[giantg2]

"1.4% of all cancers"

This actually seems large to me.

Although that is suspiciously large. Looking at the numbers I think it should be much lower. A 51% reduction doesn't mean it helps 51% if the people. In this case it looks like about 10% of the people are effected given the 88% vs 78% survival rates, right? Maybe something like .28% of all cancer?

[chrisamiller]

These are ballpark numbers to be sure, and yeah, my off the cuff comment didn't get that exactly right. I also simplified things quite a bit to try to get the broader point across - Thanks for following up!

[netrus]

I mean, the people who die of cancer are the problem. If 88% survive instead of 78%, 55% of those who would have died survived (taking these numbers just from your comment).

[giantg2]

Yes, and?