"whole population has all the significance that exists" was an entirely correct and appropriate rejoinder to the extremely flawed argument that had been made wh

"whole population has all the significance that exists" was an entirely correct and appropriate rejoinder to the extremely flawed argument that had been made which you seem to still be defending. I don't think you are arguing honestly at all. No matter what stat I were to mention, you'd start screaming "you're fixated on one stat", then you ignore all the myriad medical treatment options available 100 years ago to now as if that wouldn't obscure the point your trying to make. Again, it's dishonest, you're dishonest. If you go back to my first post I raise interesting an important questions. What are you so scared of? You must have some stake in the outcome, some stake that cannot bear normal scientific inquiry.