https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/486374
"have revealed that
atherosclerosis is caused by statins taken to lower LDL-C, as well as by warfarin and some types of vegetable fats and oils, in the absence of significantly elevated LDL-C levels. Thus, the promotion of statin treatment by the Statement is rather risky and we do not feel that the conclusions are justified for the prevention of ASCVD."
From that article: ".....
have revealed that atherosclerosis is caused by statins taken to lower LDL-C, as well as by warfarin and some types of vegetable fats and oils."
I developed atherosclerosis before I started taking stains. I didn't take warfarin but I did (probably) eat far too many dodgy vegetable oils and I also smoked, the combination of which probably caused my atherosclerosis.
Now I have it my specialist recommends a statin to try and help prevent a lump of my blockage breaking off.
Others, who have had a previous cardiac event, are recommended a statin to help prevent them having another - proven (!?).
Answering your question above about whether I would love to hear about new treatment / drugs, of course I would. What I'm a little frustrated about is the constant blanket advice about zero statins, earlier in this thread backed up by erroneous facts.
If you're basically healthy then, yes, I advocate nil statins but there is a significant minority who, until proven medical science tells us otherwise, benefit from them.
From this article just yesterday:
"Experts do agree that for people who already have a high heart risk - particularly those who have already had a heart attack or a stroke - statins are proven lifesavers, slashing the chance of a second attack."
Coronary heart disease is huge killer, but is (I believe) diminishing slightly against cancer for example. (it depends which study you look at). For a proportion of those people a statin will help.