Except you have it backwards. I didn't develop a hypothesis and look for a few internet people to support it. Instead, I did what worked and then tried to understand why it worked.
Thick mucus tends to be poor quality mucus. Mucus is supposed to be viscous. Women self reporting on vaginal mucus also fail to distinguish vaginal "goopiness" from mucus.
This is why i paid attention to anecdotal evidence that lack of vaginal mucus was ruining their sex lives. This was pretty uniformly reported.
It's possible there is some sex worker or fetish club member out there with CF who has sex with multiple men every day and is just not admitting it for done reason. But I spent several years on multiple CF lists and the consesus was CF causes vaginal dryness and this harms women's sex lives.
Your casual dismissal also fails to explain how an excess of mucus causes a compromised immune system. It seems obvious on the face of it that a lack of healthy mucus would be a problem because an important element of our immune system would basically be missing.
Mucus is a gating system. It's like saying "We have too many illegal immigrants in this country because Trump not only built his wall, he made many layers of fencing to go with it, which makes it easier than ever for them to get through. It was better when there was no wall. That did a better job of keeping them out."
(Not intended as political commentary. Hopefully just a readily relatable example of logic fail -- more fencing should not be worse for keeping out unwanted invaders.)
I'm sorry, but no matter what you say, your experience on forums is not going to move my priors very much. Plenty of people hear plenty of things on forums. It's not an efficient way of obtaining reliable scientific knowledge. Every other person has their pet cause where they know better than doctors because they did X or Y and it helped, and they found other people on the internet who agreed with them. It's a common story, and 99.9% of the time it's incorrect.
People don't engage with you on this because it's pointless. You're not going to convince anyone who isn't predisposed to accepting your story, the same way a religious person who claims a divine experience isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already want such a story to be true. In the same way, me telling Paul that he was probably hallucinating on the road to Damascus because he was dehydrated is not going to make him stop preaching the word of god. You don't have good evidence to present, besides hearsay about other internet people's anecdotal experiences. Read that last sentence. That type of thing is about three or four degrees removed from solid evidence. Surely you can understand how unconvincing this is going to be to a disinterested third party?
Emphasizing how very much you are convinced I'm hallucinating is not an explanation for how too much mucus makes more logical sense as an immune system failure than too little. It also cites zero sources.
Also, if you are so disinterested, why waste any time replying to me? If I'm a nutter, downvote, flag and move on. Let someone else talk to me who doesn't think I'm a total waste of their time.
You asked in another part of the thread why people are downvoting and not engaging. I explained why I downvoted, and why, if I hadn't engaged, that would have been. If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question. Also, I find myself congenitally unable to let anti-scientific behavior go without comment when it comes before me.
I don't know enough about CF to know why it works how it works. But I do know enough about science and have enough experience with people with "unique" theories of disease to know that almost always, the prevailing scientific wisdom is less wrong.
I don't think I asked that. I think someone else commented on the downvotes.
I'm just making the observation that you are being incredibly dismissive of me while not actually engaging any of my points.
Probably, I shouldn't have replied to such a dismissive position to begin with. The problem being I mostly get dismissive replies that don't take me seriously, so such a policy would have me not talking on HN at all, basically. And I've got no place else to go. HN is the least worst option for trying to find someone to talk with about such subjects, which happen to be a thing my very life basically depends upon. So I'm a tad stuck.
I don't know enough about CF to know why it works how it works. But I do know enough about science and have enough experience with people with "unique" theories of disease to know that almost always, the prevailing scientific wisdom is less wrong.
This was added after I hit the reply button. The word for this paragraph is "prejudice." You aren't actually qualified to rebut anything I've said, you just assume I'm a nutter because there are a lot of nutters in the world.
Nothing requires you to spend your own time investigating hypotheses you don't find plausible. But if you don't know enough about the subject to engage a conversation like this in some detail, a general statement that most nonexpert hypotheses are wrong really contributes nothing at all to the conversation and is frankly quite tiresome. Silence would, indeed, have been the wiser choice.
