Baffling Science Hoaxes: Why Did We Believe in the Tongue Map?

Everyone reading this has got a tongue. Everyone reading this has, probably, also heard the old adage about how different parts of the tongue taste different things. For decades, this misconception stayed alive. It was still being taught when I was in grade school. My question is; why?

I too was tough this, and never did question it :O.

his diagram, and enduring myth, began in 1901, in Germany, were D.P. Hanig wrote a conservative little paper that mentioned that different areas of the tongue seemed slightly more sensitive to different tastes.

There is nothing worse, than when you find out something you have taken for granted since a child, is completely wrong.

But then again " If ignorance is bliss, then knock the smile off my face. "

Just thought id share this little nugget of truth.

Namaste.

Source

Just wait for the myths about smoking to be completely debunked.

We were told for decades that smoking CAUSED oral and throat cancers. We were treated (and still are) to pictures and commercials with people who had holes in their throat and warned that this was the result of smoking.

We now know that most, if not all, oral and throat cancers are CAUSED by the HPV virus. We also now know that 25 - 80 % of lung cancers are also CAUSED by the HPV virus.

I wonder how long it will take the general population to realize that, despite the incidence of smoking having been reduced for the last 40 years or so - the incidence of lung cancer, oral and throat cancer continues to increase and that maybe smoking just isn't the CAUSE

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I have never heard of HPV, reading up on it now, interesting stuff.

Also on the topic of smoking and cancer, it never made sense to me, how supposed poisons (not denying they are there) could eventually lead to cancer, due to long term harm.

That is until i learned that Polonium 210, is in cigarettes, a radioactive isotope.
Now granted polonium 210 is in anything that uses phosphorus fertilizer, however, it is broken down in the stomach and harmless when digested.

In smoke however, and going directly to the lungs and throats soft tissue :O, i think i found the culprit for smoking cancer other than (there are papers online claiming that polonium 210, is the direct cause of up to 90% of smoking related deaths).

By the way, before 1960 there would not have been Polonium 210 in cigarettes.

Namaste.

Other facts that were taught that were false:

We only use 10% of our brain.
Columbus discovered north America.
Yellow #5 makes men sterile.
Marijuana makes men sterile.

There's plenty more, these are just a few off the top of my head.
I feel you on being deceived for so long & being outraged.
At least you now know & arnt one of "them" who are still believe disinformation.

+1 for you

reply to post by WiseThinker


Wisethinker

The issue of Polonium 210 has been widely investigated as the cause of lung cancer. You will note that researchers very quietly moved away from the idea that Polonium 210 was the CAUSE of lung cancer in smokers and focused instead on polyaromatic hydrocarbons and NNK.

The reason for this is because the polonium 210 in tobacco is insufficient to cause lung cancer and barely rises above background levels found in the ambient air and in dust naturally. There is also a theory that because Polonium 210 is found naturally EVERYWHERE, our bodies have a natural immunity to background levels.

If you have been doing your research and hopefully reading sources other than anti-tobacco fact sheets, you will find that even after 60 years of intensive research, the only link between smoking and lung cancer is epidimiology with no plausible biological pathway yet established.

You will also hear that smokers have cancers of a type called a P53 mutation. Actually, only about 30 % of lung cancers in smokers have this mutation. What you won't hear very clearly stated, is that the cause of the P53 mutation is infection with a virus (HPV).

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Infection of high-risk human papillomaviruses (HPVs), particularly the HPV types 16 and 18 and mutation or aberrant expression of the p53 tumour suppressor gene, has strongly been implicated in human esophageal carcinoma, which shows a great variation in geographic distribution. Neither the reason(s) for such a variation nor the etiopathogenesis of the disease is clearly understood. The present study has been carried out to determine prevalence of high-risk HPV types 16 and 18 and the p53 gene mutation in patients from three distinctly different endemic geographic regions of India, viz. Kashmir, Dibrugarh, and New Delhi where esophageal cancer is most prevalent.

The real difference between smokers and never-smokers (other than the physical act of smoking) is in personality. Smokers tend to be more social and are more tolerant of risk.

www.canada.com...

