Someone who does research left a caveat in this
forum recently:
... As a recommendation, I would never evaluate a study's methodological merit based on what you read in a newspaper. If you're really interested in evaluating its integrity, go to the original source. As someone whose research has shown up in the popular press, I can tell you that things get warped in the translation from academic journal to press release.
I found the summary of this study on Cochcrane's
website and it supports your point. It appears they studied the various antioxidants separately:
Overall, the antioxidant supplements did not seem to reduce mortality. A total of 17880 of 136,023 participants (13.1%) randomised to antioxidant supplements and 10136 of 96527 participants (10.5%) randomised to placebo or no intervention died. In the analyses of the trials with low risk of bias, beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E significantly increased mortality. There were no significant differences between the effects of antioxidant supplements in healthy participants (primary prevention trials) or participants with various diseases (secondary prevention trials). Randomised trials with adequate bias control found no significant effect of vitamin C. In some of our analyses, selenium seems to reduce mortality.
The current evidence does not support the use of antioxidant supplements in the general population or in patients with certain diseases. The combined evidence suggests that additional research on antioxidant supplements is needed. The evidence on vitamin C and selenium was not conclusive. Future trials could focus on vitamin C and selenium and should assess both potential beneficial and harmful effects. Conduct of additional primary and secondary prevention trials on vitamin A, beta-carotene, and vitamin E seems questionable, at least in the dosage range examined.
To read the full study, you have to purchase it.