>>...How that would work in reverse in humans who are, as we all know, just larger two-legged rodents...
To be fair, rodents are the closest branch of mammals to primates. :-)
More seriously, keep bannging the relative vs absolute drum!
Even now, if you look at the literature on statins a lot of it shows the risk reduction of taking them in relative risk - but then describe risk of side effect as absolute. See the problem? If both were in absolute terms, the positive effects of taking them would seem almost inconsequential (for people without familial hypercholesteremia who have never had a CVD 'event') - and if both were in relative terms, the risk of side effect would loom large.
I'm not questioning the utility of statins in some situations; they're a tool that's sometimes needed. But mixing relative / absolute risk bugs me.