This reminds me of Lebron James' son Bronny suffering cardiac arrest. Fortunately he survived.
He's so young he may not have been screened properly. But a lot of people have difficulty affording to be screened.
There are different types of screening and Theranos was going to help society with some of it, but of course we all know how that went, and it probably set back advances in screening with technology.
I don't really feel like Bronny James's story is relevant here- this was due to poor weather conditions, not any type of cardiac issue or lack of screening.
It seems likely to me. The article didn't say anything about them drowning or colliding with another swimmer.
As for the weather, I can't judge from a couple videos. I have some experience but not with an Ironman. What I do know is that race organizers typically don't cancel just because the weather is going to make a race significantly harder.
The headline immediately made me think of healthcare and how to improve it, within the area of sports. It would be better if more people knew the risks and benefits of participating in sports based on their own health statuses.
Maybe you should respond to the article, and not just the headline. Your response is completely off topic and the random promotion of a known fraud is insulting.
Because they took money that was intended to improve it? Especially for busy people? These two attempting the half Ironman were likely busy, ambitious people, because people who travel to another country for an endurance event tend to be. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12426285/Two-men-di...
> Theranos may have been the worst-case scenario for the testing industry, but the big-picture idea — that testing should be faster and more convenient — is still true, Klapperich says. “Now, people are trying to sort out the question of what was real about what Theranos was saying. Because we still need this stuff.”
I still don’t understand Theranos’s original value prop. Once you are already going in to have blood taken, what difference does it make whether it’s a small amount or a full test tube?
It was perhaps less about the actual value proposition and more about a promise that they'd developed some kind of revolutionary new medical testing processes (and not, you know, just running existing diagnostic tests with an inappropriately small sample).
He's so young he may not have been screened properly. But a lot of people have difficulty affording to be screened.
There are different types of screening and Theranos was going to help society with some of it, but of course we all know how that went, and it probably set back advances in screening with technology.
Screening needs to become cheaper and more convenient. It's within YC's Request for Startups: https://www.ycombinator.com/rfs#healthcare