the antioxidants singled out are A and E typically.

Vitamins are only as good as the person who needs them. Not everyone is the same biologically. Some people don't utilize nutrients properly or absorb them.

So an article like that? Is rubbish, because it doesn't take into consideration human variablilty. It is a basic generalization.
This site is full of people, who are low in Vit D, and everyday I see a new post where someone has been tested and found very low. We have a place where people come when they feel terrible, doctors don't help them, or they are struggling with a serious illness. Five years ago the Vit D information was not what it is today. That is sort of a revolution, IMO.

Just look a this abbreviated table of nutrient depletions by common drugs:
http://www.chiro.org/nutrition/ABSTR...orticosteroids

The text from which that site was taken is 591 pgs long.

So how are a few paragraphs by a science writer going to impact all that common usage of everyday drugs?