Saying that the new jabs aren't vaccines because they're different is a very weak argument for them not being a 'vaccine'. First of all, define vaccine (not one modern vaccine has anything to do with cows - Latin, vacca = cow (where the name came from).
A sedan used to be two long poles with a cabin in the middle for royalty which was lifted and ported by several strong slaves or servants. Vehicles don't have to have wheels.
The meaning of words in the English language is continually changing. Have you got a mouse on your windows?
English is not a dead language. Unlike Latin and Sanskrit, the English language is always evolving and to get stuck on old-fashioned definitions may be somewhat pedantic about semantics in certain circumstances. Regarding 'vaccine' and 'immunity', as the meaning of words change over time, the limited definition of a word's meaning a hundred years ago may no longer be appropriate now. The word 'nice' used to mean silly or foolish, as in "that fellow is a nice idiot, isn't he?". Similarly, 'awful' meant wonderful as in "that was an awfully good show, old chap". Fully sick. Wicked. Etc.
Yes, I know I'm the fly in the ointment here, but please hear me out. I remember you once joked about no longer communicating via smoke signals and have learnt how to use a computer. As a musician I used to be a stickler for analogue recording and for years strongly resisted adopting the new digital format. These days I have come around and when I 'tape' my songs I no longer use physical magnetic tape. Over time words take on new meanings and I try to get my head around new definitions lest I become an old fuddy-duddy - for instance: a 'mouse' on 'windows', 'footage' of 'films', 'video clips', 'crank' the engine to start the car, etc. When we do a search for something we no longer use a magnifying glass but instead utilise a search 'engine' - so, how many cylinders does this search 'engine' have?" I'm joking of course.
These examples of old terms that have found new meanings with modern technology are similar to the development of new mRNA and viral vector vaccines where the words 'vaccine' and 'immunity' take on new meaning as technology advances. This is a natural development, not a sinister plot. It is merely the English language growing. As I have mentioned before, vaccines no longer have any association with cows. A century ago a pretty woman would be described as being handsome, yet these days the adjective is used almost exclusively with the male gender. A chip used to be a fragment that flew off a woodcutter's axe and now among other things is a component of a computer. I could go on but I'll stop there.
Without arguing the speculative merits vis a vis acquired vs induced, it doesn't matter HOW your body's immune system mounts a response - as long as it's there, it's 'IMMUNITY'. You either have it or you don't. Without an immune response it is impossible to develop immunity in the first place UNLESS such immunity is acquired from another source - like a tetanus booster which is the transfer of antibodies from a healthy donor who has recovered from the disease.
You don't have to have had tetanus to develop immunity to it. Likewise you don't have to have had CoViD-19 to develop immunity to that either.
To have immunity you just need to have gotten your body's immune system responding - by whatever means, be it exposure and recovery, antibody boosters, inoculation, vaccination, immunisation and/or a prophylactic regime of a healthy diet (and supplements if needed).
I don't consider it a fair and reasonable argument to on one hand to declare that we don't know enough about the new 'experimental' vaccines and then on the other hand make any predictions about the terrible things that will happen. Surely this line of thinking is purely speculative? How can we predict the outcome of any unknown quantity?
