Is there any other reason to ignore somebody more than when they have used the anecdotal Plebbit-tier logical fallacy fallacy. Anecdotal evidence are the only thing that exists which you don't directly observe and reason yourself. Even those things you reason yourself, and even some things you think you see, are often in a structure of assumptions that are anecdotal. First, the summary of your reasoning is an anecdotal accounting and where your reasoning links to another, this kingpin is another anecdotal account if you haven't flushed out literally the whole of a work. You may think you have reason to trust others summaries, but those are also just anecdotal accounts of their own works. You may even believe your own summaries, but they are nothing more than anecdotes.
Now we turn to the type of evidence a midwit like you prefers as you beg, mouth-open, please youtube debater, please wipe the dribble off your cock here:
EVERY STUDY AT THE DATA COLLECTION LEVEL IS ANECDOTAL.
EVERY ANALYSIS IS AN ANECDOTAL ACCOUNTING.
EVERY ANALYSIS USES SUMMARY OF CONSIDERED FACTS IN A FIELD BUILT ON REASONING OF ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE.
THESE FACTS ARE FOUND MERELY BY OTHERS SAYING CERTAIN ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IS IN AGREEMENT.