EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

Senate Committee passes bill to end chimp research
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19635
Page 9 of 9

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Senate Committee passes bill to end chimp research

Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Clueless trolling now.


Been quite a while actually. :-


OK I was trying to be nice and give the benefit of the doubt. School will be starting soon and maybe the homework will cut into the internt time for them.

Author:  tommee [ Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Senate Committee passes bill to end chimp research

Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Hadley the one whos clueless. You are the one clutching at straws, trying desperately to connect two studies that have no connection.

You have read abstracts that much is clear :-


Who is Hadley?

I have read the abstracts and also discussed them with a PhD molecular biologist that used to work for me, a friend who is a molecular biologist working in childhood cancer research, and pharmaceutical researcher who lives next door to get a better understanding. All three agreed on the connection between the two paper's approach. How about you?



http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/cmbidata/therap ... h/re02.htm

No connection between the two studies, no collaboration between the two.

Maybe you should read up a little, I left you a link.


By the way I discussed it with two cancer research scientists , one who works at Oxford Uni who spoke to one of the scientists involved in the study. They confirmed that there is no collaboration between the two. No need to guess a connection because the approach was similar, It would be.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Senate Committee passes bill to end chimp research

tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Hadley the one whos clueless. You are the one clutching at straws, trying desperately to connect two studies that have no connection.

You have read abstracts that much is clear :-


Who is Hadley?

I have read the abstracts and also discussed them with a PhD molecular biologist that used to work for me, a friend who is a molecular biologist working in childhood cancer research, and pharmaceutical researcher who lives next door to get a better understanding. All three agreed on the connection between the two paper's approach. How about you?



http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/cmbidata/therap ... h/re02.htm

No connection between the two studies, no collaboration between the two.

Maybe you should read up a little, I left you a link.


That says nothing that would make the two approaches different.


Quote:
By the way I discussed it with two cancer research scientists , one who works at Oxford Uni who spoke to one of the scientists involved in the study. They confirmed that there is no collaboration between the two. No need to guess a connection because the approach was similar, It would be.


If the approach was similar they lied about the new non-traditional approach then, right?

Forgive me if I do not believe that was the case and your information (which cannot be confirmed) is correct.

Page 9 of 9 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/