You probably also would argue smoking cigarettes doesn’t cause cancer? Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Edit: to connect the dots:
How mice studies are used
Experiments on mice have helped scientists understand how the carcinogens in cigarette smoke damage DNA and cause cancer, which complements epidemiological data from human studies.
These animal studies have been crucial in establishing the link between smoking and cancer since at least the 1950s.
No, I merely called you out on the enormous discrepancy between your first (false, unproven) statement and your second statement, and did some work clarifying the details where you only made lazy statements.
You could have said that there's limited evidence from a single mouse study that suggests that NAC might promote tumor growth in humans as well. That's fair. But you didn't. You (falsely) stated that "NAC causes cancer in humans".
Edit: to connect the dots:
How mice studies are used
Experiments on mice have helped scientists understand how the carcinogens in cigarette smoke damage DNA and cause cancer, which complements epidemiological data from human studies. These animal studies have been crucial in establishing the link between smoking and cancer since at least the 1950s.