There are two separate issues here. First, several of the comments conflate disrespectful and insulting comments with demands that personal observations be supported with scientific data and theory. There is never a reason to be rude in your response to a member's reported experience with a product, whatever you may think of that product. It's reasonable to ask for more information, but to deny the validity of the observation is unacceptable.
Second, many of the comments demanding evidence beyond that offered by the original post are based on fallacious understandings of the scientific enterprise. Underlying many of the comments from the naysayers is the assumption that only things that are well understood are valid scientifically. This simply is not true. Scientific inquiry often begins with anomalous observations, outcomes that are not understood. In these cases, the scientific enterprise is optimized when we strive to find the causal path that explains heretofore mystifying observations, not when we dismiss the observations as invalid. The tendency among the "technocrats" and "scientists" in these discussions to dismiss anomalous observations only serves to constrain scientific progress. Better to accept, evaluate and dismiss after detailed analysis 10 faulty observations than to dismiss without consideration one valid observation. That is, our understanding progresses when we open our minds to possibilities we can't imagine, not when we dismiss out of hand observations of which we don't approve.
May the audio gods grace your ears.