The peer review process and that of science are two different things.  
Peer review is minimal as to running the statistics and a detailed look at
data etc. but looks to see that the research contains such information so
as to be able to do so if other folk wish; which leads and feeds into the
scientific process of balancing results from an entire field of research
and coming in time to a concensus.  The article and it's contents are
about the latter and the mixed range of opinions suggests that this kind
of research will continue to iron out conflicting conclusions and likely
prompt continuing research to address the conflict areas.  For anyone who
has spent some time in the process of science, this flap over vit e is par
for the course, rather it be some question in cosmology or the
implications of shell conformation in some species of snail; all the
sparring in the article; and that in others which are likely to answer, is
par for the course.  This post is a good reflection of someone's knowledge
of how science works, but who doesn't really care about science and seeks
to use it as grist for some agenda mill; which in part is to spam for a
blog it seems.

Is this supposed to impresss?

The peer review process is not the one that magazines use to decide
what to publish, but the peers replicating the studies and finding
fault or otherwise. Please read up on exactly what science is. You
appear not to have a clue. The silly laughter could well be dropped
for a bit of background study on your part.