No, they are not simple questions which is why you are not getting any answers. You appear genuinely concerned but lack background and access to basic information, the first you can fix by some serious hard work, the second is much easier, you could for instance start off with the definition of the terms that you are using and then using a dictionary or wikipedia, both of which are fine for this level of engagement.

The short - and hopefully simple - answer to your question, which I hope is simple enough while not abstracting away too much of the more complex reality underneath it is that the mRNA tech was for a long time believed to be non-essential, and besides that there were some licensing issues and other claims. The pandemic provided the right circumstances (read: funding) to try to see if the advantages of mRNA would allow for either a faster development track or for a vaccine that could be changed more rapidly if the virus targeted would mutate.

Both of these turned out to be true - after the fact - and given that a vaccine is better than no vaccine the approval was then fast-tracked enough to allow the vaccine to come to market. There was a lot of testing to ensure that it was safe to administer of the various components in the past, the only part that was new was considered safe based on an abbreviated trial (that still had a surprisingly large 'N' for something done in such a short time).