The way I am reading this is you are saying

> It is easier to become wealthy if you're already wealthy or have access to wealth

is disproven by the fact that

> There exist people that became wealthy without already <being wealthy or having access to wealth>

I do not see any other way to take your statement. If you meant it some other way, please explain.

Since the original statement is "it's easier with" not "it's impossible without", it is not disproven by the second item.

As to how I define "access to wealth", I mean you either have wealth yourself or are in a position to get it (borrow it from a bank or family, etc). To take an extreme example, a penniless, homeless person with no friends or family has 0 access to wealth; they do not have their own money available, nor can they borrow from a bank or family. Everything between that and "has 200 million under a mattress" is a matter of scale in between; and the definition of what counts as "wealth" depends on the context.