but cholesterol is not the culprit after all.
Probably something in that, it is, after all, it's only a proxy outcome measure. The important factor is, do statins prevent death and disease ? (And the evidence suggests they do.) The process is less important than the oucome.
So what happens: docA sees patientB and finds cholesterol level too high (according to common wisdom) so B gets a prescription for statins, even if B has no pre-existing heart disease. In order to get the cholesterol reading to the published level, A prescribes heavier and heavier doses until B reaches the level required.
Not actually strictly true,certainly for primary prevention, (without established disease). Once risk is established, the statin is prescribed, (usually Simvastatin 40mg), but interestingly once the patient is established on the routine, we don't tend to retest the cholesterol levels. (There's no point, it doesn't affect the management of the patient.) Hence the "putting it in the water" argument.
Secondary prevention, (ie the patient has established disease) requires more aggressive chasing.