What you bring to the discussion is the straw-man argument that "wealth can be created, not only stolen." Nobody was disputing that. Nobody is disputing it now. It's common ground.

Saghm tried to return to the actual topic, but you don't seem to have understood (or you aren't willing to acknowledge) what that topic actually was. People were talking about how to fairly divide wealth, not about whether it can be created or not.

I agree that 6 extra months (on average) means some patients get much more time than that. I agree that a statistically significant improvement on the survival rate for this terrible cancer is a very promising result longer term.

My disagreement was much narrower than that. I disagree that 6 extra months is equivalent to 5 extra years. I disagree that people living an extra 6 months on average is equivalent to one person living 3 extra years and one person living 3 extra days. I think 3 days and 3 years average out to about 1.5 years, not to 6 months.

Think of me as a living fossil who takes it for granted that everyone appreciates how much medicine improves our lives.

Can you help disambiguate this? Are there treatments now, or are there potential treatments with trials in 1-5 years?

Remember, the same author says "I found a seashell in the middle of the desert!" "shouldn't be here" and "coastline 500 miles"

Otherwise I don't understand (yet) what point you're making. Who claimed that S.O. "merely got worse?" I see a discussion with many more specifics than that. One commenter in this thread mentioned griefing users. That's a familiar artifact of enshittification. (The white boxes covering up Google Maps, for example. Or the way Quora destroyed its own site in a quest to "improve questions".)