I consider the media howl likely part of the normal pincer movements to remove or restrict cheap therapies.
First, comes the academic cautionary notes to pose a problem, sometimes in some ignorant or cocked way, carefully avoiding solutions and inconvenient facts. Tsk, tsk, tut, tut. Then comes the tame media chorus, with their pharma advertising ever more financially dominant. Then comes a regulatory "solution" to restrict or remove the cheap therapy. This dance has been working beautifully, and very profitably, for decades. It's all part of how drug prices are jacked up 5 - 10 - 100x (or more) in the US.
Let's take the case of aspirin. Those of us who have survived the posited "initial risk period" are in the benefit cohort and they are not ready to mess with us - yet. First, cut off the new users, allow time to thin the herd then take additional steps. Personally, I think those who are "at risk" likely have nutritional problems from prior nutritional and medical misunderstandings, misadventures, known, knowable and/or undiagnosed risks. There is no "aspirin technical support system" to address minor problems, or fend off subtle competitive marketing attacks.
There are plenty of commercial adversaries that would be happy to see aspirin restricted or disappear, if not stick a knife in it by carefully doling discretionary funds out to hungry, ambitious academics or journalists and/or making good friends at NIH and FDA.
I definitely see ASA value for inflammation, clottiness - CV and CRC risk, I'm continuing.
I buy 1000 count, 325 mg aspirin bottles every decade or two, $6 - $10, I'm not worried about expiry.
Fractional aspirin probably nukes some cancer pathways, with both clottiness and PIK3CA
relevant to CRC.
I'm worried about the ongoing corruption at the FDA against cheap generics.