9 ms·

How the sugar industry shaped key government research about your teeth

149 points by ern 12y ago

mcbetz 12y ago
Listening excessively to one lobby group is as hazardous as eating excessively exactly one staple - be it sugar or wheat. Moderation is important, both in politics and nutrition.
- pizza234 12y ago
  In general, not so simple. The industry shapes the culture, but worse, the law and the market. Very typical example is the corn lobby group, whose result on the market is to cause junk food to be much cheaper than nutritious food, thanks to perverse subsidization. In turn this makes much more difficult for a relatively large part of the population to eat correctly - practically difficult.
  - mcbetz 12y ago
    Very good elaboration. Most of the times, objective science has way fewer resources to spread the word than industry groups. One can only imagine how our society would look like if power and money was distributed more evenly and information was freely available to anyone.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      Information is pretty much freely available to everyone already. The value of that information, however, has dropped to near-zero from the point of view of uninitiated - as various groups with agendas publish lies which then get regurgitated by clueless people, we have enough freely available information on any topic to confirm any biases you started with. So for example, you love GMOs because they're cool and futuristic. So here, read that study on this new plant that is safe and abundant in vitamins and can save a million of children a year from blindness. Or maybe, you hate GMOs because they're unnatural and a product of humans messing up with what God has perfectly made - ok, here, have those 10 papers that have words "GMO", "rats" and "cancer" in them. What we need is a system that doesn't incentivize people to lie and cheat as much as the current does.
  - crusso 12y ago
    The industry shapes the culture, but worse, the law and the market. As you say, it's not so simple. Industry is just a part of a cycle of perversion of the goal of effective government. Industry isn't forcing politicians to create or execute bad legislation. Industry isn't forcing voters to ignore the voting records of politicians who demonstrate poor integrity. Ultimately, the driver of everything in a democratic republic is the voter.
    - chongli 12y ago
      Even more fundamental than the voter is information itself. Voters would be the ultimate drivers if they had perfect information. Since they do not, their choices are limited by their access to information (as well as their ability to process it).
      - crusso 12y ago
        Well, we don't have perfect information - but I think it's pretty obvious that we have abundant information that voters don't avail themselves of. The drive to use even the information available seems to be lacking.
    - ArkyBeagle 12y ago
      You seem to be reinventing "median voter theory", which got rebadged "public choice theory", which nearly nobody attests to in public. In the US at least, government was designed to be ineffective and deadlock-prone. When there was a monoculture, individual legislators (say, Tip O'Neil) bucked the central tendency to ... do whatever it is we do now out of a sense of duty and pragmatism. And as the monoculture faded, so did that. As the culture got noisier, you had to yell louder. Once you ( you public servant ) get used to living without dignity and a sense of gravitas, it just gets easier... eventually the system selects for the lack of those. There's much more money in it now, and money makes people take less risk. So you get cookie cutter.
      - crusso 12y ago
        No, you constructed a straw man. I didn't claim that voters got what the median wants. I claimed that the main driver in the complex cycle of perversion of the function of government is the bad choices of voters. Without an informed citizenry that can make solid election choices, even the best government framework is doomed to fail because it will be populated with politicians who are unable or unwilling to do the jobs they were elected to do.
  - ArkyBeagle 12y ago
    This is one of the more bizarre artifacts of our system. And it took the concentrated efforts of almost everyone involved to make it this way. But in a way , cheaper is always better. Nutritious food is also cheap, relatively, unless the "nutritiousness" of it is also a price differentiator. Frozen veggies are pretty easy to get, IMO - but it seems there usually has to be a largish supermarket to buy them in. And that implies a finance model, which implies a governance structure, which in the end means more dependence in suppliers being "standard". Junk food makers probably can spend more bandwidth on being "standard" and less on "quality". If I had to describe Whole Foods model I would say that it intentionally "violates" this tendency. I have never been to a Trader Joes, and I usually use a mix of WalMart and the dominant local chain - Publix when I lived in Florida. Whole Foods is kinda creepy to me to shop in. I can't say exactly why.
    - mhb 12y ago
