Pace
I did not use the word rubbish, but you are right: it is a real mess, and the general public are bombarded with conflicting information.
Most statins are now generic, and dirt cheap so there is little profit in them. No big profits worth court action for even if you could sue, but note this woman hasnt actually said statins are dangerous. In fact I cant see she has used the word statin!! She has merely quoted lots of possible related mechanisms around cholesterol and left your imagination to tie it all together. Its similar to saying that we dont use lead in aircraft paint so we dont stop corrosion, so all aircraft have corrosion, so all airliners are about to suffer pressure hull failure etc etc.
This type of blog together with anecdotal comments about side effects are not science. No we dont know all subcellular mechanisms - when we do we will cure all cancer - but we do know cholesterol is a cause of many premature deaths. Most of my friends who know far more about it than me - academics, cardiologists and epidemiologists - take statins based on the science. Overworked target driven GPs mostly seem understandably to retire early so the failure to spend time to pull in more well patients and persuade them to take a pill may not reflect the GPs views on the benefits of the drug.
The drug industry has skeletons in the cupboard - Tamiflu as you rightly pointed out was over hyped it is claimed due to an inadequacy of the licensing process which is now being addressed. But statins are old drugs and after millions of prescriptions the chances of the risk benefit ratio being turned on its head by new data are slim.
So it is a personal choice