I'm actually a bit shaken at the responses elsewhere and here and if they represent the scientific community at large, even more so. This is very much a scientific question and must not be shunned away to philosophy (not that science doesn’t have a natural philosophy).

Indeed all science is based on causality and determinism, but suddenly now, people here are trying to draw a line between determinism and 'superdeterminism'. What's the difference? Ok, at what point does determinism end and statistical independence begin? Why? How do you snip out the causal threads at any scale?

I suspect that a lot of people have invested a lot of time and career in interpretations of quantum theory, and cannot face the fact that determinism just simply avoids it. Is determinism or superdeterminism an interpretation of quantum mechanics or a substitute to it entirely?

Someone said that determinism is ok, but there is enough noise between it and the event to now make it statistically independent or truly probabilistic. Isn't noise just complexities of causality? How do you snip those tiny threads and say that an event has been born from nothing?

Yes. cigarettes causes lung cancer because the more impactful bundle(s) of causes towards lung cancer originated from inhaling tar by a group of people and others not.

Are we going to just ignore the truth about nature of reality that is staring at our face and seek comfort in avoiding it because it supposedly undermines science? I thought determinism implied this very stark truth from the very beginning, why suddenly all this gymnastics for quantum theory?