So the Society of Cell and Gene Therapy, which is made up of gene therapy scientists, is using the term incorrectly by saying the Covid mRNA vaccines are gene therapies, but your definition is correct?
OK.
DNA and RNA nucleic acids are genetic information. Insertion of genetic information into a cell is gene therapy.
How about these gene therapy scientists who describe mRNA insertion as gene therapy? Are they using the term incorrectly too?
If you say only the insertion of DNA into cells is gene therapy, then the J&J and AZ chimp adenoviral vector DNA based vaccines *are* gene therapy?
Likewise for the approved Indian DNA vaccine, or Inovio's Phase 3 DNA vaccine?
The definition of gene therapy is insertion of genetic material into a cell to prevent or treat disease.
Gene therapy inserts copies of genes (DNA) or mRNA, which ultimately make proteins in that cell. Nearly all gene therapy is non-integrating into the genome, and thus does not alter DNA.
Gene editing is intentional alteration of DNA.
Gene regulation is alteration of gene expression without modifying the DNA directly, either increasing or decreasing DNA transcription to RNA.
These are basic definitions that gene therapy scientists use.
I do agree that many sources muddy the water and may change these definitions. Why, I don't know. Probably because "gene therapy" is scary to lots of people.
That's what Bayer's head of pharmaceuticals says about the mRNA and DNA based Covid vaccines, anyways:
Bayer head of pharma, Stefan Oelrich, at the 10/24/2021 World Health Summit on Capitalizing on the Momentum of Innovation from COVID-19:
“We’re really taking that leap as a company in cell or gene therapy… The mRNA vaccines are an example for that cell or gene therapy. …if we had surveyed 2 years ago in the public, would you be willing to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body, we would have probably had a 95% refusal rate. This pandemic has opened many people’s eyes to innovation in a way that was not possible before.”
In any event, brilacidin is not a gene therapy, and did not reduce mortality or improve time to sustained recovery in a small trial of moderate to severe Covid. If brilacidin is an effective SARS2 antiviral in humans, it's possible it was given too late or in too low of a dose in the Phase 2 trial. It will be interesting to see the viral load changes, and if there were any different outcomes when given earlier (moderate versus severe Covid).
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