It's a fact that smokers are more sociable than non-smokers, said Jim Sherman, a professor of social psychology at Indiana University at Bloomington. He has profiled smokers in a 25-year study of 8,500 subjects from age 11 up, of whom 1,700 became smokers. Smokers tend to be more socially precocious, extroverted and risk-taking than their non-smoking peers, Sherman said. "They generally date earlier. They're often popular. The cool kids in school were smokers, and they were dating."

While the epidimiology studies linking smoking to lung cancer were really only reporting that smokers seemed to get lung cancer more than non-smokers, the real link might be that smokers are more sexually active than non-smokers and more at risk of coming into contact with the HPV virus.

Of course - if this was generally known, anti-tobacco campaigners would be at real risk of being run out of town on a rail and the credibility of science would also take a really really big hit. After all - scientist after scientist, study and study, all confirmed that smoking CAUSED lung, oral and throat cancers. People lost their businesses over smoking bans, government raped smoker's wallets and the caused a huge rift in society as well as spoiling smokers identity.

There is also the reputation of public health and the future of anti-obesity and anti-alcohol to consider.

There is a lot to lose here.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by WiseThinker


Wisethinker

The other fact that spoils your theory about Polonium 210, is as you properly point out that there would not have been polonium 210 in tobacco prior to the 1950s or 1960s. Quite right, organic fertilizers were not generally used back then and organic fertilizers are the source of the Polonium 210 in tobacco.

However, public health started noticing an increase in lung cancers and blaming it on tobacco back in the 1920s and 1930s. On this basis, the sale of tobacco was actually prohibited in 17 states (a campaign led by a woman named Lucille Gaston Page, who later dies of esophogeal cancer. Hitler actually researched tobacco and and implemented smoking bans similar to what we see today based on the dangers of passive smoking and smoking being the cause of lung cancer.

So if Polonium 210 is the cause of lung cancer in smokers and Polonium 210 was not contained in tobacco prior to the 1950s or 1960s - what was the basis for all the bans going back to the 1920s????

Tired of Control Freaks

For the Tongue thing, because we didn't know about the receptors and proteins, and even then they never said "you will taste sour 100% over here" etc etc. They mentioned that sour would be tasted more on this part, of course they didn't know much about it(i remember people took asbestos as a joke, enjoy your lung cancers) now we know a lot more, so we can see it more clearly. Science is not set in stones, its the current understanding of things. It will evolve, and get easier and easier to understand. And best things is no one got hurt in the process that believed in a magical tongue map.

Also,

If you want to smoke, go ahead.

If you want to Drink alcohol, go ahead.

If you want to drink radiation cooling water, go ahead.


No one is stopping you, but your conscience.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Sorry. Smoking is still terrible for us no matter how much you enjoy it. HPV is thought to maybe be the second leading cause of lung cancer AFTER smoking. Also there is no proof of causation. They find hpv dna in 20 - 25% of lung cancer cells. That just means they find it though, not that it caused anything. Smoking still leads the way.

Also Wisethinker

I would like you to read and consider this article published in OnCology in 2011. If you read the article carefully and with an unbiased eye, you will be able to see that scientists already know that Polonium 210 is NOT the cause of lung cancer but intend to use the fear of radioactivity to scare the public into quiting smoking.

www.hindawi.com...

But what is the level of biological damage caused by tobacco smoke Po-210? Estimating the damage is a very difficult and complicated task. Using the 1990 ENEA data on the average time of Po-210 presence in lungs, which is 53 days [121], the data of the BEIR IV Committee on lung cancer risk after exposure to radon and its decay products (Pb-210, Po-210) [122], and the data of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), which are based on the survivors of the bomb A of Hiroshima [123], it is possible to estimate the lung cancer risk, which is 4 × 1 0 − 4 year−1 (4 cases per 10000 smokers per year, which corresponds to nearly 5000 cases for the 11.1 million Italian smokers). This estimate does not take into account the promoter role of Po-210 (cocarcinogen) in the bronchopulmonary cancer and the overall carcinogenic activity of all substances [124].

You would need to know that the rate of incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers is 20 %. Therefore 10,000 never smokers would have an incident rate of about 2000 / 10,000 never smokers. So saying that Polonium 210 is estimated to cause 4 per 10,000 is ridiculously low and would not even show up as a blip.

