As there's so much poor science in the world, people can't be blamed for repeating erroneous conclusions but it is a little sad that trendy articles can have such sway. The fact that people who eat berries have lower rates of cardiovascular disease is a classic example of two dependent variables that are correlated not directly but via an independent variable. In other words, people who eat healthy diets include berries, but it is the entirety of the diet and not the berries that makes the difference. Indeed, anyone with a passing acquaintance with the Haber-Weiss reaction and molecular biology knows that anti-oxidants, when present in too small a quantity, actually accelerate oxidative damage. Furthermore, if one could consume enough anti-oxidants to cause the H-W reaction to proceed in the desired direction this would mask the chemical signal that cells use to induce mitochondrial apoptosis. This in turn would mean the cells have to make do with old damaged mitochondria rather than inducing them to self-destruct so they can be replaced with new healthy mitochondria. In other words, there's a great deal of nonsense written about anti-oxidants and although most people will never consume anywhere near enough "magic food" to make any real difference, it is just another contribution to the great mass of half-baked misinformation that sadly comprises far too much of the modern information flow.