For people who do not already have heart disease, statins have no apparent benefit. For people who have had a heart attack, statins are indeed useful. Not because of its cholesterol lowering effect, but due to its ability to dial back inflammation in arteries. For more on this here's yet another Bloomberg article on statins: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-01-16/do-choles...

So you are right, statins are indeed useful in a lot of people: people who have already had a heart attack. But that's not who statins are being marketed to. See here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/health/08well.html?fta=y

I would appreciate a citation where statins are reported to have no benefit in people who have not had a heart attack (termed 'primary prevention').

It's true that the evidence is not overwhelming (ref. 1) but I am not aware of studies that show no benefit.

[1] http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/258403...

Any argument you're trying to make is weakened when you use bloomberg or NYT as citations.

Why don't people link to the actual studies?