[mzltest]

I think I hinted to that in one of my previous posts here; theoretically Yes!.. and here is why:
> Both the mRNA- and the adenoviral-based vaccines are focusing their attention on a SINGLE POTENT ANTIGENIC TARGET, ie the spike protein while the more raw (and old) Chinese method use the whole virus catalogue of proteins/antigens -including the spike protein- to induce the immunization (ie the labeling as target to the immune system defenses.)

Thus there is -theoretically- no single point of failure (vis-a-is to the emergence of variants escaping the spike protein target) in the inactivated-virus vaccine while there is one in the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines.

In Immunology, folks distinguish between 2 concepts:  Immunogenicity and antigenicity:

This is why the researchers mixed the inactivated viruses with a tiny amount of an aluminum-hydroxide adjuvant. An adjuvant is a compound routinely used in vaccines to stimulate/boost the immune system response to it, ie to serve as an immunogen!

Here is a more technical definition of what Sinopharm consists on:
Exerpt from 'Background document on the inactivatedCOVID-19 vaccine BIBP developed by ChinaNational Biotec Group (CNBG), Sinopharm'

I think that's all there is to it!

Attenuated Vaccine is a traditional form of vaccine while the mRna one is the modern one. Generally speaking the vaccine has more examples than mRna one so theoretically safer however in the form of components mRna Vaccine are better known.

in the view of effectiveness,mRna is better as the feature of the virus is directly exposed so quicker responses,while the attenuated vaccine will go through the normal process for immunity.

For handling new strains,(in my view)the mrna vaccine might not be as good as attenuated one as a a mrna is only a given feature of virus while for a real one many features will be recorded,thus giving some protection for new mutants.
Also, attenuated vaccine are easier stored too.