their are perfectly effective and safe alternatives you could be taking instead.

According to who? For every accepted study so far - not a pre-print but an actual peer-reviewed large-scale double-blind study performed by accredited professionals in the field - that indicates there's another treatment that should be explored there are dozens that find that avenue provides so little benefit as to be a waste of resources.

worked as advertised and provided actual immunity

No one knowledgeable about vaccines ever, anywhere, said the vaccines provided immunity. From the very beginning, when the large scale trials concluded, the best rating any vaccine got was 95% effective. And they went on to clarify that by that they meant the severity of the illness caused by the virus was reduced, easing the burden on the healthcare system.

What was it in the link you provided that you thought supported your argument? Because (again) here's what I read in it:

==========

"though in the vaccinated, these [viral] levels rapidly diminish. There is also some question about how cultivatable—or viable—this virus retrieved from vaccinated people actually is."

and

"it’s important to keep three things in mind:

Vaccines remain highly effective at preventing severe disease.
Breakthrough infections among vaccinated individuals remain uncommon.
The majority of new COVID-19 infections in the US are among unvaccinated people."

==========

How can you take that and say "See? This says you shouldn't get vaccinated."?