Originally Posted by insanecoder
Meanwhile so if both sides have no concrete evidence to prove their side's argument, you fall back on experiential data
Experieential data being only valid from those who actually experienced the product (ie.. USED it)
Right off then the naysayers's inputs need to be negated as theyve no experience with the product
Unfortunately, that's not even experimental data, but one data point. It's anecdotal. The average user doesn't have the credentials or time to properly evaluate the one data point. Even if he does, it's just that - one data point. I don't need to smoke to know that smoking is bad for me, even if it's no guarantee of cancer or lung disease.
Originally Posted by insanecoder
btw what wear-check.. send a link please
With respect to chlorine, additive skepticism works in reverse, too. Just because something is harmful doesn't mean it will kill your engine dead, or noticeably harm it over the time one has it. Nor will the evidence always be obvious, particularly if there are no tear downs. If catastrophic failure is the metric, you're clearly not going to see that each time, or even most times.
As to WearCheck, they are an oil analysis lab. I don't provide non-sponsor sales links, but you can type WearCheck into any search engine and you'll find them very quickly. There are a fair number of oil analyses on this site from WearCheck. They're certainly not unknown to BITOG users.