I was a great fan of Cochrane, they were one of the first to make an attempt to differentiate between the wheat and chaff.
However,
Reductions in all-cause mortality, major vascular events and revascularisations were found with no excess of cancers or muscle pain among people without evidence of cardiovascular disease treated with statins. Other potential adverse events were not reported and some trials included people with cardiovascular disease. Only limited evidence showed that primary prevention with statins may be cost effective and improve patient quality of life. Caution should be taken in prescribing statins for primary prevention among people at low cardiovascular risk
does seem a bit "woolly." It sounds like they're saying, "You may not live better (no change in morbidity) , but you may live longer (decrease in mortality). Cost effectiveness should be the worry of public health politicians (
) not the patient.
They are saying that at 10% risk, we'll corrupt the drugs budget.
Piccini et al (2009) says something slightly different, and may be worth a look.
The points about renal failure/liver problems/myalgia may be a little bit of a red herring, possibly inflamed by the media, although of course it's interesting to hear real life stories here.
Your strategy of getting re-tested in 6 months sounds reasonable. I only wish more of my patients were as enthusiastic. I'd be able to cure or control many ails, (eg hypertension, diabetes, dyspepsia....the list goes on), without resorting to the prescription pad.
Please let us know how you get on, and what worked.