When attempting to counter someone's argument you should point out the falsehoods and the ideologically driven parts of it instead of writing them off as so and walking away. But it's far easier to attack without backing it up than to have to defend a position which has been derived from ignorance and the trusting of those who have a pathological history of fraud and corruption. But of course you don't stop there, you then go as far as to project your own shortcomings onto someone who has posted their genuine concern which means, 'quite frankly', I'm going to have to dissect your argument in the way you should have dissected the person whom you replied to, and, by doing so, lead by example.

First off, no, these vaccines are not like standard vaccines, standard vaccines do not introduce the formation of a pathogenic protein in both quantity and quality to that of the pathogen itself which it is attempting to provide protection against. Standard vaccines also do not hijack cellular functionality to produce these pathogenic proteins in both quantity and quality equivalent to that of the pathogen itself. Secondly, you cannot say the vaccines are this or that compared to anything else as these experimental vaccines are not uniform in either their viability or their consistency as a breakdown of batches from the VAERS data reveals 5% of vaccine batches are responsible for 90% of all adverse reactions across all vaccine manufacturers. And if by efficiency you mean having the cells of sensitive organs expressing an overabundance of pathogenic proteins on their surfaces which induces the immune system to engender cellular damage and oxidative stress leading to apoptosis— all incidences which have been documented by the pathologist Dr. Arne Burkhardt—then you need to reconsider your definition of efficiency. We, even to this day, are still not fully sure of how a spike protein interacts with the human organism and the evidence which has come out over the past year shows that the spike protein can affect human cells in multiple different ways which were not taken into consideration by the vaccine manufacturers. The only difference between the complete viral protein and the vaccinal proteins are the inclusion of prolines which supposedly lock the vaccinal spike protein in a state of prefusion but with 1.2 million adverse reactions recorded in VAERS and 25,000 vaccine-associated deaths it's safe to say the prolines don't work as expected and that the vaccinal spike proteins are just as pathogenic as spike proteins which are expressed by SARS-CoV-2.

But your flaccid argument not only fails medically it also fails legally. Even legally these vaccines fall under a completely different set of laws that prevent compensation to those who have been injured. These experimental vaccines are not being treated in the same fashion as standard vaccines as there is a judicial process available for standard vaccine injury where patients are compensated for a vaccine-induced injury as determined through a court procedure which has an appeal process. Compensation for injury or death from these vaccines are instead subject to the heavily restrictive Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) instead of the much more robust National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP):

https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/cicp-vicp

There is no judicial process for people injured by Covid-19 vaccines through the CICP as is stated on the HRSA website.

Your entire comment is ignorant and I have only begun to dissect it. But it shows you how two seemingly innocuous sentences can hide an entire underbelly of wrongdoing. Remember, when you point the finger you have several other fingers pointing right back at you.

If you are reading this and are at all interested in what I've written here you can read my full argument against these vaccines and their mandates here where I go into these ideas and many more:

https://pastebin.com/qdLXvGWR