9to5Mac59%

Signal Ring gives blood pressure readings, not just alerts like Apple Watch 61%

By Ben Lovejoy71%

7/16/2026, 12:21:50 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Anecdotal, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 24.5% saturation with 131 hits. Analysis detected 979 faulty-reasoning hits from 534 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57% and a BS Rank of 61% (8,272 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.90% of the article peer group.

Five Apple Watch models are able to measure your blood pressure in order to generate alerts for possible hypertension. 
However, they do not provide your actual blood pressure readings. 
A few smart rings and other fitness devices do so, but rely on regular calibration with a traditional cuff monitor. 
The upcoming Signal Ring says that it delivers full blood pressure measurements without any calibration, and that a trial of thousands of people backs the claim  
The ‘silent killer’ 
Both abnormally high blood pressure (hypertension) and low blood pressure (hypotension) can pose significant health risks. 
Of the two, hypertension is the most dangerous, referred to as a “silent killer” because It can result in severe and irreversible damage to your arteries, heart and brain without any noticeable symptoms. 
The condition often isn’t discovered until it causes a heart attack or stroke. 
For older people in particular, it’s good to monitor your blood pressure regularly, and you can buy home cuffs enabling you to do this. 
However, fully automatic monitoring via a fitness device you already wear would obviously be the ideal. 
Apple Watch blood pressure capabilities 
The introduction of watchOS 26 enables five Apple Watch models to measure blood pressure: 
Apple Watch Series 11 
Apple Watch Series 10 
Apple Watch Series 9 
Apple Watch Ultra 3 
Apple Watch Ultra 2 
However, these don’t give you any readings, but rather send you an alert if they detect signs of potential hypertension. 
Other devices like the Oura Ring work in a similar way. 
There are fitness devices which do provide actual blood pressure readings, but they rely on being regularly calibrated against a reading taken with a blood pressure cuff. 
Signal Ring 
Startup Vital Signals says it has now developed a smart ring that can measure blood pressure as accurately as a traditional arm cuff without the need for any calibration: the Signal Ring. 
Bloomberg reports that its CEO, Tom Moss, said he founded the company after he almost died from undiagnosed hypertension. 
“Fundamentally, there’s almost no real way for you to truly know your blood pressure as a consumer, and it’s kind of crazy,” said Moss, who previously worked at drone maker Skydio Inc. and hardware manufacturers Razer Inc. and Nextbit Systems before his health scare inspired a move into health. 
The ring goes on pre-sale later today for delivery in October, priced at $399. 
No subscription is required. 
Both live blood pressure readings and tracking over time are displayed in a companion app (shown above). 
It’s worth noting that the Oura Ring doesn’t yet have clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration, but clinical trials show that it produced accurate blood pressure readings for thousands of participants. 
Interestingly, Moss isn’t trying to sell the ring to everyone. 
He says the specialist capabilities are best suited to older people and those who have been advised by their doctor that they are at risk of hypertension, implying that the Signal Ring falls short in other areas, like sleep tracking. 
For younger, less-at-risk individuals or anyone confident their blood pressure is healthy, he has other advice: “Just buy an Oura or an Apple Watch.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.2%Ben Lovejoy: 5.4%9to5Mac: 2.6%Confirmation Bias17.2%This article: 8.8%Ben Lovejoy: 1.8%9to5Mac: 2.2%Anchoring Bias8.8%This article: 11.6%Ben Lovejoy: 3.8%9to5Mac: 2.8%Availability Heuristic11.6%This article: 2.1%Ben Lovejoy: 1.9%9to5Mac: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic2.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.5%9to5Mac: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 3.7%9to5Mac: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Ben Lovejoy: 5.4%9to5Mac: 5.2%Framing Effect6.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.2%9to5Mac: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.8%9to5Mac: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Ben Lovejoy: 4.0%9to5Mac: 3.5%Optimism Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 3.6%9to5Mac: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Ben Lovejoy: 8.5%9to5Mac: 4.5%Negativity Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.6%9to5Mac: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.0%9to5Mac: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 3.6%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.6%9to5Mac: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Ben Lovejoy: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.5%This article: 9.2%Ben Lovejoy: 2.5%9to5Mac: 3.5%Halo Effect9.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 2.3%9to5Mac: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Ben Lovejoy: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.4%Primacy Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.2%Ben Lovejoy: 5.5%9to5Mac: 3.6%Appeal to Authority17.2%This article: 6.7%Ben Lovejoy: 1.7%9to5Mac: 1.3%False Dilemma6.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.8%9to5Mac: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.5%Ben Lovejoy: 8.7%9to5Mac: 4.9%Hasty Generalization4.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 2.2%9to5Mac: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.7%Ben Lovejoy: 3.1%9to5Mac: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion6.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.3%9to5Mac: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 2.2%9to5Mac: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.0%9to5Mac: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.7%Ben Lovejoy: 4.2%9to5Mac: 2.4%Anecdotal12.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 2.2%9to5Mac: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 7.5%Ben Lovejoy: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.2%Special Pleading7.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 4.5%9to5Mac: 2.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 9.2%Ben Lovejoy: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection9.2%This article: 11.4%Ben Lovejoy: 6.4%9to5Mac: 6.1%Biased Writer Voice11.4%This article: 4.5%Ben Lovejoy: 3.7%9to5Mac: 2.1%Indoctrination4.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 24.5%Ben Lovejoy: 10.6%9to5Mac: 16.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…24.5%

534 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker21%attributed speech421writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageTom Moss • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageTom Moss • 40 words • 100.0% coverageTom Moss • 24 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tom Moss

100%flagged-word coverage
113 attributed words100% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +40.7 ptsWriter: 15.9%Tom Moss: 56.6%56.6%Quote-first Misdirection+43.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tom Moss: 43.4%43.4%Indoctrination+21.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tom Moss: 21.2%21.2%Biased Writer Voice-14.5 ptsWriter: 14.5%Tom Moss: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.