Finally, since people fear everything that is radioactive, perhaps it would be useful to create an adequate information campaign so as to enable and accelerate smokers’ motivational pathways and increase the efficacy of anti-smoking programs [156].

The number one false scientific information taught to evey school kid, in my opinion, is the Bohr Model of the atom.

It is 100% false...but they continue to teach it because they think it is a good "introduction" to the atom...even though it is completely incorrect. For some reason, the thinking is that it is better to teach kids a completely incorrect model of the atom, because it is easy to understand, than to not teach them at all.

And that is why we have the majority of people walking around thinking atoms look like small solar systems with electrons orbiting the nucleus in perfect little circles. Not to mention that thier thinking of the solar system as perfect circles is wrong also.

reply to post by WiseThinker


Well, the original research was correct in it's implication that different areas of the tongue have more taste buds than others. The guy who wrote the book later twisted the research all out of perspective to make the book more appealing. The scientist who researched it later verified the original findings it appears and discredited the myth created by the book.

Misinterpretations of research are very common. There are many reasons for the misinterpretations but the main reasons are for recognition/prestige, monetary gain, and evidence to back a theory. When used to back a theory the evidence may be misused but the theory is actually right though, this I find weird sometimes. I have uncovered this a few time when referencing evidence used to substantiate a theory. Trouble is the theory then has exclusions that apply, if they would have searched around they would have found a better piece of evidence many times. I stumble upon seemingly unrelated things all the time and try to understand how they fit together. Sometimes these misinterpretations wind up many layers deep and require extensive research to decipher the misconception. It's like playing Columbo or Monk.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
The number one false scientific information taught to evey school kid, in my opinion, is the Bohr Model of the atom.

It is 100% false...but they continue to teach it because they think it is a good "introduction" to the atom...even though it is completely incorrect. For some reason, the thinking is that it is better to teach kids a completely incorrect model of the atom, because it is easy to understand, than to not teach them at all.

And that is why we have the majority of people walking around thinking atoms look like small solar systems with electrons orbiting the nucleus in perfect little circles. Not to mention that thier thinking of the solar system as perfect circles is wrong also.

I never knew that about the atom! If they teach wrong science at the smallest basic level (atom)
How do they expect us when we're older to understand the big picture?
Atoms are the basics of physical matter. Positive negative, ying yang, etc....
Then when complex science steps in we have no concept of the reality, so we take "there" word for what it is.
And what do we get, ignorant innocent people that take "their" word for science/reality.

And people say we're the most advanced species in the universe.

My pet peeve is that they teach or imply that water is H2O. If you make pure H2O I doubt if it lasts an instant. It will pull something out of the glass or air and not be pure. H2O is the skeleton of water and automatically tries by it's nature to grab things to build a bigger molecule. The boiling point of water that is in nature varies also, only pure water boils at the tested rate. Minerals or ions change this boiling point and also change the freezing point. The research on the real freezing point of water that is being done now is very interesting. At least some scientists are questioning this today, that is good. It should be taught that H2O is the skeleton of water and that it rarely exists in nature. I may be getting a little picky but then again I don't like deceptions.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Interesting perspective GogoVicMorrow

Its interesting that you accept that smoking is the number 1 CAUSE of lung cancer, even though there is no plausible biological pathway which would prove a cause. But you accept that HPV has a plausible biological pathway.

I thought that was very interesting until I saw that you got your "fact" from an anti-tobacco fact sheet instead of real research.

lungcancer.about.com...

Try reading actual studies, like this one:

Among the lung-cancer-free controls, researchers found a low prevalence of antibodies to all types of HPV tested. In lung cancer patients, antibodies to proteins in eight types of high-risk HPV were significantly increased. Smoking, which is the strongest risk factor for lung cancer, did not account for this effect. The results were consistent in current smokers, former smokers and those who never smoked.

www.sciencedaily.com...

The presence of the HPV virus in lung cancers was consistent across the board regardless of smoking status.

www.hopkinsmedicine.org...

Here is a study showing HPV infection present in 80 % of head and neck cancers.

