Please don't post conjecture like this that has been categorically shown to be untrue. Vaccines are effective and have been shown to decrease infection and serious illness rates.
However, vaccination induces a slightly different immune response compared to natural infection [2][3] . These differences may account for variation in effectiveness between vaccine-induced and naturally acquired immunity.
[1] Rapid induction of antigen-specific CD4+ T cells is associated with coordinated humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(21)00308-3
[2] Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/
[3] mRNA vaccination compared to infection elicits an IgG-predominant response with greater SARS-CoV-2 specificity and similar decrease in variant spike recognition https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/04/07/202...
What's the variation you are referring to?
It's all preliminary data. However, the sinopharm vaccine, which is the whole virus, not just spike protein, seems to lose effectiveness after several months as well.
I find that when people use "categorically" in an assertion (denial), then there's good reason for doubt.
1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/08/25/vaccine-p...