It is long past time for the Scientific community to start living up to their own scientific protocols. If a study uses synthetic vitamin E, the results cannot be connected to natural vitamin E. This is due to the fact that natural vitamin E is very different structurally and activity level from synthetic vitamin E. 
While the body acknowledges this fact, mainstream medicine refuses to own up that they made a mistake many years ago when they thought they had equalized the differences between the two. ref ref Yet this is found throughout the scientific and media comments about vitamin study results. Plus, when vitamin study results are announced, a percentage is often the only statistic given. This unfortunately gives very little insight into the reality of the result.
Numbers versus Percentages in Results
Here is an example to show how this percentage to real numbers might play out. A heart attack vitamin E study found that in the non vitamin E control group there were 9 heart attacks out of 1000 people, while in the vitamin E group there were only 6. That is 3 less out of 1000, not such a large amount. But reported as a percentage, it would be 33% less heart attacks in the vitamin E group which sounds more impressive. Where the numbers per 1000 do become significant is when you consider the Public at large of say 10 million, then that 3 out of 1000 becomes 30,000 out of 10 million, but that is still just a small fraction at .33 of 1% of the 10 million people.
The Scientific Method should only compare or associate study results of apples to apples instead of apples to oranges. Unfortunately, many vitamin studies fail to mention form differences of the vitamin under study and overstate results to refer to all forms. Unless all the different vitamin forms are in the study, they cannot be inferred to be part of the results. The vitamins with form differences include Vitamins A, C, D, E, K, B1, B2, B6, B12, Folic Acid, Pantothenic Acid, Choline, and Beta Carotene. Some differences are slight while others are major.
CHAOS STUDY RESULTS CONFUSING
The CHAOS study actually found 71% less nonfatal heart attacks in their study on vitamin E. ref That is a very significant percentage, but one would need to see the per 1000 difference in numbers to picture how significant. One fact from the study said of the total 59 heart attacks, only 6 were in the vitamin E group. Now that is pretty significant. But, look at the overall CVD death rate, not exactly a vitamin E benefit as there were more. So, all factors need to be evaluated for impact which is difficult to achieve. And, like in prostate disease, there are different vitamin E family members that could play significant roles other than just d-alpha tocopherol. To add greater diversity, many vitamin E studies only use the synthetic form of dl-alpha tocopherol. Just 17% of synthetic vitamin E contains an exact structural match to the natural form in d-alpha tocopherol. But half of synthetic E parts are close enough to give synthetic E about 67% activity of natural vitamin E.
ATTEMPT TO UNCONFUSE study results
Because study results are often expressed in confusing terms and numbers, a simple method was developed to help simplify results. The NNT system stands for the Number (of people) Needed to Treat to prevent the increase of one person from coming down with the disease or condition under study. A calcium vitamin D study on preventing bone fractures might have a NNT of 450. That means for every 450 people that take calcium and vitamin D, just one bone fracture would be prevented. That is just one below the normal number of bone fractures that would normally occur in 450 people who did not take calcium and vitamin D.
The following study results are given as an example of how results are written. This is an analysis of many studies put into one result. Not always exact since each study might have had unique parameters and subject selecting criteria.
FYI: Scientists can manipulate study procedures, sample group sizes and criteria, plus twist data to tilt results in different directions. Conflicts of interest are not always evident and source of money grants could go unmentioned. One could find 100 studies on the same topic with a dozen different outcomes. This is one reason that Government Health Agencies fail to reach similar conclusions or recommendations.
Example of how study results are listed
Study Selection Randomized clinical trials comparing calcium, vitamin D, or combined calcium and vitamin D supplements with a placebo or no treatment for fracture incidence in community-dwelling adults older than 50 years.
Data Extraction and Synthesis Two independent reviewers performed the data extraction and assessed study quality. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk ratios (RRs), absolute risk differences (ARDs), and 95% CIs using random-effects models.
Main Outcomes and Measures Hip fracture was defined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were nonvertebral fracture, vertebral fracture, and total fracture.
Results A total of 33 randomized trials involving 51 145 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was no significant association of calcium or vitamin D with risk of hip fracture compared with placebo or no treatment (calcium: RR, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.97 to 2.42]; ARD, 0.01 [95% CI, 0.00 to 0.01]; vitamin D: RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.99 to 1.47]; ARD, 0.00 [95% CI, −0.00 to 0.01]. There was no significant association of combined calcium and vitamin D with hip fracture compared with placebo or no treatment (RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.85 to 1.39]; ARD, 0.00 [95% CI, −0.00 to 0.00]). No significant associations were found between calcium, vitamin D, or combined calcium and vitamin D supplements and the incidence of nonvertebral, vertebral, or total fractures. Subgroup analyses showed that these results were generally consistent regardless of the calcium or vitamin D dose, sex, fracture history, dietary calcium intake, and baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration.
Breakdown
calcium: RR, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.97 to 2.42]
For calcium on Risk Ratio of 1.53. > a RR of 1.00 represents no action either positive or negative. Generally, over 1 starts to increase risk. 2.00 is double the risk. Under 1 is less risk, .50 is half the risk.
The 0.97 to 2.42 is the range that the test subjects exhibited. A few had lower risk at .97 while some had a much higher risk at 2.42. Since RR listed ata 1.53, more were at lower end than higher as the overall average was 1.53.
For ARD, the absolute risk differences ( ARD, 0.01 [95% CI, 0.00 to 0.01]
at .01, this represents very little if any differences between the test subjects taking calcium and the group not taking calcium on bone fractures rates.
No NNT given since not pertinent for thse results.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE FROM a PROSTATE STUDY
These results list a slightly different way to report, as a percentage.
"Among the 643 men who were randomly assigned to placebo or supplementation with folic acid, the estimated probability of being diagnosed with prostate cancer over a 10-year period was 9.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.5% to 14.5%) in the folic acid group and 3.3% (95% CI = 1.7% to 6.4%) in the placebo group (age-adjusted hazard ratio = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.23 to 5.65, Wald test P = .01)"
FOLIC ACID increased prostate cancer rate in this study.
Test subjects taking folic acid develped prostate cancer at 9.7% compared to those not taking folic acid in the placebo group at just 3.3%. Using the typical way as mentioned in the first study, the risk would be 2.63, 95% CI. While a very significant difference, this was from a rather small study group with very few cases of prostate cancers in either group. Larger study groups needed to verify. This small study will get lots of different articles using this data so a certain amount of caution is needed not to think there are many different studies. article article ref
A number of later studies only added inconsistencies to these results. Folic acid deficiencies increase cancer risks, while too much may be questionable as well. Here is a recent work to summarize what may really be happening, using results from numerous studies with analysis. ref < this link has been lost and another way to access study has to be found. This is typical as reference links get older and journals change formats or move older work.