I seem to have started an unofficial series of articles in the last few weeks, which could be roughly categorised as, "oft-repeated fallacies and clichés that dramatically limit the reach and impact of 'the truth movement' and thus need to be robustly challenged and redressed" (I admit it isn't the catchiest title in the world).

These include: telling people they're not experts, limiting the range of discussion because "such and such topic makes us look crazy", and scolding others for questioning the motives of dubious people since this - allegedly - "divides the movement".

Well, there's another irksome idiom I would like to add to this motley collection - "nobody should be paid for spreading the truth. Anyone who makes money for doing good work is a dishonest grifter."

I have covered this topic before and the many and myriad flaws of this belief, roughly summarised as:

1. It's staggeringly elitist. Only very wealthy and privileged people can afford to do significant amounts of quality work over the long-term for nothing. When non-wealthy people try, they inevitably end up doing so at great personal cost and sacrifice, often devastating their own finances and personal situation. Nobody should be strong-armed and guilt-tripped into that position by more privileged militants who insist "good work doesn't pay" (because they themselves can afford for it not to), because then "good" work becomes the sole preserve of said privileged militants, and they're not necessarily (or often) the best contributors.
2. Working unpaid devalues whatever skill or service you are offering, and therefore doesn't just disadvantage you, but undercuts everyone else in your field. There is a relentless expectation placed on writers, artists, musicians, and many other skilled and experienced creative professionals, to work for free, because others in the sector do. If all artists work exclusively for free, soon there will soon be no art (a central goal of many fascistic regimes throughout history), because artists need to pay the bills and eat like everyone else. If we like good writing, music, theatre, and other creative offerings that enhance our lives and lift our spirits, then we have to pay for them, or they go away.
3. You don't get the same quality of output out of unpaid workers as you do paid workers. If you did, all companies would run exclusively on unpaid work (volunteers, interns etc.) and make huge profits for their CEOs. No successful companies do this.

The above is all demonstrably and irrefutably true - however, there is an additional angle that needs addressing - that, while good work should pay, that doesn't detract from the fact that some people ARE dishonest grifters. And believe me, nobody dislikes them more than those of us who aren't, as people who are attempting to make a modest and honest living by offering a valuable service, often get lumped in with these conmen and scammers.

I was reading a very good blog in the early hours of this morning, which shall remain nameless, and I was going to promote it on my platforms, until I read the nasty little disclaimer at the end, that the author vigorously discourages donations to support his (or any) work, since anybody who accepts these is clearly a swindler and a con artist, whereas he "does it for love".

Oh, p*ss off, was my immediate retort (which I believe I may even have said out loud, thereby rather startling the cat). It's fine if you don't want to accept donations - you're probably an older person in a secure position, maybe retired, and you're in the privileged position of not needing your work to pay. But to use your own good fortune and privileged position to with one broad stroke denounce as dishonest scammers all people who aren't in that position - people who work hard every day to provide a valuable service and just ask for a very small (and optional) contribution in return - is outrageous. It's a totally destructive attitude seemingly designed to prevent quality, truly independent resources from existing.

I work hard every day (very rarely having full days off) to provide quality, timely, and thoughtful commentary on world events, a service people are kind enough to tell me they find valuable. This is not some side hobby that I can easily squeeze in at the end of a busy full day (believe me, I've tried - that's why Miri AF did not exist until 2020, when I lost my "day job" due to corona-mania, and therefore finally had the time to focus on this), but rather, researching, writing, editing, and promoting detailed articles on a near-daily basis is a full-time job. My output is significantly higher than many "traditional" journalists, many of whom are considered to have a "full-time" job just producing one article a week.

Needless to say, I cannot sustain such a level of output unless it brings in enough income to fulfil my financial obligations. I am not looking to be rich (virtually no creative professionals are, or we would have chosen a different profession), and always make it clear that all I ask from supporters (who can afford it and who would like to) is the price of a cup of coffee a month, because if everyone who enjoyed my work made that contribution, I would make a solid living, whilst not putting any significant strain on anyone else.

That seems to me a very fair deal, not just because I - obviously - require money to live, but because otherwise, there's a fundamental imbalance and lack of symbiosis in what I'm doing - if I did all this for no return, I'd be putting out huge amounts in terms of energy, time, and skill, yet receiving little back. It's important to give AND receive, and people who gravitate towards "good cause movements" can very often get the balance wrong - giving too much and not receiving enough (which can have devastating personal consequences, as I touched on at the beginning).

