THH;s scientific argumentum ad populum as ever,
zero knowledge of biological complexity
This is rather circular, is it not.
I am saying the antivax arguments you love to propagate are ignoring biological complexity.
You are, for example, suggesting that because COVID-19 - and vaccine RNA - has a mechanism to integrate into liver-cell DNA that the vaccines are more dangerous than COVID.
At least that is what you are continually implying - so if you don't think that is true your posts here are misleading.
I've never underestimated the complexity of biology, nor the difficulty of establishing does any particular thing potentially cause problems.
I'm not sure what your argument really is. While any vaccine which has been around for only 2 years might in principle have unexpected nasty side effects, the same applies (in spades) for COVID infection. So it is a choice of devils and I know which one has all the evidence against it (that is - people actually dying, more people having long-term illness).
Your posts don't mention this (complex) choice. They highlight only one side of it, and the evidence there is very highly speculative: as you know given that you (as stated) understand biological complexity. You know that mechanisms for things proven to exist is very far from those things ever happening in a clinically observable way. You know that viruses do nasty things to cells.
I don't criticise the antivaxxers (or antivaxxer fellow-travellers like you) for being interested in possible nasty side effects of vaccines. I criticise them for ignoring uncertainty and complexity, and for looking at the varied evidence in a selective and biased way, as well as (90% of the time) getting simple statistics wrong to make points that cannot be made because they are false.