Leaving aside the major doubts that many scientists and researchers have about the reliability of claims made about links between diet and disease (here's a good article, but there are plenty more) what is clear is that even if there are links, any disease-causing and prophylactic effects of food are very weak indeed.
Quoting a blog will not get you very far. What you linked is a rambling rant about all food and cancer in general, sidestepping the consistent results wrt to certain food types such as processed meat. Processed meat containing nitrates and nitrites, such as bacon, has shown a link to cancer over decades of research.
Indeed a coalition of scientists and politicians led by Prof Chris Elliott, recently recommended the government take action to remove nitrites from processed meats, based on a “consensus of scientific opinion” in the U.K. and internationally, that the nitrites used to cure meats produce carcinogens called nitrosamines when ingested.
You do not get cancer because you eat red meat. You might increase the risk if your diet is very, very heavy in red meat. That is not a NORMAL diet. Likewise a crank diet will not protect you from cancer any more than a NORMAL one.
I have never claimed that you get cancer from eating eat red meat. But techcnially, if you argue that you can increase your cancer risk by a diet rich in red meat, if you contract it, then you have got cancer due to red meat.
What’s a normal diet? Some people’s diets are very heavy in red and processed meat, particularly men’s. My father is a good example - he’s had a full English breakfast including bacon every day for 40 years, followed by meat for lunch and processed meat for supper.
I’ve no idea what your idea of a ‘crank’ or ‘normal’ is, without defining terms, your vague assertions are meaningless.