There is a huge difference between anecdotal and researched. It may seem 'obvious' or 'common sense' to many, but having it backed up by data is the difference between 'bad air' and 'viruses and bacteria'.
Maybe this will make it easier to understand: Given the replication crisis if you have a single study that contradicts common experience what would you say the probability of the study failing to replicate is vs the probability of common experience being systemically wrong?