It's definitely worth a review of who was behind the tests that led to the initial conclusion.

Hopefully, this being science or something, somebody will get round to looking at the data, methodology, and stuff like that instead.

Both points are valid. It sounds like the science had become muddled in the marketing of the drug. There should be full disclosure of the drugs company of the science, and those responsible for buying/commissioning should be capable enough to distill the science from the hyperbole.

The problem is basically down to lack of complete evidence from drug companies and then poor scrutiny of flawed evidence.

It's been a while since I looked at the evidence but my recollection was that it was beneficial to those who had already had strokes and heart attacks in order to reduce the likelihood of further events. There's also some evidence that it helps primary prevention but even then it will only help those who have been calculated to be over 20% risk of heart attack or stroke over the next 10 years. Of these people, about 1 in 4-5 will have benefitted ie not had a stroke/heart attack because of being on statins.

The risk calculation is still a bit suspicious IMO as you can be over 20% through age alone (ie height, weight, cholesterol, bp etc all normal). There does seem to be an undercurrent to stick everyone on statins and that to me is worrying.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... -intervene

'The government's view, brought to you by...'