Err, well no, not really. It might be classed as anecdotal, hearsay or maybe even OWT, without a proper, verified source.
Seems to be quite a bit of that put forward in the name of scientific data around here. Keep up the good work yr right!
Some confusion of concepts there.
OWTs are the invalid attribution of causation to (usually perfectly valid) observations and (usually statistically valid) data.
I took 1,000 cockroaches and as I put them on the table I yelled 'run!' I observed that they all ran.
I took the same cockroaches, pulled their legs off, put them on the table and yelled 'run!' I observed that none of them ran.
Statistically valid data and perfectly accurate observations.
I conclude that cockroaches hear through their legs. Invalid attribution of causation.
I took 100 piston aero engines and ran them at exactly the same power settings and operational circumstances for 500 hours. I stripped them down and observed that 98 remained within the manufacturer's specifications.
I took the same 100 piston aero engines and ran them at exactly the same power setting and operational circumstances, except with unleaded fuel.
I observed that most of the engines suffered valve damage within 200 hours.
Statistically valid data and perfectly accurate observations.
I conclude that lead lubricates the valves. Invalid attribution of causation.