i am dismissing your "proof" because IT IS A QUESTION
you see the "what if" and the question mark?
that means IT IS A QUESTION
NOT A STATEMENT
FOCUS

And if you see later in the podcast that is what they included in the plan they submitted tot he government and got approved.

also note the use of the word "roughly"
someone who chooses their words so carefully to avoid being wrong should recognize when someone else is doing the exact same thing...

Fair enough, I should have said roughly simultaneously but that is missing the point.

 Point was that a lot of time was saved by doing them at roughly the same time instead of back to back.

Fair enough, I should have said roughly simultaneously but that is missing the point.

 Point was that a lot of time was saved by doing them at roughly the same time instead of back to back.

so you were wrong...

And if you see later in the podcast that is what they included in the plan they submitted tot he government and got approved.

link? timestamp?
it says nothing of that sort in the transcript
your statement is no closer to "proof" of your statement (that you later tried to change to "roughly" to avoid being wrong) than before...

Fair enough, I should have said roughly simultaneously but that is missing the point.

 Point was that a lot of time was saved by doing them at roughly the same time instead of back to back.

you are blindly sticking to your one podcast link you posted

did you even look at the link i provided?
you know, the one from the defense department that was a simple graphic of the process?
you know, the one that shows how they speeded up the process by sometimes combining phase 2 and 3 exactly as i had stated?
you know, the one that shows how time was saved, by streamlining the process, not by having all 3 run simultaneously (roughly or not)?

inB4, "we are obviously not going to change each other's minds, let's just agree to disagree  "

also note the use of the word "roughly"
someone who chooses their words so carefully to avoid being wrong should recognize when someone else is doing the exact same thing...

I call that using “Weasel Words”. 

If I was to market something as controversial as a gene therapy that was not tested and would have dubious outcomes and could get away with calling it a vaccine, why wouldn't i?
Remember that most large 'news' outlets receive funding from big pharma, they say what they are paid to say.  This does not take into account any pressure from governmental sources.  I would venture the same for 'fact' checkers.  I don't think anyone would, with any honesty, disagree.

Collage of a few different articles, https://treatforlife.com/is-mrna-vaccine-a-gene-therapy/
https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/08/13/mit-harvard-study-suggests-mrna-vaccine-might-permanently-alter-dna-after-all/
you can try reading this paper, it went a little over my head.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817894/

It has been postulated to me that the mrna will effect the mitochondrial dna.  This is passed from mother to child.
this mess might have something to do with it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8348895/

I have been known to be wrong.

Remember that most large 'news' outlets receive funding from big pharma, they say what they are paid to say. 

Which PV showed footage of a producer admitting.

so you were wrong...

If that is what you need to win then fine. I didn't say roughly when I should have.

If that is what you need to win then fine. I didn't say roughly when I should have.

it's not about "roughly"
it's about "simultaneously"
FOCUS

it's not about "roughly"
it's about "simultaneously"
FOCUS

So maybe they didn't start on the exact same time, my point still remains valid, that they performed different phases at the same time to shorten the duration of the overall process.

So maybe they didn't start on the exact same time, my point still remains valid, that they performed different phases at the same time to shorten the duration of the overall process.

no, your point is not the same
"they ran 3 trials simultaneously" is not the same as "roughly simultaneously" is not the same as "they performed different phases at the same time to shorten the duration of the overall process"
i love how you try to be so vague so as not to be wrong, yet when you are wrong, you cannot admit it...

no, your point is not the same
"they ran 3 trials simultaneously" is not the same as "roughly simultaneously" is not the same as "they performed different phases at the same time to shorten the duration of the overall process"
i love how you try to be so vague so as not to be wrong, yet when you are wrong, you cannot admit it...

Whether they started the phases on the same exact day or staggered each a week apart but were all running at the same time is insignificant compared to running one phase, waiting a long time then running the next phase then waiting a long time, etc.

You are nitpicking.

Whether they started the phases on the same exact day or staggered each a week apart but were all running at the same time is insignificant compared to running one phase, waiting a long time then running the next phase then waiting a long time, etc.

You are nitpicking.

neither of those statements are true

Whether they started the phases on the same exact day or staggered each a week apart but were all running at the same time is insignificant compared to running one phase, waiting a long time then running the next phase then waiting a long time, etc.

You are nitpicking.

it took you five days to get to that point?
you could've said that from the beginning, but you didn't, so here we are

it's not nitpicking to say you are making patently false statements...

it took you five days to get to that point?
you could've said that from the beginning, but you didn't, so here we are

it's not nitpicking to say you are making patently false statements...

That was my point from the beginning