Racial profiling is a form of prejudice and racism but fits your accepted logic that it's fine to, for example, infer this black guy is more likely to be a criminal because of the color of his skin because statistics support that.
Anyway, I don't think this is productive. So I think I'll stop here.
> Racial profiling is a form of prejudice and racism but fits your accepted logic that it's fine to, for example, infer this black guy is more likely to be a criminal because of the color of his skin because statistics support that.
We don't do that not because it's irrational [1], but because of the ethical viewpoint that everyone should get a fair shake, regardless of the statistical background of their racial group (or other protected class). Having heterodox scientific views based on anecdata is not a protected class.
[1]: Although it is also irrational, or at least less rational than it appears on the surface. Here is not the place to get into why.
I'm not claiming to be a protected class. I'm merely frustrated at the preponderance of people on the internet who are unqualified to rebut what I'm saying because they don't have sufficient knowledge of the topic, yet are trigger happy about concluding that I'm both wrong and mentally unstable.
My only desire is to be able to engage in meaningful discussion on the topic. Dismissing me as a nutcase when you aren't qualified to engage any of my points is malicious behavior that makes it harder for me to get other people to engage me.
I'm not asking anyone to have faith and believe in me like I'm the next Joan of Arc. I just want to be able to talk about the science behind my health situation in spite of the tremendous social faux pas I have committed of getting healthier instead of politely dropping dead like the world expected me to.
You appear to be missing the nuance of class knowledge vs individual knowledge.
You might discover that 99.9% of Ashkenazi Jews have Eidetic Memory. When you come across one on the street, that knowledge about the group tells you precisely zero things about that individual.
Yeah that was me. And I think you're totally blind to the way that scientific studies only provide additional proof to things that we think we know intuitively. Where do you think a hypothesis comes from? Observation.
Also, the amount of science that gets turned over due to conflation for example. A disease looked like one thing but turned out to be many things that looked similar (cancer). Science is constantly evolving, it's never fixed and finished. Please don't use existing science as a weapon to beat others over the head.
Also, applying your personal observations about people being right and wrong to someone you don't even know. Doctors and scientists aren't a priest class, they've just learned and had more experience than most, and typically only in their own specialties. They are often wrong, being human. And the best ones admit that there is a LOT they don't know.
Also, assuming you know much, or anything, about a topic you probably don't. Don't you think GP has spent more time than your cursory Google search? That you'd act otherwise is illuminating. What exactly do you think qualifies you to disagree here? OP is providing anecdotes, but you're providing... nothing.
Regardless of any of the above, please don't dismiss other people's experiences just because they fall outside some canonical realm (and I'm sorry if this sounds hypocritical after a somewhat rude post) because that's how science turns into religion.
Thick mucus tends to be poor quality mucus. Mucus is supposed to be viscous. Women self reporting on vaginal mucus also fail to distinguish vaginal "goopiness" from mucus.
This is why i paid attention to anecdotal evidence that lack of vaginal mucus was ruining their sex lives. This was pretty uniformly reported.
It's possible there is some sex worker or fetish club member out there with CF who has sex with multiple men every day and is just not admitting it for done reason. But I spent several years on multiple CF lists and the consesus was CF causes vaginal dryness and this harms women's sex lives.
Your casual dismissal also fails to explain how an excess of mucus causes a compromised immune system. It seems obvious on the face of it that a lack of healthy mucus would be a problem because an important element of our immune system would basically be missing.
Mucus is a gating system. It's like saying "We have too many illegal immigrants in this country because Trump not only built his wall, he made many layers of fencing to go with it, which makes it easier than ever for them to get through. It was better when there was no wall. That did a better job of keeping them out."
(Not intended as political commentary. Hopefully just a readily relatable example of logic fail -- more fencing should not be worse for keeping out unwanted invaders.)