J&J is not a vaccine either. (I think its almost identical to the Astrazeneca one).

It takes an adenovirus, alters its DNA to express the SARS-cov-2 protein on its surface and so that it doesn't itself replicate (as a whole virus). I don't really have a problem with this part of it. It also however then gets into the cell and injects the DNA for the SARS-cov-2 spike protein into the nucleus, encouraging the machinery to make an mRNA that will go into the cytosol and from there its basically the same as the other mRNA immunotherapies.

Unlike the mRNA vaccines the J&J can alter endogenous DNA (your genome), or at least it has a much, much higher probability of doing so. It is still not likely, and it is a completely useless means of trying to alter DNA in a controlled fashion in an organism, but in this case it is not impossible for it to happen in a cell unlike the mRNA vaccines (a common but baseless fear of them).

I don't see this vaccine as worse per se, but it is certainly not better (in theory).

Having said that, the only way to know which are better is through experimentation. Using the entire human population as the test is not an appropriate path.

Edit: I should note that just because these CAN alter DNA, doesn't mean they will. For most people not a single cell will incorporate these spike protein DNA into their genome (it will be broken down before that happens). For those rare few where it does happen, it will only happen in a single cell. That cell will then most likely be killed by the immune system (since that's the desired response). Even if it isn't killed, its extremely unlikely to be altered in a stem cell, and even less likely to be altered in the germline. So even though its not impossible like the mRNA vaccines, its still so unlikely that to fear it is unreasonable. Fearing a lion attack in the arctic is more reasonable.

J&J is not a vaccine either. (I think its almost identical to the Astrazeneca one).

It takes an adenovirus, alters its DNA to express the SARS-cov-2 protein on its surface and so that it doesn't itself replicate (as a whole virus). I don't really have a problem with this part of it. It also however then gets into the cell and injects the DNA for the SARS-cov-2 spike protein into the nucleus, encouraging the machinery to make an mRNA that will go into the cytosol and from there its basically the same as the other mRNA immunotherapies.

Unlike the mRNA vaccines the J&J can alter endogenous DNA (your genome), or at least it has a much, much higher probability of doing so. It is still not likely, and it is a completely useless means of trying to alter DNA in a controlled fashion in an organism, but in this case it is not impossible for it to happen in a cell unlike the mRNA vaccines (a common but baseless fear of them).

I don't see this vaccine as worse per se, but it is certainly not better (in theory).

Having said that, the only way to know which are better is through experimentation. Using the entire human population as the test is not an appropriate path.