[ori_b]

Read again. The original posters claim was that the study was funded by foreign money that pushes an agenda, not that it was invalid.

As to the invalidity:

The fact that I have never waited for more than a couple of days for treatment in over 25 years, and neither had anyone I know (with 2 exceptions, both of which were for elective surgery like breast reduction surgery) does imply that, at best, their median measurement is measuring a specific niche, rather than general treatment.

Combine that with the fact that multiple agencies have measures wait times as being an order of magnitude lower than your source, and yes, I do think your numbers are invalid.

[lj3]

> The original posters claim was that the study was funded by foreign money that pushes an agenda, not that it was invalid.

Nobody's stupid enough to believe that one doesn't imply the other.

[ori_b]

If you believe one implies the other, then evidence of the funding should be sufficient as evidence of invalidity. If you don't believe one implies the other, then your question about the funding was answered, and you are moving goalposts.

[lj3]

Which question was that? Stop putting words in my mouth. You've repeatedly argue in bad faith, made bad assumptions and attributed statements to me that I did not make.

[ori_b]

Here's the initial post:

> The Fraser institute, which published this study, has a right wing bias and is funded by the Koch Brothers. It seeks to displace the public system in Canada with private healthcare modelled after the US. While they claim independence and give their research away freely, one should be aware of their interests.

You requested "proof". Given that the only quantifiable claims which could possibly be proven is that they are funded by the Koch brothers, and would like to replace the public system with a private one, I assumed you were asking for proof of that.

Now, if you were not asking for proof of that, can you quote the section of the above you did want proof of?