I made a statement derived from lots of research I have personally done. You said I was wrong. I provided evidence of the research. You provided ...
none.
You said I was "dangerously wrong" because someone else you talked to said I was wrong, but you have provided no evidence supporting your case, other than hearsay.
I have provided evidence. You concluded with:
> This is what I was told by people who spend their lives studying the treatment of cancer.
Which, again, is appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy.
How much evidence do I need to provide?
https://www.cancertherapyadvisor.com/home/tools/fact-sheets/...
> Current data in humans suggests that IF may be beneficial for chemotherapy outcomes, particularly for reducing toxicities. IF appears to be safe in appropriately selected patients, and the adverse effects associated with fasting appear to all be of low grade.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6530042/
> Growing preclinical evidence shows that short-term fasting (STF) protects from toxicity while enhancing the efficacy of a variety of chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of various tumour types. STF reinforces stress resistance of healthy cells, while tumor cells become even more sensitive to toxins, perhaps through shortage of nutrients to satisfy their needs in the context of high proliferation rates and/or loss of flexibility to respond to extreme circumstances.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5031958/
> Both chronic calorie restriction (CCR) and intermittent calorie restriction (ICR) have shown anticancer effects.
https://www.cell.com/trends/endocrinology-metabolism/fulltex...
> Fasting and FMDs have the potential for applications in both cancer prevention and treatment.
Do you have any evidence that fasting is deleterious to the health of cancer patients? Except what you said someone said?
Did you ask those oncologists for any evidence supporting their case or did you just take their words at face value?