It became clear that the easiest ‘gene therapy’ targets were those that required only a relatively small number of readily accessible cells targeted (e.g. DNA and RNA vaccines in which genetic material is injected into a relatively small area of muscle in order to produce a protein product that will induce an immune reaction), and those conditions or clinical targets that required a secreted gene product (made in the cells into which the DNA/RNA was injected, and then secreted from those cells into the surrounding tissues or bloodstream).
That's how we came to our current situation. The difficult problems in gene therapy were preventing commercialization, and the easier roads (DNA and RNA vaccines, microRNA) were thus concentrated on.
What I'm trying to say is that our current use of gene-based therapeutics is the result of a technology in search of a commercializable application, not a technology specifically developed to address an unmet need. That difference is a huge one, and going down the this path can be irresponsible and unpredictably harmful.
This article was written in 2016 (long before COVID, therefore not by what the $hot $hill$ would call "grifters"); the website appears to be something like a trade magazine online.
It explains modeRNA was pushing for years to get mRNA shots and had major venture capital funding.
A cure in search of a problem.
Thanks for the explanation. I have always wondered about this and thought that this was what is going on.