Your selective and inaccurate editing of the host comment is dishonest,and the emotionally charged adjectives you use make it sound like you're more interested in virtue signaling than having a discussion.

The mistake you're making is that you think one anecdote cancels out another and makes it invalid. Both anecdotal experiences are probably true. Anyone urging us to reject one recounted experience as "gross" and "problematic" is in favor of shutting out information that might be accurate but doesn't fit a preconceived agenda.

In other words, not just a liar, but someone actively pressuring others to deny their own experiences. I can't think of a worse person than that, no matter what worthy cause they think it's in the service of.