The fact that there's so much data on the dangers of smoking causes confirmation bias. However, science is never complete. It's not inconceivable that, say, sm

The fact that there's so much data on the dangers of smoking causes confirmation bias. However, science is never complete. It's not inconceivable that, say, smoking causes some changes that are protective/hormetic in some cases. That doesn't imply it's a worthy tradeoff to be a lifelong smoker, of course. The question is, what are the fact that we aren't trying to find, because it goes completely against our expectations?