From my blog: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?entries/greenwashing.1258/ The Denial Process This is my interpretation of the process, following on from Walker. Step one, limit the scope of investigation and the number of patients examined. Step two, deny chemical causation. Step three, claim hysteria as a cause. Of course there is no objective test to confirm hysteria, and so it cannot be refuted directly. Then follow with lobbying to support this process. 1. Limit The Scope. Limit the scope of the enquiry. Look at only a handful of hundreds of patients. Limit the questions being asked. Limit the research being considered. Limit the argument to irrelevant trivialities. Misdefine and redefine as much as possible. 2. Deny Causation. Deny any biomedical claims of causation. Deliberately confuse claims with nonsensical claims. Use lack of data about the incident to promote doubt. 3. Claim hysteria. Invoke unproven and unprovable claims of hysteria, mass hysteria, functional syndromes or the equivalent. Refer to older unproven claims as though they substantiate the current claim. 4. Lobby for the hysteria viewpoint. Lobby against the biomedical viewpoint. Primarily use pursuasive and political rhetoric rather than primarily use evidence and reason to support the claim. Lobby for no further investigation, therefore ensuring that more data in support of biomedical causation will be harder to obtain. Invoke irrelevant claims as part of the political process, such as claiming that victims are conspiring to distort the science, or that the victims are under the influence of a cult that believes chemicals cause disease. The book goes on to describe two major chemical incidents, the role of insurance companies, and of course how many industries fund public relations groups in relation to these matters. The two chemical incidents discussed are Camelford and Love Canal.