I already addressed this. Holding the WPI to this standard is illogical (there doesn't exist a positive control before one is found) and scientifically unnecessary (one only needs controls on the "opposite" side of their finding to show that their finding is not false...hence positive findings don't need positive controls). My understanding is that both of these statements are not as true as they were at publication time, in that greater sequence variety has subsequently been found in both cohorts. That aside, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are both of these groups guilty of not knowing every last detail of a new discovery prior to making it? If so, that is an impossibly high standard for any researcher.