First, the diffeerence between peer review and news sources is the news sources mostly provide a glossed over perspective. You need to read betwen the lines, and still you make an educated guess as for what happened, how and why.
Sitting in my flat during the lockdown, I was watching online the implementation of #vaccines almost real-time, including infamous story of #BillGates forcing #Oxford Labs to enclose their vaccine and to sell it to #astrazeneca.
I was also watching the Finnish thread. It seemed to be a model success story, both for the university and for the country's international reputation.
I can hardly believe that a career specialist of genetic medicine, with decades of development behind him, would "overmarket" their project. Some scientific critical review may convince me, but this is what we lack here.

Instead, we see a complete lack of interest from the government or any other noncommercial funding source. We see the project being transferred from one entity to another, we see personal changes and some obscure obstacles, hampering both development and implementation.

Now, I just made a quick review of the context: nasal spray covid vaccines are being developed in several places, but only two of them managed to make it widely available. India and China - and not because they are so technologically advanced, but obviously because of the political will to do it. Hint: the vaccine approved in India is the work of the Univeristy of Washington, but still not available in the USA.

I am just an "coffee time analyst", so I can afford a risky guess that the difference of costs (for buyers) and profit (for providers) is significant enough to cause serious if discreet campaign to slow the whole process as much as possible.

It would probably be interesting to check how many and how old applications for approval of nasal covid vaccines are queued at FDA and its EU equivalent. But I am fat, old and lazy, and I am out of coffee for now.