      Whole Foods is kinda creepy to me to shop in. I can't say exactly why. Namaste: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-maclean/surviving-whole-foods_b_3895583.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-maclean/surviving-whole-...
      - logfromblammo 12y ago
        For me, it's the paradoxical idea that not only do some dirty hippies have enough money to shop there, but also that there are enough of them to actually keep the company in business. Nationwide.
    - pizza234 12y ago
      > But in a way , cheaper is always better. Nutritious food is also cheap, relatively, unless the "nutritiousness" of it is also a price differentiator. Well, to get things into perspective, one needs to consider a few things. We start from the fact that there is a disproportionate amount of people living on food stamps, which will be effectively forced to buy junk food. Then we factor in that junk food is harmful (not just unhealthy or less nutritious). Finally, we correlate with a huge amount of people having disease which are linked to unhealthy lifestyles, primarily food-related (60% obese people is the very general guideline given). I see a very strong thread here. Food is not just calories, it's a complex mix of things - the way the industry is working, in a way, it's giving cheaper food by stripping that mix of things; this doesn't match the idea of "making food cheaper" in a generic way. (Note that I'm strongly identifying junk food with processed food in the logic).
  - refurb 12y ago
    If I follow your logic right, you're saying that offering people a cheaper (and less nutritious) alternative prevents them from buying healthy food?
    - ccvannorman 12y ago
      At scale, I would agree with this, although I wouldn't say "prevents", I would say "discourages". You should definitely notice large effects at scale in any economy, in this case, people definitely do buy more junk food because it's cheaper (I even do this, and I prefer healthy foods when possible! But at your typical gas station, junk:healthy::10:1, which is not quite the same problem)
      - refurb 12y ago
        vegatables, and fruit to a lesser extend, is much cheaper than junk food. Why isn't that encouraging healthy eating? I believe junk food is like smoking. Everyone knows it's not a healthy choise, but they do it anyways. People are choosing to eat unhealthy food because they want to, it tastes good.
        task_queue 12y ago
        That's a nice belief, but evidence shows people choose junk food because of availability, price, associated preparation time and a lack of nutritional education. The further down the income ladder you go the more those factors come into play rather than the simplistic "it tastes good" conclusion.
        refurb 12y ago
        evidence shows people choose junk food because of availability, price, associated preparation time and a lack of nutritional education. Oh I believe it. I would just phrase it as: people take the easy way out when it comes to eating. They prefer something that is front of them, cheap and they don't need to cook. You can't ignore personal responsibility. Plenty of poor folks eat health meals.
  - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
    > The industry shapes the culture, but worse, the law and the market. Any society that wants to remain sane and viable over the long term needs powerful feedback loops to counteract this effect.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Very typical example is the corn lobby group, whose result on the market is to cause junk food to be much cheaper than nutritious food Junk food is cheap because it is engineered to be cheap (particularly, to have a long shelf-life to avoid losses which drive up the price of what actually does get sold to the customer to subsidize the costs of what doesn't do to losses.) The effect of the corn lobby and the resulting subsidization isn't to make junk food cheaper than nutritious food so much as to encourage the use of corn products in junk food by making corn products cheap compared to other alternatives to corn products for making junk food.
- lgp171188 12y ago
  Yes, totally agree with that. I am a type-1 diabetic and I eat everything in moderation and I am absolutely healthy. :)
jacobolus 12y ago
Has anyone here closely investigated the research that led to recommendations to brush teeth after every meal or at least two times a day, as e.g. suggested on toothpaste containers, and to floss frequently, etc.? Any idea how well designed / how complete the relevant studies were? Have there been more recent improved studies? In the last few years I’ve heard second-hand some alternative recommendations to brush before meals rather than after, but I haven’t ever done my own research review. I’ve long suspected that a good diet + brushing the teeth very carefully a few times per week would be more effective than drinking soda and sweet and starchy foods + brushing after every meal, just based anecdotally on how my own teeth feel to my tongue depending on my diet and toothbrushing frequency.
- Alex3917 12y ago
