Yes, I understand. I’m not disputing the research. It’s the research that informs the “guidance” from the Preventative Services Task Force that’s mention in the link you provided.

“ The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends low- to moderate-dose statins in adults ages 40 to 75 who have one or more risk factors for heart and blood vessel disease and at least a 10% chance of having a cardiovascular disease event in the next 10 years.”

I meant that because of the guidance from the task force (prompted by the research) many physicians will recommend a statin for any patient who meets those criteria, without necessarily considering the totality of the patient (any other co-occurring conditions other than those listed, response to previous statins, religious beliefs, anything really).

My family has personally experienced this because time and time again, physicians, especially new providers and when my father was in the hospital would default recommend a statin, without considering why he isn’t taking a statin—because the first statin he took triggered an autoimmune response (a rare, but nonetheless real risk of statins) and the second causes acute liver damage within 2 weeks (which was confirmed during his hospital stay).

I am really glad statins exist because they help so many, but what frustrates me about the guidance from the Federal Services Task Force is when it’s used as a blanket instruction. My family has felt pressured, especially by those in the hospital, or even guilt-tripped about statins when while they’re the correct solution and lifesaving for many people, but they aren’t or weren’t for my father. Everyone’s different though; the recommendation to him from the specific specialists who know his history and case differ from the “guidance,” and could be for other people. I don’t want anyone to feel belittled the way we did, and I felt less so when I understood where the guidance they kept referring to, came from.