I take vitamin E, as it is recommended by Drs Eades and Eades, and I am going to continue for the reasons they cite: increased insulin sensitivity, 40% lower heart disease risk and most importantly, preventing wrinkles (I've got my public, dahling). The meta-study (I'm not a huge fan of meta-studies, too much room for cherry-picking) cited shows that vit E might increase the rarest form of stroke, haemorrhagic, by 22% whilst lowering the risk for the most common stroke, ischaemic, by 10%. This comes out as a net gain in the apparent benefits for vit E. So why the headline, Vitamin E linked to increased risk of some strokes rather than Vitamin E linked to decreased risk of most common strokes? The link to the article on the front page is even worse, Vitamin E linked to stroke risk. Misleading, oversimplified and silly, just what I would expect from a mainstream media 'health' article, but at least they linked to the actual study that had numbers, statistics and lots of sciencey stuff. Perhaps things are slowly improving.
Addendum: there are actually studies that show that vit E has zero or even negative effect on health. This article sources a couple of them. The beeb didn't mention any of those studies, so they still suck.