I literally posted a link to the CONCORD-3 paper and made arguments using it and you rebutted it with "start with CONCORD-3".

I'll restate my argument so it's clear: CONCORD-3 does not mention insurance status anywhere in the paper. It does state that the statistics require diagnosis. It's reasonable to assume that if you can't afford healthcare, you're less likely to seek treatment or diagnosis.

You understand that CONCORD-3 is about tracking people who enter the healthcare system. Isn't it reasonable to assume that if healthcare is free or very affordable, there would be higher participation? And on the flipside, if it's outrageously expensive, there would be lower participation?

Sorry, I'm talking about US overall outcomes, which is what I thought you were arguing with all this breast cancer stuff. I am not taking seriously your axiomatic argument that the uninsured are systematically not captured by the US cancer statistics, and was not bothering to rebut that, nor will I.