[caf]

The results are consistent with a null finding

This is true.

-that any effect measured is likely due to chance alone.

But this is a stronger statement that is not.

The 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was 0.81 to 1.01 which means there is more than a 5% probability that the result was due to chance, but not that it's likely due to chance, which implies "more probable than not". The result is more like: if the measured effect is real, it's small enough that a significantly larger study would be needed to demonstrate it with sufficient confidence.

[artinmg]

Fair enough, I phrased it inaccurately, although “likely” is subjective. I should say it’s reasonable to conclude that the results could be due to chance alone. At any rate the results do not tell us that anyone, in fact, benefited from vitamin D supplementation with respect to CVD risk.