I appreciate you stating it frankly, I think a lot of people in this thread are arguing a variation of this point without saying it aloud.
A couple thoughts -
1) If this is the only/main objection, then the test is good news for those that are analytically capable, even if it's potentially bad for Joe Median.
2) While what you describe is how it probably happens in general in the USA, but I wonder if it plays out differently in, say, the UK / Canada under NHS/Medicare. In those systems you don't get to pick your treatments; your doctor will only prescribe a follow-up if it meets ROI standards. (Then the health system picks up the bill). Of course you can go private but there's a pretty big barrier there, and perhaps having your GP push back more strongly (as they would if you were not actually at high risk) that might prevent many people from inferring too much from a potentially-false positive result.
A couple thoughts -
1) If this is the only/main objection, then the test is good news for those that are analytically capable, even if it's potentially bad for Joe Median.
2) While what you describe is how it probably happens in general in the USA, but I wonder if it plays out differently in, say, the UK / Canada under NHS/Medicare. In those systems you don't get to pick your treatments; your doctor will only prescribe a follow-up if it meets ROI standards. (Then the health system picks up the bill). Of course you can go private but there's a pretty big barrier there, and perhaps having your GP push back more strongly (as they would if you were not actually at high risk) that might prevent many people from inferring too much from a potentially-false positive result.