Videos, and transcripts, of my two conversations with Mark Dery

Here, as promised, are the videos of my two Zoom exchanges with Mark Dery, as well as transcripts of both sessions—done for me by my good friend Colleen McGuire, who found several errors in Dery’s own transcriptions, including some significant misspellings (indicating that he’d never heard of noted epidemiologists John Ioannidis and Knut Wittkowski, or Mark Lane, author of the seminal Rush to Judgment).

This brief email will be followed by a much longer critique of Dery’s piece, by way of introduction to our full email correspondence, up to, and including, the final week, when he submitted his ms. to his editor at Chronicle Review. (He’s been emailing me since, but I won’t quote those missives.) As I explain at some length there, my purpose isn’t merely to defend myself from (further) slanders, but to use this latest strike against me as a “teaching moment,” showing how hit-pieces are constructed. There are many things to say about what Dery did, and what may be most important is what he knew, and yet left out of his snide take on my “trajectory” from being someone (he thinks) much like him to being what he has labored mightily to portray as a howling crackpot.

One last point about these videos: As our email correspondence will confirm, I was feeling quite unwell the second day we spoke—a state that helps explain the moment when, in answering his question as to what I personally think Sandy Hook was all about, based on what I’ve read and watched about it (research that he doesn’t mention in his article), I seemed “subdued,” my tone “faltering.” The fact is that I was blanking out just then, as happens during flare-ups of Lyme symptoms; so I was having trouble focusing, or recalling what I’d read, some years ago, in any detail.

In any case, I leave all this to you for your perusal, if you’re interested; and I look forward to your thoughts about my back-and-forth with someone clearly quite intent on getting me to say things he could use, and did use, to take me down, maybe to exalt himself, or maybe to suit somebody else’s purposes.

Videos: Dery interviews MCM_1.mp4 Dery interviews MCM_2.mp4


3 replies on “Videos, and transcripts, of my two conversations with Mark Dery”

He’s a clown but at least he showed up for debate… You could of debated better tho, considering everything you mentioned is true.

Besides the germ theory fraud you still don’t challenge, everything else you spoke with dery was truth… You seemed on the defensive tho.

Keep it up, can’t quit the fight in exposing the truth!

Wow! What a tremendous couple of videos! Here are some thoughts:
1. Why does Dery approach you as though you have a terminal condition? David Ray Griffin’s *Cognitive Infiltration* addresses the fact that Cass Sunstein accuses “conspiracy theorists” as suffering from a “crippled epistemology,” as though this is a form of disease. Put another way, why isn’t Dery’s default demeanor happy or excited to hash out some thorny topics? The entire interview had the atmosphere of a hospice facility. The implication is, obviously, that you harbor a crippled epistemology that provokes concern and apprehension.
2. Another great example of this rare type of interaction (when a giant like yourself stoops to debate a sleeping careerist) is this gem where Webster Tarpley debates Jonathan Kay:
3. Dery was constantly fishing for motive. Whether he realizes it or not, this is a common “debunker” tactic, especially in the 9/11Truth arena. A+E9/11, as you well know, has found considerable power in avoiding the motive question entirely. The obvious trap is that motive is far more difficult to prove, and typically can only happen once sufficient evidence allows for such a discussion. It’s an earth-shattering newsworthy story that 2 planes caused 3 buildings to collapse at or near free fall, with temperatures over 1k degrees hotter than what jet fuel can burn, and nano thermite proved to have been in several dust samples (along with iron microspheres etc)–We *can’t yet* talk about Zionism, or Soros, or the Committee of 300, or anything of that ilk, because it’s speculation and would require a tremendous undertaking, which can probably only happen *after* millions of people look at the objective, neutral, unbiased evidence. It’s not an epistemological weakness to simply observe evidence without speculating on motive!
4. For all that Dery accuses you of a priori assumptions, he commits this crime in spades. He brought to the table an entire presumption that he is right, and you are a crackpot, before and without addressing any evidence or other viewpoints. Your assessment that Dery might have agreed with 1937 German consensus was a slam dunk, albeit low hanging fruit. On the topic of evidence: How is evidence somehow *beneath* this discussion? Dery said multiple times that he didn’t want to get into the weeds, etc. Why is he granted this gift? How is a discussion about the wayward infractions of a crazy professor immune from empiricism? Isn’t that what this is all about? His entire line of questioning was essentially homogenous: Yes, you believe this crazy evidence and that crazy evidence, but what is your *global* view of the world…what is your view of the motive behind this evidence? If you discovered a crime scene, where a person had obviously been stabbed to death, Dery would ignore the scene entirely if he couldn’t immediately confirm jealousy, racism, etc.
Overall, this was imho one of the most exciting, enlightening exchanges I’ve seen in a decade. Thanks, Prof. Miller, for devoting such tremendous energy, with Lyme Disease and all else that you’ve been through.

Watched part one and I have to agree you were too kind and accommodating. The claim that only accredited domain experts can weigh in on complex topics deserved more ridicule. I would’ve sarcastically agreed and mentioned how Einstein was clearly way out of his depth when he began theorizing about relativity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.