While perusing this forum, I found your veiws on risk/benefits of drugs,
patient responsibility  for putting their own value judgement on them and
the role of the FDA, companies and other entities highly refreshing.

I came across this post of yours:

I do not know of any alternative which is CLEARLY better
for a particular individual.  I very strongly object to
the idea that one size must fit all; I have posted here
on statins, and I believe they are HIGHLY overprescribed,
due to ignoring well-known factors which can cause them
to be of questionable value for many, and still having
their known risks.  On this, I am more knowledgeable than
physicians, being able to read beyond the conclusions;
the FDA is not capable of doing this, or even seeing the
problem, because of their fixation on what is known as
"statistical significance".  

I did a search for this forum and only got a few hits for posts where you
commented on statins. I was wondering if you would mind elaborating your
take a bit further? My own study of the research has me befuddled as to
the claim "the lower the LDL, the better". I have found little support for
this premise, based on the data I have been able to gather. (Not always
able to get the actual paper as opposed to the useles abstracts.)I can
appreciate the small independent benefit statins seem to afford on
ischemic cardiac events but I fear a trade-off may be a significant rise
in cardiomyopathies and CHF. I'm a clinical chemist and in the past 6 mo I
have noted an alarming aggressive use of statins driving TC down below 140
in many elderly T2 patients. Studies have consistently associated low TC
in the elderly to be correlated with higher morbidity and mortality. I've
also noted an alarming increase in CHF pts. Curiously, I have also noted a
marked increase in pancreatitis amoung our pt population, although I know
of no study that links this to statin use.

I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to discuss this with me. (and
anyone else who might like to chime in.)