RAC media coverage, page-1809

Thanks for sharing @Teeth. I've extracted a few lines that caught my attention - hopefully I've not butchered the meaning by doing this. I've intentionally put some of the text in blue.

'..................
"We need a better understanding of how we can identify cancer patients at risk of cardiovascular disease and how to prevent them from developing it," she said.

"We are gaining a better understanding of this issue, but we need more research like that being done in Newcastle," Professor Dent said.

"Then we can look at prevention strategies."Professor Dent added that it was crucial to understand the science behind approved anti-cancer drugs and their "toxicities".
...........'

It seems (to me) that Professor Dent is advocating that the solution can only follow once the at-risk patients can be identified, but I don't think that entirely aligns with Race's plan to construct an asset that is sought after by BP.

My understanding of the Race story is:

1. that the Race program of work seeks to clinically prove/demonstrate exisiting pre-clinical results that, not only does bisantrene protect the heart from existing standard of care drugs, but it also makes those existing standard of care anti-cancer drugs work better too
2. there is no Race activity to '...identify cancer patients at risk of cardiovascular disease'
3. that the Triangle report told us that if #1 is proven then oncology practioners would adopt bisantrene and incorporate it into the standard of care. In very large numbers. It did not mention the need to identify such at-risk patients first.

If I've not butchered the meaning, then is anyone willing to help me reconcile these two subtly different beliefs.