It's one thing to believe in something when there is no rational reason for the belief (religion).
It's completely different to not believe something just because someone says so.
I don't know if burning wood is as harmful as the article says.
Prior to reading it I had no data and if I were asked, I would indeed think that it's safe given that people were doing it since the dawn of human race and no one drops dead because they sat near fire.
If a random smart aleck accosted me at a party and started telling me how it's sooo bad (which seems to be the article's author MO), I would brush him off, and that would have been a rational reaction.
After reading this article I'm inclined to accept that burning wood is dangerous but I'm far from convinced - it's a single data point.
The author is clearly so in love with his "clever" analogy that he can't help equating apples to oranges (a skepticism about a claim due to lack of expertise to evaluate whether it's true or false and an active, irrational belief that is internally inconsistent and whose many aspects have been refuted by science and at a level that is comprehensible to regular humans (like finding carbon-dated human remains older than the age of universe according to bible).