No. As you agree the phase 111 trials have not been completed yet. So there is no clinical evidence yet for those assumptions. Your inferring again that previous 'vaccine' study data applies to mRNA technology -- it does not they are two different methods of delivery, traditional using attenuated live virus and this entirely new mRNA technology. Not tested on human subjects before this and previously only in testing for animals. Phase i trials tested 'safety and efficacy' for prevention of contracting Covid 19. Go read the actual study data, Recipients of the vaccine were monitored for a total of 1 week post injection to see if they remained free from symptoms of Covid 19. That is where the '95% effective at preventing Covid19' comes from. One week !!... Phase 2 trials consisted of a 2 month period of monitoring to see if recipients remained free from symptoms of Covid 19. 2 months. The trials determined 'safety and efficacy' of the mRNA vaccine to prevent severe Covid 19 thus reducing hospitalization and death. That is all Phase 2 clinical trials tested and monitored for. Not for how adverse effects may transpire, nor potential for different reactions etc, or for long term risk. NO clinical trials show 'conferring immunity' as with a traditional vaccine -it doesn't prevent one from infection only reduce symptoms as your immune system has a head start via spike protein manufacture. Nor clinical trials show reducing 'transmission' as with a traditional vaccine. Those vaccinated who contract Covid 19 can still transmit it to others, no matter if vaccinated or not. The problem here specifically, is not the mRNA vaccine itself, but rather the spike protein it simulates the body to manufacture and the observed facts that the spike has an affinity for the ACE2 receptors in the endothelial tissue in the body and that the spike protein is cytotoxic. As the Testicles and Uterus are particularly rich in ACE2 receptors it is not an unreasonable assumption that the spike may migrate to these sites and potentially cause problems. We don't actually know the actual answer bc none of the clinical studies thought it necessary to include or carry out dynamic or kinetic studies to test where the vaccine migrated post injection. So all we have to go on are thousands of anecdotal reports of menstrual irregularities and increased first trimester spontaneous abortions to infer the likely effect on both the female, and by extension the male, reproductive capacity. What this Doctors infers is a potential signal problem via his increase incidence, evidence from diagnostic pathology requiring further investigation. Also The PEGylated Lipid Nanoparticle that encapsulates the mRNA 'vaccine' is simply 'expelled' from the target cell at injection site. No clinical studies have shown what happens to these Lipids post injection, only that they deliver the vaccine payload and then are simply 'ejected' from the cell. Nor is anyone suggesting 'a new magical cancer', that's factually incorrect and plain false. 'almost all adverse effects you'd see from a vaccine happen in the first 2 months.' Just lol, you have no clinical evidence to support that. I guess smoking isn't responsible for increased risk of cancers, simply bc nothing is apparent in the first 60 days ??. Plus evidence for that claim of 2 months comes from the Phase 2 trials where participants were only monitored for 2 months. None of these Clinical studies has even examined the use of repeated boosters either. Nor will i bother with your 'fact checkers' . To make the claim you do, that these vaccines 'don't cause cancer bc they cant, they don't alter DNA nor is there a pathway ...' is short-sighted, at best premature, at worst disingenuous. You still haven't answered how long ago you got your vaccine - i mean here you are defending the vaccine, so surely you would put your arm where your mouth is and already have taken the jab ??.... i mean surely, right ??.