Say no to the messenger if you must, but don't disregard the message if it comes in the form of hard, provable facts, writes DICK AHLSTROM

WHAT DO you do when people just say no to scientific facts? I am not talking here about Creationists who argue from personal belief that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old. I am talking about ordinary folks, people like you or me, who decide for some unknown reason to reject proven science and hold a view that has no facts to support it.

There are plenty of examples out there, with people deciding they just won’t accept something no matter what counter arguments you present. Take the MMR vaccine for example. Andrew Wakefield presented research in the Lancet in 1998 arguing the vaccine could raise a child’s risk of becoming autistic.

For a time there was uncertainty over the issue while epidemiologists rushed to study the claim, but soon research study after research study showed there was no link between the vaccine and autism.

Yet people ignored the new information. Some continue to believe there is a link even after Wakefield recanted and withdrew his claim, admitting it was wrong. It would be only a curiosity in the history of medical science were it not for the fact that many parents still reject the MMR, as a result putting their children’s health in jeopardy from wild measles.

Similar public naysaying has begun to percolate around the issue of climate change. People are told things will get warmer but then we get a major cold snap and people are ready to dismiss all the scientific facts piled up about climate change.

Their scepticism was fuelled by the embarrassing e-mails either leaked or hacked from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. They pointed to manipulation of facts and tailoring of data in support of a human cause for global climate change.

Put “climategate” into your web browser to see how a powerful counter-culture view has sprung up on the issue. Yet if East Anglia disappeared under the waves of the rising sea level tomorrow, the research findings of another 2,400 scientists will still indicate anthropomorphic climate change is a reality.

Public doubts are also beginning to surface on the wisdom of the Government’s acquisition, at high cost, of enough swine flu vaccines to dose everyone in the country twice over. Critics are beginning to snipe, claiming the Government was panicked and chased into buying the vaccines.

People now say they are not going to bother with the vaccine but this completely ignores the reality of what this virus can do. People are beginning to perceive it as only of limited risk.

They should talk to the hundreds of otherwise healthy young people who have spent weeks and in a few cases months in intensive care recovering from swine flu infection. Or have a word with those who have lost loved ones to the virus. The reasons for taking the vaccine remain but people are beginning to turn their backs on this advice.

Those who continue to insist HIV does not cause Aids is another group who rejects the science, saying antiretroviral drugs will not help keep those with the virus alive and that Aids has not contributed to the deaths of millions of people around the world.

This “Aids denial” resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths in South Africa, according to the shocking findings of research from the Harvard School of Public Health. They estimate 330,000 died due to Aids complications there between 2000 and 2005, and that 35,000 babies were infected with HIV during that time due to former president Thabo Mbeki’s decision to withhold antiretroviral drugs after advice from US Aids deniers.

The researchers don’t claim all would have been saved had antiretroviral drugs been available, but certainly the toll would not have been as high and most deaths could have been delayed. Their research was published on January 18th in the Springer Journal: Aids and Behaviour.

It could be argued there are those who actively contribute to public uncertainty by pushing out half truths and undermining accepted fact. Vested commercial interests and advocates campaigning on behalf of their own causes are often present to help people misunderstand. This leads people to take a cautious approach, to mistrust those offering solid information and sound advice. Unfortunately, disregarding the facts can prove a danger and leave a person exposed to greater risks.

Say no to the messenger if you must, but don’t disregard the message if it comes in the form of hard, provable facts.