  > Has anyone here closely investigated the research that led to recommendations to brush teeth after every meal or at least two times a day, as e.g. suggested on toothpaste containers, and to floss frequently, etc.? http://www.cochrane.org/CD009857/ORAL_cleaning-between-the-teeth-using-interdental-brushes-for-the-prevention-and-control-of-gum-diseases-and-tooth-decay-in-adults-_ http://www.cochrane.org/CD009857/ORAL_cleaning-between-the-t... http://www.cochrane.org/CD008829/ORAL_flossing-to-reduce-gum-disease-and-tooth-decay http://www.cochrane.org/CD008829/ORAL_flossing-to-reduce-gum... http://www.cochrane.org/CD002281/ORAL_poweredelectric-toothbrushes-compared-to-manual-toothbrushes-for-maintaining-oral-health http://www.cochrane.org/CD002281/ORAL_poweredelectric-toothb...
  - abandonliberty 12y ago
    Very interesting, because we teach dental hygienists that flossing + brushing is vital, while powered toothbrushes are for those with dexterity issues (children, elderly, or otherwise). Mind you, brushing and flossing studies have less moral hazard. >There is some very low-quality evidence that using interdental brushes plus toothbrushing is more beneficial than toothbrushing alone for plaque and gingivitis at one month. There is also low-quality evidence that using interdental brushes reduces gingivitis (gum inflammation) by 52% when compared with flossing at one month. There was insufficient evidence to claim a benefit for either interdental brushing or flossing for plaque. >There is some evidence from twelve studies that flossing in addition to toothbrushing reduces gingivitis compared to toothbrushing alone. There is weak, very unreliable evidence from 10 studies that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 and 3 months. No studies reported the effectiveness of flossing plus toothbrushing for preventing dental caries. >The evidence produced shows benefits in using a powered toothbrush when compared with a manual toothbrush. There was an 11% reduction in plaque at one to three months of use, and a 21% reduction in plaque when assessed after three months of use. For gingivitis, there was a 6% reduction at one to three months of use and an 11% reduction when assessed after three months of use.
bcg1 12y ago
Sort of reminds me of Huxley's "Brave New World" when they traumatized the young children to recoil at nature so that when they grow up they never want to take trips out to the country, and so that they would spend all of their money on expensive sports equipment for recreation instead.
- mironathetin 12y ago
  yes, we are already there. And instead of reading books like that one, we entertain ourselves with tv series.
  - jonlucc 12y ago
    Not me, I watch the travel channel so I can see the beautiful outdoors. Oh...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
abandonliberty 12y ago
A similar thing happened with the red meat industry. From the first food pyramid evidence was already showing intake should be minimized, but the lobby fought back, and the pyramid was changed. You will notice that the current food plate still carefully avoids saying anything at all about red meat: http://www.choosemyplate.gov/food-groups/protein-foods.html http://www.choosemyplate.gov/food-groups/protein-foods.html Compare & contrast against the evidence-supported http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-plate/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-p...
- gmarx 12y ago
  You implicitly assume that the research that shows red meat is bad for you is correct.
  - barking-chicken 12y ago
    You are absolutely right. There was a lot of manipulation that went on with the food pyramid, but a lot of studies in the last 5 years have shown that the relationship that we once thought existed (red meat=bad) is false. There are also well validated studies showing that the nutrition science that has been taught for the last few decades about our relationship with sugar, fat, food in general, and how cholesterol affects our bodies is wrong. Dr. Peter Attia's "The Eating Academy" (http://eatingacademy.com/ http://eatingacademy.com/) is a great place to learn more about what we are finding out about how certain foods actually affect out bodies.
  - figure8 12y ago
    Interesting research in this direction is making progress, helping to explain WHY red meat may be dangerous: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141229152226.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141229152226.ht...
    - gmarx 12y ago
      Sure, it may be dangerous. Here's the thing- I've been around for a while and read a lot of stuff in the mainstream media about which combinations of foods will kill you and which will make you immortal. As these have changed over the years and as I have failed to see convincing evidence in the medical literature I have concluded that people have a strong urge to believe that doing something mildly unpleasant (not eating something delicious) now can somehow prevent much worse things in the future. Its the same mechanism and magical thinking that inspired our ancestors to sacrifice goats to appease the gods and assure a great harvest. Wrapping the explanation in scientific jargon is just the latest iteration of a priest in shiny robes.

