[fChk]

@mzltest
Next time you want to quote me, better specify what exactly are you responding to!.. You must have noticed that I did that a lot myself; it's not that I like to waste my time doing it but because I'm more interested in having intelligible conversations with folks here, with as little misunderstanding as humanly possible.

Hope we'll agree on this point.. because next time I won't bother responding.

Now let's comment on your text:

Attenuated Vaccine is a traditional form of vaccine while the mRna one is the modern one.

Indeed, the inactivated viruses technique -as I did say previously- is an old and time-tested method to make viral vaccines; it has been used for over a century as a matter of fact. Jonas Salk -himself- used it to create his polio vaccine in the 1950s, and it's also used for hepatitis A and rabies.

The mRNA vaccine technology, on the other hand, is too new. I still remember the original article on which it's based, ie RNA transfection by Robert Malone in late 1980s. In fact, It's too new to the point to be potentially hazardous!!!.. Dr Malone himself warned about the possibility of future autoimmune issues emerging from the use of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines!!!..

On June 10, 2021, Dr. Malone joined biologist Bret Weinstein, Ph.D, on the Dark Horse Podcast, where Malone raised numerous safety concerns about the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, both of which use mRNA technology. He warned about future autoimmune issues caused by the spike proteins within the mRNA injections.

Inventor of mRNA technology removed from Wikipedia after he warned against taking COVID jabs

I know this will give further ammunition to the anti-vaxxer movement.. but always in favor of folks being fully aware of the pros and potential cons.. Nothing in this life is 100% safe!

Thus you can see why this statement of yours is hasty to say the least..

Generally speaking the vaccine has more examples than mRna one so theoretically safer however in the form of components mRna Vaccine are better known.

Next..

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.

You need to show me how that reasoning holds water by laying out the mechanisms at the sub-cellular and molecular levels.. Just to make sure that you know what you're talking about.

Otherwise for people really interested in knowing how antigens are normally processed inside the body read this wiki page, it resumes the topic pretty decently. There are 2 major pathways:
>an endogenous pathway which uses MHC class I surface proteins:

The endogenous pathway is used to present cellular peptide fragments on the cell surface on MHC class I molecules. If a virus had infected the cell, viral peptides would also be presented, allowing the immune system to recognize and kill the infected cell.

And an exogenous pathways which uses MHC class II surface proteins and only done inside specialized antigen-presenting cells

The exogenous pathway is utilized by specialized antigen-presenting cells to present peptides derived from proteins that the cell has endocytosed. The peptides are presented on MHC class II molecules. Proteins are endocytosed and degraded by acid-dependent proteases in endosomes; this process takes about an hour.[1]

I never wanted to go deeper into the rabbit hole of the immune system.. because then I will lose everybody around here for sure!

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.

At the end you basically landed right into the third main take away of my previous post.. while not sounding too much into Biology!

We don't call the stuff 'feature'(s) but ANTIGEN(S)!