Two common problems here.

1. The reporter simply parroted the parroting of someone quoting someone else's quote of something he read quoting someone else. It's one of those circular references that just keeps getting repeated and repeated because no one ever goes back and checks where the original statement came from.

Malcolm Kendrick MD has a neat essay on this very topic.

http://www.thincs.org/Malcolm.htm See "Death of the Reference"

2. Reporters always jump on the word 'significant' as if it means the results were momentous or subtantial or overwhelming.

They're confusing statistically signficant -- which is simply a mathematical term referring to whether the data is likely to be just a fluke or a result of pure chance -- with the common meaning of 'significant'.

As arc pointed out, the statin results maybe mathematically significant, but in the real world, they're very meager.

Imagine if someone came up with an herb or potion or vitamin pill that delivered such paltry results against heart disease. The medical establishment would scoff at such a puny effect, and condemn it as useless tripe. But, with a drug put out by some pharmaceutical company with a huge marketing budget, the same lame results are "significant."