149 points by ern 12y ago

Listening excessively to one lobby group is as hazardous as eating excessively exactly one staple - be it sugar or wheat. Moderation is important, both in politics and nutrition.

pizza234 12y ago
In general, not so simple. The industry shapes the culture, but worse, the law and the market. Very typical example is the corn lobby group, whose result on the market is to cause junk food to be much cheaper than nutritious food, thanks to perverse subsidization. In turn this makes much more difficult for a relatively large part of the population to eat correctly - practically difficult.
- mcbetz 12y ago
  Very good elaboration. Most of the times, objective science has way fewer resources to spread the word than industry groups. One can only imagine how our society would look like if power and money was distributed more evenly and information was freely available to anyone.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Information is pretty much freely available to everyone already. The value of that information, however, has dropped to near-zero from the point of view of uninitiated - as various groups with agendas publish lies which then get regurgitated by clueless people, we have enough freely available information on any topic to confirm any biases you started with. So for example, you love GMOs because they're cool and futuristic. So here, read that study on this new plant that is safe and abundant in vitamins and can save a million of children a year from blindness. Or maybe, you hate GMOs because they're unnatural and a product of humans messing up with what God has perfectly made - ok, here, have those 10 papers that have words "GMO", "rats" and "cancer" in them. What we need is a system that doesn't incentivize people to lie and cheat as much as the current does.
- crusso 12y ago
  The industry shapes the culture, but worse, the law and the market. As you say, it's not so simple. Industry is just a part of a cycle of perversion of the goal of effective government. Industry isn't forcing politicians to create or execute bad legislation. Industry isn't forcing voters to ignore the voting records of politicians who demonstrate poor integrity. Ultimately, the driver of everything in a democratic republic is the voter.
  - chongli 12y ago
    Even more fundamental than the voter is information itself. Voters would be the ultimate drivers if they had perfect information. Since they do not, their choices are limited by their access to information (as well as their ability to process it).
    - crusso 12y ago
      Well, we don't have perfect information - but I think it's pretty obvious that we have abundant information that voters don't avail themselves of. The drive to use even the information available seems to be lacking.
  - ArkyBeagle 12y ago
    You seem to be reinventing "median voter theory", which got rebadged "public choice theory", which nearly nobody attests to in public. In the US at least, government was designed to be ineffective and deadlock-prone. When there was a monoculture, individual legislators (say, Tip O'Neil) bucked the central tendency to ... do whatever it is we do now out of a sense of duty and pragmatism. And as the monoculture faded, so did that. As the culture got noisier, you had to yell louder. Once you ( you public servant ) get used to living without dignity and a sense of gravitas, it just gets easier... eventually the system selects for the lack of those. There's much more money in it now, and money makes people take less risk. So you get cookie cutter.
    - crusso 12y ago
      No, you constructed a straw man. I didn't claim that voters got what the median wants. I claimed that the main driver in the complex cycle of perversion of the function of government is the bad choices of voters. Without an informed citizenry that can make solid election choices, even the best government framework is doomed to fail because it will be populated with politicians who are unable or unwilling to do the jobs they were elected to do.
- ArkyBeagle 12y ago
  This is one of the more bizarre artifacts of our system. And it took the concentrated efforts of almost everyone involved to make it this way. But in a way , cheaper is always better. Nutritious food is also cheap, relatively, unless the "nutritiousness" of it is also a price differentiator. Frozen veggies are pretty easy to get, IMO - but it seems there usually has to be a largish supermarket to buy them in. And that implies a finance model, which implies a governance structure, which in the end means more dependence in suppliers being "standard". Junk food makers probably can spend more bandwidth on being "standard" and less on "quality". If I had to describe Whole Foods model I would say that it intentionally "violates" this tendency. I have never been to a Trader Joes, and I usually use a mix of WalMart and the dominant local chain - Publix when I lived in Florida. Whole Foods is kinda creepy to me to shop in. I can't say exactly why.
