I'm sorry to say he is wrong. About 17% of smokers contract lung cancer. About 95% of them live at least another 1 1/2 to 2 years. The rest die within 6-9 months.
The 1% figure is for non-smokers who contract lung cancer.
For the record, I am a smoker and my brother, a smoker, died of lung cancer.
What your post doesn’t claim (not your fault, there are no studies to my knowledge) is how many of that 17% would have died of lung or other cancer anyway. The Breast Cancer folks claimed an even higher rate of smoking-related deaths, altho I can’t remember the figure. But I have my own evidence. Of my six aunts and my mother, five were lifelong smokers. The other two had never TOUCHED a cigarette and lived with nonsmoking husbands. The two who had never smoked had radical mastectomies (and are still living). Of the remaining five, my mother died of stomach cancer and an aunt who smoked died of lymphosarcoma (neither related to smoking). All my aunts but one are still living. The youngest is 89.
Insofar as lung cancer’s concerned, smoking MIGHT be a catalyst, but it’s never a cause. The 17%-claim, by itself, seems to prove that 83% of smokers (at least as of the study-date) either didn’t contract lung cancer or that lung cancer springs from something other than or in addition to smoking or that other diseases claimed the remaining smokers and/or that some unknown number of smokers in the test still live.
And, of course, nothing you’ve cited disproves the respiratory specialist’s 1%-claim. Cancer-rate is significantly different from lung cancer-rate.