HPV is thought to cause 70 % of cervical cancers

Another study showing HPV is present in 80 % of anal cancers

All of these areas have certain characteristics in common. They open to the outside and they are all covered with mucous membranes. The lungs are also open to the outside and covered with mucous membrane but somehow you believe that only 20 % of lung cancers are caused by HPV?

here is a study where they found HPV in 80 % of lung cancers in Okinawa.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Most of the research pertaining to HPV and lung cancer has been done in Asia. They just don't dare do it here!

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by thepupils

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
The number one false scientific information taught to evey school kid, in my opinion, is the Bohr Model of the atom.

It is 100% false...but they continue to teach it because they think it is a good "introduction" to the atom...even though it is completely incorrect. For some reason, the thinking is that it is better to teach kids a completely incorrect model of the atom, because it is easy to understand, than to not teach them at all.

And that is why we have the majority of people walking around thinking atoms look like small solar systems with electrons orbiting the nucleus in perfect little circles. Not to mention that thier thinking of the solar system as perfect circles is wrong also.

I never knew that about the atom! If they teach wrong science at the smallest basic level (atom)
How do they expect us when we're older to understand the big picture?
Atoms are the basics of physical matter. Positive negative, ying yang, etc....
Then when complex science steps in we have no concept of the reality, so we take "there" word for what it is.
And what do we get, ignorant innocent people that take "their" word for science/reality.

And people say we're the most advanced species in the universe.

Even tho it is not the correct meaning, it is the best way to teach kids how the whole system works. Because introducing to higher level gives you generation of science haters, who hates it because they don't understand it. I learned with Bhor Model when i was young, and i understand how it make sense when i learn the advanced versions. Jump the bandwagon much?

Until they find easier methods, Bhor model does the job fine now, and it leads them into higher understanding. Its like saying since you count with your fingers when you were 6 meaning you would still count with your fingers in university.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Sounds good to me. I find a lot of good research articles in other countries. The Pharma companies don't control the information there. Our government doesn't recognize many meds from other countries or accept their research unless proven here and patented in the USA. We can get anything else we want from China though as long as a US based company sponsors it's import..

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


There are a lot of misconceptions that are taught in every field, lol.

Paul Revere wasn't the only rider, there were 5, and no one yelled that the British were coming. That one drives me crazy too.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks

We now know that most, if not all, oral and throat cancers are CAUSED by the HPV virus. We also now know that 25 - 80 % of lung cancers are also CAUSED by the HPV virus.

Well, which is it? I mean... to say 20 - 25% is one thing, but to say a 55% give or take is quite the stretch. Everything I've seen says 25% of Lung Cancer patients also have HPV.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I think your math and numbers are absolutely horrendous. Do you have sources that support what your claiming here?

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Sorry I didn't see your question till just now.

Here is study showing that 79 % of lung cancer patients in Okinawa had the HPV Virus

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Here is another from Beijing that came in at 55 %

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

here is one from Finland at 35 %

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

This is one describing the implication of so-called "low-risk" hpv 6 and 11inducing malignancies

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

You see - the problem here is that there more than a few types of HPV. They are really just learning how to find them now.

This information is from an HPV support network

thehpvsupportnetwork.blogspot.ca...

Cervical cancer was the first cancer identified in 1983 as being the result of HPV (HPV16). The connection was only strengthened in 1984 when a second strain of HPV (HPV18) was also identified as the cause of cervical cancer. Between the two strains alone, they combine to account for approximately 70 percent of all cervical cancers. Various other strains of HPV make up the difference bringing the total of all cervical cancers attributed to HPV to 99.9 percent.

Notice how it took a couple of decades to find and classify all the strains of HPV that caused cervical cancer until it became known that HPV?

They are still in the process of finding all the strains of HPV that cause lung cancers.

in this discussion of HPV and oral pharageal cancers, you will find that same wild estimates (between 45 % and 100 %) of HPV having caused the cancer.

wwwnc.cdc.gov...

This completely explains why oral pharangeal cancers have been increasing in the face of decreased prevalence of smoking.

www.independent.co.uk...
So however, will the anti-smoking campaign justify its existance once people realize that the connection between HPV and lung cancer has been known since 1985?

What happens on the day that BIG PHARMA announces that it now has a vaccine to prevent lung cancer?
Tired of Control Freaks.