> keep this sort of general library content on a url that doesn’t contain NIH.
Why? The author makes it clear its purely anecdotal. Someone might come across this and decide to do a further, more scientific study. I would argue that this is valuable content that could lead to better insights on our sleep. Not having it on the NIH website would make it less likely to be viewed.
Because inclusion on the NIH website, in the same general format as peer-reviewed articles are given, can give it the aura of being promoted or at least vetted by NIH, even with the disclaimer.
If you look through Snopes there are tons of examples of hoaxes and false gossip that end up spreading because they are found on an "official" website (or official-looking website), even if that official website is just a library where anyone can publish.
Why? The author makes it clear its purely anecdotal. Someone might come across this and decide to do a further, more scientific study. I would argue that this is valuable content that could lead to better insights on our sleep. Not having it on the NIH website would make it less likely to be viewed.