While it is easy to criticize any animal model study, especially when targeting cancer, we should be HIGHLY skeptical of any mouse study that uses vitamin C. Why?<p>Mice synthesize their own vitamin C; humans do not (hence, it should properly be called ascorbic acid in mice, not vitamin c). The biological pathways involving this compound are very different between species, and deserve special consideration.
On a side note, Linus Pauling was notorious for, late in life, after winning all his Nobels and other such prizes, pushing the idea that megadoses of Vitamin C would cure all cancers: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research_and_vitamin_C_advocacy" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research...</a><p><a href="https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-dose-vitamin-c-and-cancer-has-linus-pauling-been-vindicated/" rel="nofollow">https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-dose-vitamin-c-and...</a><p>He died in 1994, of cancer.
This seems to contradict another recent study [1] that found that Vitamin C promoted cancer (melanoma) growth.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/10/14/antioxidants-may-give-a-boost-to-cancer-cells-making-them-spread-faster-study-suggests/" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/1...</a>
Lots of mice studies don't translate well into humans. This one is highly specific -- a specific mutation. It's unlikely to have much bearing on real world cancer.