whats your point here

your agreeing with my case

That we can reasonably conclude any effect on survival rates would be small or negligible.

no

we cannot reasonably conclude

I am gonna say the n word

Because the vast majority of people are diagnosed.

that the poorest people

niggerrrrr

the ones who are the most likely to die of cnacer

are not in fact dying of cancer

because reasons

Yeah but you aren't proving that, the data I gave was on people with serious med conditions.

This includes everyone, the people who skip because of costs tend to be poorer.

my entire argument is that there seems to be around 7% of the us population that cannot afford adequate medical treatment; these are the people who are at the greatest risk of diseases. these people are left out of survival data thus skewing the numbers up

And of these poorer people, 23% found a reduction in condition.

the data you gave supports my argument

23% of 27% is around 7%

How? My data is arguing the *vast majority* of people consume tests, and 23% of the 27% who *skip* see their condition *worsen*

yes

This worsen does not equal deaths, which is an even lower percentage

the people who dont consume tests

see their conditions worsen in some cases

this is not represented in the survival statistics

And in even smaller cases, die.

what do you think worsened conditions mean in relation to cancer

While that may be true, it does not change the statistic much. Because they're a tiny fraction of the population.

As in stage 1 becomes stage 2

Or symptoms become worse.

ok

However this does not equal death.

it hastens death

GG @good luck durruti, you just advanced to level 6!

from a mathematical perspective

if you took the most vulnerable 7% of patients off of any fatality list about a disease

But it does *not equal death*

the disease survival rate would rise astronomically

Death would probably be a small minority of those cases

we're measuring how long they live

A minority of that 23%.

so your argument is that