"mouse study suggests contigent relationship between fructose and cancer cell behavior as seen in the specific limited models of the study, inviting further research"
to
"Public figure with especially agressive and entirely unrelated cancer reportedly ate something that happens to contain fructose and eventually died! Same thing!"
In the big picture of cancer research, there are countless caveats and idiosycracies because most cancers are more different from each other than they are similar. This is only amplified when you're trying to make inferences about dietary consumption, where interactions between coincident foodstuffs have large chaotic effects and species (and individuals) often have different digestive behavior on the way from dietary food to some intracellular interaction.
Ignoring all that inherent, acknowledged, complexity so that one might harp on some dead punching bag whose story is only known through the lens of commercial media is about as anti-scientific as you could be.
Just as celebrities with diseases can draw attention to that disease, for the good with regard to other sufferers, a study about fructose and cancer can draw attention to "Steve Jobs diet was fructose".
Attention drawn. There's nothing you can do about it.
And you are not debunking anything because nobody asserted anything except a single fact; you're just shouting in a mirror about how clever you are.