How many CVD vaccines does it take to save a life?

In comments to a good article from the BMJ

Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—let’s be cautious and first see the full data

#1

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/#comment-5169491603

JohnDStone:

Discussion of the side effects of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/1...

How many will be needed to save a single life? Can we even calculate?

Karen Keaveney:

Great question, anyone have an answer?

Zero. Is the obvious answer.

But I see the danger of respiratory infection episodes as primarily in the reactions, treatments (and withholding of effective treatment), along with a context of ongoing undermining of our innate immunity (that can be seen as resulting comorbidity).

But coming back to your question. What is 'saving a life'?

Obviously the prevention of death is a delay but can also be a redistribution of death - as in gaining weeks for one life that may or may not hold a quality of living as a conscious appreciation - with resources that are taken from supporting many who die as a lack of basic needs met.

That's sketching just one qualifying caveat to the emotive phrase of 'saving lives'.

In terms of death by all causes do standard of care treatments save lives?

Can suppressing one set of symptoms and getting a gold star, redistribute to others that are not in the spotlight? Etc and Etc.

I would that we served life and lives rather than seek heroic status and funding as protectors and saviours from evils that thus become the goose that lays the golden egg.

Side effects are a term for effects that are collateral or unintended. But they become also a way of feeding the current Medical model, by being interpreted as disease conditions requiring more products and interventions.

I understand that In UK and US - perhaps also other 'developed nations', iatrogenic illness is officially third in the charts for 'cause of death'.

There's an old joke about the monopolist mentality that may link in here:

Q: How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None, they declare darkness to be the new standard.

The ability to set definitions and parameters is a systemic corruption, of the basis in which a captured revenue stream, thinks.

#2

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/#comment-5176164380

Stirling Smith:

I don't understand the rush to a vaccine when this virus has a survival rate of over 95%.

It makes a lot of cents for the control group - but if it were just profit I would not be so disturbing. Captured revenue streams are seen as a source of power over life.

Perhaps we do not want to understand the remaining conclusion?

The active intent to genetic possession and control of human beings.

Some may be exempted for services rendered as with the H1N1 vaccine controversy in Germany where a non adjuvanted vaccine was assigned to higher ranking officials.

Blind trust without accountability is the conditions in which corruption hijacks, replicates and spreads contagion.