It doesn't, but it does use really fucking confusing wording/nonsensical proximity. Here:

MVA-BN contains Modified vaccinia Ankara, an attenuated form of the vaccinia virus that does not replicate in human cells and hence does not cause the sometimes serious side effects that are seen with replicating smallpox vaccines (i.e. preparations of unattenuated vaccinia virus). These replicating vaccines use different strains of the vaccinia virus, which all replicate in humans, and are not recommended for people with immune deficiencies and exfoliative skin disorders, such as eczema or atopic dermatitis. Vaccines containing vaccinia viruses were used effectively in the campaign to eradicate smallpox. Because of similarities between vaccinia and the smallpox virus, the antibodies produced against vaccinia have been shown to protect against smallpox. In contrast to replicating smallpox vaccines, which are applied by scarification using a bifurcated needle, MVA-BN is administered by injection via the subcutaneous route.[32]

Emphasis mine.

The "These replicating vaccines..." part is referring to Dryvax and ACAM2000 (replicating vaccines). It starts out by stating that MVA-BN is non-replicating, and then goes off on a tangent about replicating variants, which still sounds like it's talking about MVA-BN. The next two sentences are just redundant with the entire article, and shouldn't even be there. That section should have been edited for clarity, because yeah, if you are skimming, it's easy to miss that distinction when three quarters of the fucking paragraph is talking about something that is not applicable to MVA-BN.