Last year, Jerome Burne wrote an article calling people who challenge the false claims made by homeopaths "batty and arrogant" and "seriously potty" - the article is easy enough to find via google. It contains the falsehood that homeopathy is harmless.
I wote a blog in response, pointing out that faith in homeopathy was far from harmless and I linked to this list of people who had died because of it. There are many more cases of people who suffered serious illness and nearly died - like these people who took it as protection against malaria. As I pointed out in my blog, Jerome Burne, who says he's an "award-winning medical journalist", should have done some research before posting the demonstrably false assertion that homeopathy is harmless. (I later learned that his award was only for writing an article about carbohydrates that was simple enough for Daily Fail readers to understand.)
I expect most people reading this will have the intelligence to make the connection between the tragedies caused by faith in homeopathy and the false claims made about it by practitioners - claims that, in the UK, are in breach of the ASA Codes of Advertising Practice. Burne, alas, doesn't. Instead he attacked the Nightingale Collaboration, which we set up to challenge those claims. Amusingly, he also falsely alleged that the NC were lobbying parliament and proposing to demonstrate outside the ASA building. In fact it was a group of homeopaths that did all this, as five minutes research would have revealed. This guy calls himself a journalist?
Burne's incompetent, unprincipled piece should have sunk without trace by now but a deranged troll called Sandra Courtney (aka @BrownBagPantry) is still spamming it all over the web at every opportunity and, every time I see her do it, I promote my own blog in response. The last time was on twitter two days ago and, not for the first time, Burne himself got involved snivelling about being called names in order to avoid engaging with the serious issue of his defence of a 'therapy' that has resulted in numerous human tragedies.
Jerome Burne's desperation to avoid acknowledging publicly that he was wrong gets more apparent with every tweet.
One more thing. Alan Henness was defamed and accused of sockpuppetry by commenters beneath one of Burne's blogs. Alan never uses a sockpuppet and had not commented on that article at all. Here is the email exchange Alan had with JB:
I am very disappointed to find erroneous and defamatory comments about me on your blog.
I hope that you will deal with them urgently and obviate the need for any further action.
There may be others, but I have already pointed out to you on Twitter several comments from someone using the name 'Janice' that I have found that are problematic. I sincerely hope that you are able to identify the issues with them and deal with them accordingly and swiftly. These are:
[links to specific comments redacted]
I look forward to receiving your prompt reply.
Burne responded thus:
Alan or is it Steve - sorry you've been having problems. It's certain true that my aim on the blog to reduce the repetitive insult quotient. Can't see that the comments from Janice should be too distressing; you to have obviously been having a fierce and frank exchange of view. This it was getting a bit Archers like - about who said what about whom. Will ask her to tone it down and I'm sure you will observe courtesies too. Not seen anything there to match the self-satisfied didactic stream insult that black duck sceptic Andy Lewis feels free to unleash in my direction on Twitter and which other sceptics also feel free to dish out there and elsewhere. I did of course remain courteous
No, they hadn't been having a "fierce and frank exchange of view". Alan (who isn't and never has been anyone except Alan) had not commented at all but Jerome disregarded this as even a possibility. When his cerebrally-challenged acolytes start defaming someone who openly criticises them without ever resorting to sockpuppetry or underhand means (why on earth would he??) then Burne - a man evidently without an iota of integrity - is going to side with them regardless of a dearth of evidence, the latter being something Burne appears to have a problem grasping the importance of.
But let him carry on snivelling about name-calling while remaining what he seems to think is "courteous". Pillock.