I actually worked on the clinical protocol used for the Crestor study, so it's interesting to see how it played out.
One thing to keep in mind is that this study had a huge sample size -- it was the largest pharmaceutical trial I've ever seen (there have been government funded epidemiological studies that are larger). Huge sample sizes are like an electron microscope -- you only use them to find significance when the difference you are looking for is small and subtle.
On the other hand, the trial was closed early, which indicates that the differences in outcomes were larger than the trial was designed to show. The trial does, apparently, show some significance in mortality (not just CV outcomes).
This was a trial looking at patients who had markers for inflamation in the absence of high LDL. Interestingly, Crestor (and perhaps statins in general, although this trial compared Crestor to another older statin) seems to do something regarding systemic inflamation, indicating that lipid lowering may not be the main beneficial effect of statin therapy in general.
The logical next question is: are there any easier, safer, and cheaper ways of lowering inflamation?
Look at this, from the diet study published in NEJM:
Look at the first graph (upper left). That's CRP, the same measure of inflamation the JUPITER study used to select patients. Dropped significantly by weight loss and dropped more in the people who cut out the crap in the low fat diet. That's probably sugar and grains, no? Seemed to drop more in the low carb group, although it didn't reach significance in this trial.
So what reduces systemic markers of inflamation better than statins? Hmm, maybe paleo eating with some extra fish oil (cut out sugar and grains, improve the omega-3 to omega-6 ratio). Perhaps some IF on top? Get some more good sleep?