I've never understood this logic; actually I think I understand it all too well and it scares the hell out of me. So rather than focusing on the preventative measure of improving the ratio of essential fatty acids that we're all ingesting and reducing the amounts of modified fatty acids, refined carbohydrates, and assorted food additives the better idea is to add statins to the drinking water supply?

I'd like to say that I don't understand this logic, but I do. No one is going to make any money by eliminating the harmful things from our food supply. Creating a new market for statins will most definitely make the pharmaceutical manufactures an obscene amount of money in this new market.

Economists really need to learn that an increase in GDP does not necessarily mean that our lives have improved.

The cynical guy in me will be on the look out for the study funed by the coal fired electrical generators that the aerial dispersion of asthma medication will benefit the majority of Americans.

http://www.mcgill.ca/files/_nea/102635_NEJMe0808320v1_editorial.pdf
"...absolute differences in risk are
more clinically important than relative reductions
in risk in deciding whether to recommend drug
therapy, since the absolute benefits of treatment
must be large enough to justify the associated
risks and costs. The proportion of participants
with hard cardiac events in JUPITER was reduced
from 1.8% (157 of 8901 subjects) in the placebo
group to 0.9% (83 of the 8901 subjects) in the
rosuvastatin group; thus, 120 participants were
treated for 1.9 years to prevent one event..."
Does a NNT of 120 for 1 3/4 yrs seem like a great number to you? and the study participants were obese--does this study apply to those who are not obese?

Perhaps you and your mother should read Harriett Rosenberg's and Danielle Allard's report: "Evidence for caution:Women and statin use"
http://www.whp-apsf.ca/pdf/statinsEvidenceCaution.pdf

There has never been evidence that statins help women.