I still have not seen any references from you for any double blind study
 that supports your statements.

As you must know, large double blind studies are the reference by which
medicine is practiced.

Your statements below are simply not supported by any studies. At least
none that I and perhaps you know of.

Where's the beef?

Contradicting large double blind studies requires very credible evidence
to the contrary. Your personal statements about this do not constitute
anything close to a large double blind study.

I certainly do not want to get personal about this Susan, but surely you
must agree that all real science is done by experiments (studies) that
are repeatable by others. When studies conducted by different
researchers come up with the same results, this has always been the gold
standard for reality. It is mine.

I don't want to get into the whole statin debate, as there are merits
to both sides of the argument.   But I think it is worth commenting on
how people read what they want to read into a news report on a new
study and how it then gets added to the list of alleged benefits of a
particular drug.  In this case, I took a look at the Reuters story
about the link between statins and decreased mortality from pneumonia
where a new study in Denmark found a 31 % lower risk in dying from
pneumonia when patients had been on statins.   But, it also says:

" Some studies have linked statin use with decreased risk of severe
sepsis -- infection of the bloodstream -- or death associated with
infections, but there had been conflicting findings on pneumonia,
according to Dr. Reimar Thomsen of Aarhus University and Aalborg
Hospital in Denmark."

So, if there have been conflicting findings in other studies, it isn't
clear to me that this new study does anything to settle the issue and
end the conflict.   To do a fair analysis, one would have to look at
all the other studies done and not rely on just this latest one.
However a story like this can do wonders to promote the drugs and it
would be interesting to see who paid for the study.

Also, it's interesting that Michael says that double blind studies are
the standard by which medicine is practiced.   Yet the Denmark
pneumonia study was not a double blind study.   It was only
statistical data extracted from hospital records.    And I'd offer
just one possible alternative reason why patients on statins could do
better following hospitilazation for pneumonia.   Taking statins means
they have been under a doctors care for some period of time and that
could be an important difference, that, if not properly accounted for,
could skew this studies results.  Consider two different patients
admitted at the hospital.   One that has been under regular doctor's
care.   That person could have other health issues that have been
properly addressed and are under control, could take more interest in
taking better care of themselves, and be in better overall health,
etc.   Patient B shows up having not been to a doctor in 20 years and
is a homeless person living on the street.     Which do you think
would have the higher mortality?  And then, assuming you are going to
do the study correctly and totally fairly,  you have the enormous
problem of how to correctly adjust for this when using hospital
records from years gone by.  And then you have the issue of personal
biases or expectations perhaps entering in to the decisions of how to
adjust the data.