you could take a wild live virus and purposefully refine it and then infect someone with it and this would be gene therapy, depending on the type of virus

In that case you're just giving someone immunity to the virus they were infected with. So that is natural immunity, not gene therapy. What you are proposing is a perversion of language, because a "therapy" can't be the disease causing agent itself.

you could take a wild live virus and purposefully refine it and then infect someone with it and this would be gene therapy, depending on the type of virus

In that case you're just giving someone immunity to the virus you infected them with. So that is natural immunity, not gene therapy. What you are proposing is a perversion of language, because a "therapy" can't be the disease causing agent itself.

you could take a wild live virus and purposefully refine it and then infect someone with it and this would be gene therapy, depending on the type of virus

You're just giving someone immunity to the virus you infected them with. So that is natural immunity, not gene therapy. What you are proposing is a perversion of language, because a "therapy" can't be the disease causing agent itself.