The stuff about statins causing heart attacks is a bit overstated. If you looked into it, I think you would find that rhabdomylosis (sp?) is a side effect that affects a minority of patients, and when it does, they know about it (feel their muscles aching) and get a change in prescription. Also,the technology that imaged your coronary arteries in cutting edge and very expensive and would not as yet be expected to be available to most patients.

I wasn’t even talking about the health risks of statins, but this is certainly relevant to the equation. My point was economic. They range from $32 to $150 per month according to Consumer Reports. Even at the conservative number it would only take 10 years before the cost of imaging was eclipsed by the cost of statins. At the $150 rate, you are talking two years. If you are not the kind of person who builds arterial plaque, why would you want to waste that money on a lifetime treatment that could cause other health problems?