It really means a lot to me when people choose to donate to my work, not just for practical reasons, but because it symbolises that they really value what I do. We value what we pay for, and that is something we all fundamentally understand, hence why you rarely get the same quality of work out of volunteers (certainly not in the long term) that you get out of paid staff. Ultimately, volunteers don't feel as valued as paid staff - because they're not.

Paying people for their services, even a small amount, sends a powerful message to them about their worth, and we all feel that. I feel really valued and appreciated every time someone chooses to donate to my work, and that inevitably reflects in the quality of what I produce. And it's the same for us all. When people get a pay-rise at work, it lifts their spirits, not just because of the practical advantages it affords them, but because it makes them think, wow, I must be really valued here.

People who work for nothing - especially over the long-term, which is often an expectation in "good cause" movements - inevitably, and understandably, start to feel exploited, unappreciated, and resentful.

So I'm highly in favour of people being reasonably compensated for the work they do, and do not think anyone should be expected to give, give, give, receiving nothing in return.

However, when I say "reasonably compensated", the emphasis is on REASONABLY. An honest wage for honest work. I choose to use two donations platforms for my work where my total earnings are public. The is exactly so people can see what I am earning, and that the idea I am in any way close to becoming wealthy from my endeavours, couldn't be further from the truth. Again, I reiterate how much I appreciate all my supporters, past and present, but my monthly income is still less than the national minimum wage.

I hope to increase it over time, but I have no desire to be wealthy ("conspiracy theorist freelance writer" being potentially the least likely career in the world to translate into riches, with the possible exception of "gender studies major"...). I just want to earn enough to comfortably get by whilst providing others with a valuable service.

So, let me tell you, these types who come into the movement from nowhere, instantly enjoying a huge profile, and making a mint, are a grave source of irritation to people like me. Millions of people in this country are unable to make ends meet courtesy of losing their job through jab mandates or devastating vaccine injury, whilst these newly born "stars" are flown around the world and put up in luxury accommodation, wined and dined with no expense spared, and treated like royalty at glitzy events.

For what? For FINALLY saying (some of) the same things thousands of other people have been saying for years, but in relative obscurity and for often little or no reward?

I think it hits entirely the wrong tone to treat "TV doctors " and the like as if they are celebrities, rolling out the red carpet and gushing all over them. The nature of what they are dealing with - mass orchestrated genocide - is too serious, and giving them a rock star reception is tone deaf when hundreds of thousands of "nobodies" languish in poverty and obscurity due to vaccine injury and job losses. I know many of the vaccine injured feel totally side-lined and neglected, not just by the mainstream doctors who maimed them, but by the alternative scene as well. That would-be "heroes" are too busy gaining attention and applause for their own "heroic bravery" in speaking out, and that they are taking all the focus away from those who really need help, but haven't the big name or platform to garner the same attention.

And it is true that there does seem to be far more focus on these "heroes" and "superstars" than there is on the vaccine injured themselves and, moreover, how specifically they will be helped.

I know also that genuine, grassroots vaccine injury charities are deeply frustrated that they are being side-lined and dismissed now these "big names" have come along, and that people who are far more knowledgeable and experienced in this area, are being ignored in favour of those who only came along five minutes ago.

Is someone who was actively administering Covid jabs in 2021, and promoting them on television, really the best qualified person to be a keynote speaker at a glittering international event opposing them just one year later?

We have to be aware that as "the truth" is revealed about the Covid injections, as it was always intended to be (as per the Johns Hopkins' "Spars" simulation exercise), there is suddenly a very lucrative opportunity for certain medical professionals (cardiologists etc.) to make a lot of money treating the vaccine injured. As I said, I'm obviously not against people being paid for their work and cardiology is a highly skilled job for which people should certainly be fairly compensated.

Yet the fact remains that the Covid injection has created a huge upsurge in potential customers for cardiologists and other relevant professionals, customers who would not have existed without the mass administration of the Covid injection.

Let me tell you: you do not go into private consultant surgery, with all the punishing hours and training that entails, unless you are extremely interested in money. Surgeons are not benevolent philanthropists who "just want to help people" (in fact, many surgeons can't stand the "human bit" of surgery and prefer their patients when they are unconscious). By far the primary driving force in becoming a private consultant surgeon is desiring wealth and status.

So to imagine people motivated by those things have not considered there is a potentially very lucrative opportunity for them in treating the victims of vaccine injury, would be folly.

