Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/cmbidata/therap ... h/re02.htm
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?
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.
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.