fitbit tracking device was offered to help achieve fitness goals and keep the insurer in the know about the health of the customer or employee.

Jamie Court, spokesperson for Consumer Watchdog (CWD), explained this program “is essentially a medical surveillance system. This may look like a carrot to lure new customers, but it’s ultimately a stick.”

The push for Millennials who are conditioned to use more potentially invasive gadgets as a target is assisting with social acceptance of insurers being able to track customer’s health and possibly “build tools that will be used to deny people coverage.”

Court said: “If you’re hit by a car or something happens, insurance companies would go ahead and raise your rates. The more data they get, the more they can use it against us.”

Related Posts

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 23, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 22, 2016