>Assuming you didn't actually read the article and aren't actually in the legal profession.

I read the article. I don't have to be a legal expert or any other kind of expert to express my opinion, which is what I did. What's the point in you even stating this unless you're a legal expert yourself because you're rendering your own opinion here as well.

>A study, conducted by researchers, says "hey we may be able to use this to do this!"

A study was conducted using their watch as a data collection tool and nothing else. They were probably paid for the brand mention. Basically they used the watch as a sensor, that's all. A different brand watch could be used in exactly the same way or perhaps some actual medical sensors so there's nothing special about that claim, it's simply branding.

>Not Apple saying "use our watch to treat sickle cell!" at all. It's researchers saying the device may assist with early warning signs.

I didn't say Apple claimed anything. I said that claims of this thing being medically beneficial were spurious and possibly legally actionable.