I really dislike that mental model. I dislike the entire concept of "we don't really know what is going on, so we will claim your body is merely attacking itself for no real reason". I cannot prove it wrong, but I believe it to be wrong. For my edification, can you list some of the specific conditions which are viewed as "auto-immune disorders" caused by a "strong" immune system?
Why is difficult to accept that a system that evolved to attack certain cells can misidentify targets, especially if the real targets have selective pressures to mimic friendly cells?
It happens all the time in other systems (friendly fire, false positives in anti-virus-software)
They say that about my condition. It doesn't explain what is going on. If it were accurate, it should be actionable.
They say people with CF "overproduce" mucus and are "drowning in their own mucus". It isn't true. They are drowning in phlegm because they underproduce healthy mucus and become highly infected. Unlike skin, mucus membranes do not keep out infection when dry. One study found people with CF produce too little mucus, yet this crazy idea persists, even though it isn't logical and doesn't fit the facts.
Well maybe your specific condition is more complex, but I have a pollen allergy and antihistamine alleviates the symptoms. You didn't address the general mechanism at all.
Antihistamines alleviate the symptoms. They do not resolve the underlying problem. Allergies indicate some overload on the system. Removing other (chemical/biological) stressors on the system can help. So can nutritional support for the adrenals and thyroid. And if you need nutritional support, that is a weakness in the system, not evidence of an overly strong immune system. An allergy is a reaction to an outside source. I do not see how it makes sense to call reaction to an outside source an auto-immune disease. I think that is a bad mental model for the problem and actively interferes with finding real solutions which do more than merely alleviate the symptoms.
I am sorry that I don't know how to make my case in the format you feel it needs to be made in. That is a problem space I am working on resolving. But I did not get well in order to impress anyone or prove anything. I did it to get my life back. Being good at doing something does not automatically make one good at explaining it.
Nothing you state is in contradiction to the hypothesis that my symptoms are caused by the immune system misidentifying targets. Stressors or nutrition might have something to do with it, they might not. Maybe it's excessive hygiene and lack of exposure to certain infectious agents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis)
The proper treatment of the root cause is allergen immunotherapy, which completely consistent with the false-target hypothesis. I'm just too lazy to do it and I'm fine with treating the symptoms or suffering through them for a few weeks a year.
"I dislike the entire concept of "we don't really know what is going on, so we will claim your body is merely attacking itself for no real reason". "
Likely because you have an unrealistic expectation for how the immune system actually works. One that works "too well" is not advantageous. "No real reason" is silly, because that is the job of the immune system, to attack invaders. If it misidentifies your own systems as invasive, it will attack your own systems. The mechanism is not in question, how to treat it best is.
And the conclusion about how to treat it will be strongly shaped by the mental models framing the inquiry. A lot of our current mental models are actively hostile to the body. There have been articles posted to HN about the fact that most medical research is highly biased from the get go to confirm the researcher's pre-existing bias.
"A lot of our current mental models are actively hostile to the body."
Because plenty of the conditions are due to the body's hostility to itself, or because what may kill invaders will also injure the body.
There are rarely, if ever cure-alls that do not affect the body's normal function, and assuming that the body's function is at all times beneficial is a mistake, a flaw in your "alternate" models.
The body can generally take care of itself, but does not always, in every person and situation. We are not perfect beings and clinging to those assumptions hurts humanity more than any flaw in the dominant model.
Reform is a wonderful, necessary goal. Tossing aside evidence-based medicine to do so is utterly foolish.
Your mental model is that it is due to the body's hostility to itself. You do not need to defend that because that is a generally accepted model. It is still a mental model, which is distinct from reality. Yet mental models also shape reality. How we perceive or frame something influences how we address it.
I am not saying nothing ever goes wrong or that we are perfect beings. Nor am I clinging to any assumptions.