Well, when you see a pubmed sniper, they usually trap themselves. The fact is, there is no way, you can support such BIG statements with references to so few studies. Hell, an actual review just saying ONE of the things in that article would reference perhaps 50 to 100 studies. And if you reference reviews, which are not studies but reviews of studies (i.e. "available evidence) you kind of need to acknowledge that. Reviews are no more absolute than studies.
It's pretty easy to spot the gaff, then. Look at the statement about prostate cancer risk, citing some study that supposedly found six times decreased risk (although I can't find which study is being referenced).
Now, look at what must be the coffee and cancer review that is used to support, I suppose, the absolute statement towards the end saying that coffee helps prevent cancer, "period." This is from that review:
"Current evidence suggests that coffee consumption is associated with a reduced risk of liver, kidney, and to a lesser extent, premenopausal breast and colorectal cancers, while it is unrelated to prostate, pancreas and ovary cancers."
(Nkondjock, André. "Coffee Consumption and the Risk of Cancer: An Overview." Cancer Letters 277.2 (2009): 121-25)
You can't pick and choose. You just can't can't can't.
Another thing worth pointing out is that intervention studies on coffee consumption and actual cancer biomarkers are rare. Most all of the studies are epidemiological. When you look at these studies you have to realize that they mostly concern cancer at specific sites. Such as colorectal, breast, kidney, pancreatic, ovarian, gastric, bladder, etc.
What I'm getting is that for MOST cancers, there does not seem to be any association between them and coffee consumption. Only some small risk association for some few specific cancers in certain individuals. Certainly nothing I can find supports the statement that "coffee is good for cancer risk.."period" and since there are so many different kinds of cancer with so many different etiologies is that hardly a friggin surprise? Anyway, the best review of the epidemiological evidence, Arab 2010, which has excerpts from individual meta-analyses, hardly supports his conclusions. Interesting to include such a huge review as that and ignore it's conclusions. This is just from the abstract:
…this review summarized the findings of the meta analyses and recent papers on site-specific human cancers among coffee consumers. For hepatocellular and endometrial cancers, there appears to be a strong and consistent protective association; for colorectal cancer, the direction of association is borderline protective. There appears to be no association with breast, pancreatic, kidney, ovarian, prostate, or gastric cancer. Risk of bladder cancer appears to be associated with heavy coffee consumption in some populations and among men. The associations with childhood leukemia and mother's consumption of coffee were ambiguous—with some suggestion of risk at high levels of daily consumption.
(Arab, Lenore. "Epidemiologic Evidence on Coffee and Cancer." Nutrition and Cancer 62.3 (2010): 271-83.)
The risk of MOST cancers is NOT modified by coffee consumption. Maybe its some little math trick but I don't see how anyone can support the statement that coffee reduces cancer risk "overall."
What about lung cancer.
I've found case-control studies and prospective studies that add up to thousands of individuals. Positive association for lung cancer. In other words that evidence would tend to suggest that coffee increases the risk of lung cancer, at least for smokers. So your make a statement like that in the article and what do you bet that a few life-long smokers read it and start getting a triple-shot of espresso instead of a single?
For diabetes, it certainly seems that there is a very strong inverse association. But just to write an article supporting the statement that coffee protects against diabetes you would have needed a whole lot more support.
But I'm not an M.D. nor a medical researcher so I that's about as far as I care to take the coffee and cancer subject.
BTW, you can't ignore the heartburn, stomach irritation and ulcer risk, etc. that some have from too much coffee.
For me, any writer who overemphasizes the miraculous properties of any one food or beverage is an automatic quack. It's pandering, at best.