No, actually it is a bit worse.
The data point that we know, and most all assume LG was talking about is 100 out of 331 having a median of 5 years [note 1]. This is slightly worse than 100 out of 500 all having lived over 5 years, which is how marzan said LG clearly meant it (and flipper first put out as a possibility).
100 out of 331 living a median of 5 years is not a bad number. Just need to see the real data that breaks down by arm.
The dispute in question is about LGs language. To many/most it connotes 100 out of 331 having all lived 5 years, which is certainly not the case. To some it can be taken to mean 100 out of 331 lived "on average" 5 years, which would be true.
Either LG is using an odd language to put a favorable spin on the number, or he is just sloppy.
[Note 1]: Technically the K/M estimated median at time of the 2018 SNO dataset. The 'real" median will never be known.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