  - mhb 12y ago
    Whole Foods is kinda creepy to me to shop in. I can't say exactly why. Namaste: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-maclean/surviving-whole-foods_b_3895583.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-maclean/surviving-whole-...
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
      For me, it's the paradoxical idea that not only do some dirty hippies have enough money to shop there, but also that there are enough of them to actually keep the company in business. Nationwide.
  - pizza234 12y ago
    > But in a way , cheaper is always better. Nutritious food is also cheap, relatively, unless the "nutritiousness" of it is also a price differentiator. Well, to get things into perspective, one needs to consider a few things. We start from the fact that there is a disproportionate amount of people living on food stamps, which will be effectively forced to buy junk food. Then we factor in that junk food is harmful (not just unhealthy or less nutritious). Finally, we correlate with a huge amount of people having disease which are linked to unhealthy lifestyles, primarily food-related (60% obese people is the very general guideline given). I see a very strong thread here. Food is not just calories, it's a complex mix of things - the way the industry is working, in a way, it's giving cheaper food by stripping that mix of things; this doesn't match the idea of "making food cheaper" in a generic way. (Note that I'm strongly identifying junk food with processed food in the logic).
- refurb 12y ago
  If I follow your logic right, you're saying that offering people a cheaper (and less nutritious) alternative prevents them from buying healthy food?
  - ccvannorman 12y ago
    At scale, I would agree with this, although I wouldn't say "prevents", I would say "discourages". You should definitely notice large effects at scale in any economy, in this case, people definitely do buy more junk food because it's cheaper (I even do this, and I prefer healthy foods when possible! But at your typical gas station, junk:healthy::10:1, which is not quite the same problem)
    - refurb 12y ago
      vegatables, and fruit to a lesser extend, is much cheaper than junk food. Why isn't that encouraging healthy eating? I believe junk food is like smoking. Everyone knows it's not a healthy choise, but they do it anyways. People are choosing to eat unhealthy food because they want to, it tastes good.
      - task_queue 12y ago
        That's a nice belief, but evidence shows people choose junk food because of availability, price, associated preparation time and a lack of nutritional education. The further down the income ladder you go the more those factors come into play rather than the simplistic "it tastes good" conclusion.
        refurb 12y ago
        evidence shows people choose junk food because of availability, price, associated preparation time and a lack of nutritional education. Oh I believe it. I would just phrase it as: people take the easy way out when it comes to eating. They prefer something that is front of them, cheap and they don't need to cook. You can't ignore personal responsibility. Plenty of poor folks eat health meals.
- Florin_Andrei 12y ago
  > The industry shapes the culture, but worse, the law and the market. Any society that wants to remain sane and viable over the long term needs powerful feedback loops to counteract this effect.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Very typical example is the corn lobby group, whose result on the market is to cause junk food to be much cheaper than nutritious food Junk food is cheap because it is engineered to be cheap (particularly, to have a long shelf-life to avoid losses which drive up the price of what actually does get sold to the customer to subsidize the costs of what doesn't do to losses.) The effect of the corn lobby and the resulting subsidization isn't to make junk food cheaper than nutritious food so much as to encourage the use of corn products in junk food by making corn products cheap compared to other alternatives to corn products for making junk food.
lgp171188 12y ago
Yes, totally agree with that. I am a type-1 diabetic and I eat everything in moderation and I am absolutely healthy. :)

