Your immune system is more direct and effective at countering cancer development than any diet, unless you are consuming cancirogens.
Cancer development itself is a sign that cancer cells developed at pace great enough to "overpower" your immune system or you have genetic mutation that causes your body develop cancer on its own because its de-facto wired to do so.
Once cancer develops, it becomes race with time. It will eventually kill you, unless you destroy it first. Diet change may slow sickness progression, but it is there and it competes for nutrients with rest of your body. Many cancer victims succumb to severe anemia before their vital organs cease to function.
When sickness tool on body becomes serious, even your social mammal brain turns on you, putting interests of group above your own and making you stop eating, become apathetic and withdrawm from others as it seeks to reduce burden on the group and its resources pool.
Both of those effects make reducing diets value in cancer combat discussable.
There is enough evidence to suggest diet can play a role in defeating cancer. Some foods contain compounds that can interfere or even induce apoptosis in mutant cells.
Whether they reach these cells from point of entry (mouth) intact is a different matter, some research suggests some compounds can.
There needs to be more research in establishing which foods are able to perform roles in prevention and also fighting.
I would like to think William Li's research is at least a start at making information easily accessible to the wider public from studies and research journals. There are also issues of funding for these types of studies, as they are seen controversial and almost a form of pseudo-science. Not to mention the whole "big pharma" arguments which I don't necessarily subscribe to.
> as they are seen controversial and almost a form of pseudo-science
Yes, the "cure cancer with our special juices combo (and coffe enema just to be sure)" crowd is not doing this field of research any favors in the public.
