4 ms·
this is correct. it's clear that smoking elevates cancer risk, but why doesn't it cause cancer in all smokers? to develop a cure, we must better understand the
by panabee 2y ago
this is correct. it's clear that smoking elevates cancer risk, but why doesn't it cause cancer in all smokers?
to develop a cure, we must better understand the causal mechanisms.
this starts with acknowledging what we know and don't know about a devilishly complex disease that is arguably better conceptualized as a broad category rather than one monolith -- similar to how the flu, cold, and covid could be grouped under one mega classification, but are better identified as distinct conditions.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI think we understand the causal mechanism pretty well. it is just laypeople struggle with binary thinking vs probability. The reason why only 20% of smokers get cancer is similar to why a person doesn't get cancer after 1 cigarette. This is only counterintuitive if your default thinking is that smoking=cancer. In reality, there are a lot of variable chemical and biological processes involved, but ultimately it ultimately boils down to a cumulative risk, not guarantee.
- pokerface_86 2y ago[dead]