jacobolus 12y ago

Has anyone here closely investigated the research that led to recommendations to brush teeth after every meal or at least two times a day, as e.g. suggested on toothpaste containers, and to floss frequently, etc.? Any idea how well designed / how complete the relevant studies were? Have there been more recent improved studies? In the last few years I’ve heard second-hand some alternative recommendations to brush before meals rather than after, but I haven’t ever done my own research review. I’ve long suspected that a good diet + brushing the teeth very carefully a few times per week would be more effective than drinking soda and sweet and starchy foods + brushing after every meal, just based anecdotally on how my own teeth feel to my tongue depending on my diet and toothbrushing frequency.

Alex3917 12y ago
> Has anyone here closely investigated the research that led to recommendations to brush teeth after every meal or at least two times a day, as e.g. suggested on toothpaste containers, and to floss frequently, etc.? http://www.cochrane.org/CD009857/ORAL_cleaning-between-the-teeth-using-interdental-brushes-for-the-prevention-and-control-of-gum-diseases-and-tooth-decay-in-adults-_ http://www.cochrane.org/CD009857/ORAL_cleaning-between-the-t... http://www.cochrane.org/CD008829/ORAL_flossing-to-reduce-gum-disease-and-tooth-decay http://www.cochrane.org/CD008829/ORAL_flossing-to-reduce-gum... http://www.cochrane.org/CD002281/ORAL_poweredelectric-toothbrushes-compared-to-manual-toothbrushes-for-maintaining-oral-health http://www.cochrane.org/CD002281/ORAL_poweredelectric-toothb...
- abandonliberty 12y ago
  Very interesting, because we teach dental hygienists that flossing + brushing is vital, while powered toothbrushes are for those with dexterity issues (children, elderly, or otherwise). Mind you, brushing and flossing studies have less moral hazard. >There is some very low-quality evidence that using interdental brushes plus toothbrushing is more beneficial than toothbrushing alone for plaque and gingivitis at one month. There is also low-quality evidence that using interdental brushes reduces gingivitis (gum inflammation) by 52% when compared with flossing at one month. There was insufficient evidence to claim a benefit for either interdental brushing or flossing for plaque. >There is some evidence from twelve studies that flossing in addition to toothbrushing reduces gingivitis compared to toothbrushing alone. There is weak, very unreliable evidence from 10 studies that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 and 3 months. No studies reported the effectiveness of flossing plus toothbrushing for preventing dental caries. >The evidence produced shows benefits in using a powered toothbrush when compared with a manual toothbrush. There was an 11% reduction in plaque at one to three months of use, and a 21% reduction in plaque when assessed after three months of use. For gingivitis, there was a 6% reduction at one to three months of use and an 11% reduction when assessed after three months of use.

bcg1 12y ago

Sort of reminds me of Huxley's "Brave New World" when they traumatized the young children to recoil at nature so that when they grow up they never want to take trips out to the country, and so that they would spend all of their money on expensive sports equipment for recreation instead.

mironathetin 12y ago
yes, we are already there. And instead of reading books like that one, we entertain ourselves with tv series.
- jonlucc 12y ago
  Not me, I watch the travel channel so I can see the beautiful outdoors. Oh...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

abandonliberty 12y ago

A similar thing happened with the red meat industry. From the first food pyramid evidence was already showing intake should be minimized, but the lobby fought back, and the pyramid was changed. You will notice that the current food plate still carefully avoids saying anything at all about red meat: http://www.choosemyplate.gov/food-groups/protein-foods.html http://www.choosemyplate.gov/food-groups/protein-foods.html Compare & contrast against the evidence-supported http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-plate/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-p...

gmarx 12y ago
You implicitly assume that the research that shows red meat is bad for you is correct.
- barking-chicken 12y ago
  You are absolutely right. There was a lot of manipulation that went on with the food pyramid, but a lot of studies in the last 5 years have shown that the relationship that we once thought existed (red meat=bad) is false. There are also well validated studies showing that the nutrition science that has been taught for the last few decades about our relationship with sugar, fat, food in general, and how cholesterol affects our bodies is wrong. Dr. Peter Attia's "The Eating Academy" (http://eatingacademy.com/ http://eatingacademy.com/) is a great place to learn more about what we are finding out about how certain foods actually affect out bodies.
- figure8 12y ago
  Interesting research in this direction is making progress, helping to explain WHY red meat may be dangerous: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141229152226.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141229152226.ht...
  - gmarx 12y ago
    Sure, it may be dangerous. Here's the thing- I've been around for a while and read a lot of stuff in the mainstream media about which combinations of foods will kill you and which will make you immortal. As these have changed over the years and as I have failed to see convincing evidence in the medical literature I have concluded that people have a strong urge to believe that doing something mildly unpleasant (not eating something delicious) now can somehow prevent much worse things in the future. Its the same mechanism and magical thinking that inspired our ancestors to sacrifice goats to appease the gods and assure a great harvest. Wrapping the explanation in scientific jargon is just the latest iteration of a priest in shiny robes.