The gold standard for accepted evidence in medical science and practice is RCTs ( randomised controlled trials) to my knowledge there have never been RCTs to actually prove without doubt that smoking is the sole cause of lung cancer or cancer from secondary smoke for that matter causes cancer.stui magpie wrote:^
Smoking doesn't "cause" lung cancer, genes cause cancer. Smoking may be a contributing factor in some cases.
hence the rest of your case falls apart. What is considered true because of repetition, isn't necessarily true.
As you say it has been identified as a contributing factor due to classification of some substances in cigarettes as carcinogenics. Just like those identified in burnt toast!
If I had a dollar for every person I have nursed over 40 years that has ended up RIP from lung cancer that never smoked man I could be living the high life!!
Mind you if I had a dollar for every " fit" trim taut and terrific person that ended up RIP from jogging etc I could be living the high life!
Science explains much but not all - when your number is up your number is up - end of!
The problem with climate change science is that if they are right and we do nothing it condemns the planet ( not just stupid humans but all life- that having been said the critters will bounce back without our destructive presence) )not just the odd individual and if they are wrong well good but how can we know for sure - we can't but maybe like the plethora of " health warnings" we should err on the side of caution just in case!