The definition of a scientific resource is a RESOURCE with scientific observations and reporting that is peer reviewed or has some official review process like a university website with scholars writing the information that is verified by other scholars.

It's the review process by people who are authorities on the topic that make that distinction. Scholars. Other scientist.

A comment on social media and anecdotal websites hosting forums is not a scientific resource. It's opinions.

As I said earlier. Something doesn't have to be scientifically validated to be true or real.

But it does have to be science to be science.

More specifically, experiments must use the scientific method and specific research statistic computations to support hypotheses which then are used to create theories.

Erowid does not have a review process where a senior scientist reviews any of the things posted on it.

Neither does Lemmy or faceb9ok,

Why is review so important?

Because humans are biased and our own subjective interpretation of patterns and events is not objective.

Just to illustrate some of the ways our thinking and interpretation of events is flawed, see cognitive biases on wikipedia.

And there are way more than these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

And have a look at memory errors while you are at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_error

Oh and the best one. Bias blind sight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot

None of us, and I mean literally no one, is immune from these problems. Not me. Not you.

It's why the only way we know anything for sure is through scientific methods of investigation. And even those aren't full proof against bias.

I'm sorry that you don't like the very basic explanation I gave of the properties of a drug you like. Some how that's offensive to you.

I don't know what to tell you.

I did get a few minor facts mixed up and i corrected them in the text. I Left in the original text and I crossed it out so that people could see I made a mistake and fixed it. Nothing I said was a huge big mistake about the drug. I misquoted the size of the tabs (10mm vs 5mm) and I was mistaken about it being neutralized in the stomach.

My gawd. Lock me up and send me a $500 fine. Jesus.

Maybe reflect on why it's so important to you that your narrative of what the drug is, is being attacked from simple facts about how it works.

Why do you care how it works ? Why are you so invested in this? Why does it make you angry when someone explains the drug from a scientific perspective ?

If you don't want to hear the scientific perspective then just ignore it.

It's what a lot of people do.