This has some legal implications. You can now prove fairly conclusively that your lung cancer came from smoking. I wonder if it will lead to a new wave of tobacco litigation. I think even Fisher would be convinced [1]. [1] https://priceonomics.com/why-the-father-of-modern-statistics...
Smokers were already and for a long time aware of the risks. They choose to take them. What could they possibly claim? That a product known for causing lung cancer caused lung cancer?
Other avenues could be:
- Smoking is also associated with other cancers, such as esophageal cancer and bladder cancer. Generally the warnings don't mention this however. By examining the mutation patterns in an esophageal cancer, you could relate it more conclusively to smoking, and could therefore claim you were not warned about that specific risk.
- Tissue samples from lung cancers diagnosed 20 or 30 years ago are sitting in archival storage. You could sequence the whole genome or exome of these tumours for about $1000 - $2000. Statute of limitations aside, sequencing these tumours could reveal the tobacco signature as a basis for a claim from a time when it was less clear or less public what the risks were.
- Passive smokers could have a case if their cancer shows a tobacco signature.