Oh, I did, but it wasn't the cigarettes that caused it. I was sleeping just downwind of the exhausts on an old oil rig (ca 1980) when they started tripping out of the hole (wind shifted), and the shack I was staying in was far from airtight...Clouds of very sooty diesel exhaust finally woke me up--inside the shack.
It took a day or so to cough up that junk.
The part that still bugs me about all the smoking 'studies' is that none of the office workers who compiled them ever accounted for working conditions and exposures on blue-collar jobs (and for that matter, white-collar jobs) which likely had a greater effect on medical outcomes than the cigarettes.
The result is that there may have been a gross misattribution of risk factors which has had the effect of causing cancer (by not removing causative agents) rather than reducing it because the focus has been first and foremost on tobacco.
But then, the smoking studies started with the tobacco is evil meme, and ran with it like global warming, butter, Alar, motorcycle helmets, salt, and a host of other 'safety and health' issues.
The flip side never got a look once the funding started pouring in. Then it was just a question of landing a grant, and not one of finding the answers--whatever they were.
The thing that can be really neat about science, although few will admit the basic premise, is that curiosity, that "We don't know!--so let's find out!" mentality which has just about disappeared from the face of all but the most serious scientific investigation.
A hypothesis was so you would know whether that was the right idea or not, not something to be doggedly adhered to in the face of contrary facts. You tried to disprove it, and if that could not be done, the results were either inconclusive or they supported the idea, and you moved on to another stage.
Now people only try to prove hypotheses, not disprove them, and evidence to the contrary is not only not sought after, but in some cases masked or suppressed. (Look at the Anthropogenic Global Warming mess for a stellar example). So now the weeds of Junk Science choke the once fertile fields of honest investigation, funded, fertilized and watered by the public coffer.
It’s called publication bias. The journal articles that get noticed are the ones that get published and the ones that get published are the ones that reject the null hypothesis, indicating that their supposition is correct. “Failed” experiments don’t get follow up funding, even though they are just as or more important than those that “prove” the hypothesis.