I think we have to be very aware that people who have chosen that path are intrinsically motivated by wealth and status (especially if they've generated a media profile); and are ultra-ambitious "type A" personalities, who are hugely unlikely to throw away everything they have ever worked for "for a good cause". There may be the odd unicorn, who is prepared to genuinely risk it all for the good of humanity, but ultimately, that level of total altruism and pure philanthropy is staggeringly unusual. In reality, these people are far more likely to be savvy careerists who do what they do based on whether it will ultimately enhance their profile and their bank balance.

This is not cynicism or paranoia or "dividing the movement", it's just being realistic and not giving in to naïve fantasies about perfect heroes with purely selfless motivations who are going to save us all.

Private consultants like money. Not a controversial statement - that's why they became private consultants. And that central defining part of their identity does not change just because they discovered a particular intervention was doing harm - especially if treating that harm can ultimately make them more money. Indeed, isn't that the vaccine "customer creation" pharmaceutical business model in a nutshell? Inject healthy person with poison, person becomes ill, requires lucrative treatments and surgeries as a result?

If large amounts of money are being raised "for the vaccine injured" at celebrity events, then it is incumbent on the organisers of these events to provide thorough and detailed breakdowns of exactly how much money they are bringing in and where it is going. I certainly agree that people who work for charities should be paid, for the same reasons people doing any important work should be paid (see points at beginning of piece), but I question whether bankrolling the "celebrity treatment" for speakers at events is a wise use of limited funds at such a critical time. I am sure many of us would question this.

I happen to have a history of working in charity fundraising, albeit in a non-glamorous position (telephone fundraiser in an East London call centre), for some of the biggest names in the business, such as Oxfam and the NSPCC. I can tell you from my experiences that all the big charities are wholly corrupt and by far most of the money raised goes on exorbitant CEO salaries and VIP "expenses", with very little reaching the people these charities supposedly help.

The only charities one should trust in my experience are small, local, grassroots ones, who eschew all the glam and the glitter, and work in basic offices staffed by normal people paid ordinary wages. There are plenty of such outfits, doing excellent (and usually sorely under-funded) work. But once the big names and the celebrity treatment starts getting involved, it's time to put that conspira-hat on and start digging.

So, ultimately, this is the distinction I am trying to make here: if we can understand that big name charities are almost all corrupt cash cows for the already wealthy, yet not use that same brush to tar genuine, smaller charities with, we need to make the same distinction in the 'truth community'. The choice is not: "work tirelessly around the clock for free, financing your lifestyle by a magic money tree, because that's what noble, genuine people do, OR be denounced as a dishonest scammer". The choice is using our skills of discernment to see there is a big difference between making an honest living and ripping people off. I don't think it's reasonable to accuse someone monetising their full-time labour at £5.60 a month (which is my average monthly donation) of ripping anyone off. However, once we start getting into serious money territory with extravagant events and their associated "expenses", any self-respecting critical thinker needs to start asking questions.

I think at this point, we all know that such events as Live Aid and Children in Need were/are massive scams to fleece the general public out of cash, with the money going everywhere but to the people it is supposed to help. This being the case, celebrity fundraisers - especially within "alternative" circles who are more wise to this sort of thing - need to be ultra-transparent and accountable, rather than scolding and shutting down people who ask questions.

I have seen some very hoity-toity behaviour from some "big names" towards the "little people" who have questioned them on this, to the general effect of, "how dare you question these great demi-Gods trying to help you, who do you think you are?! Shut up and be grateful for their deigning to pay your cause some attention."

This to people actually living with devastating vaccine injury right now, who are suffering life-altering pain and adversity right now, whose lives have been turned upside down and for whom there seems to be little tangible, accessible offer of real help. Just, as one vaccine injured person put it, a lot of celebrity showboating.

So, celebrity fundraisers, stop with the utterly inappropriate "Mr. Bumble" attitude towards the people you claim to be helping, and tell us:

*How much money have you raised?

*Where specifically is it being spent (include full breakdown of international flights, hotel accommodation, meals, and other expenses for speakers)

*How specifically is it helping the vaccine injured?

*What exact help should they expect and when?

*How do they apply for it and how will you determine who qualifies?

*Do you intend to work in tandem with established and trusted grassroots vaccine injury groups who have expressed serious and understandable frustration they are being ignored?

These are the most basic of questions that any genuine outfit should have no problem addressing comprehensively, with clear evidence to support their claims.

The truth, including about money, doesn't fear investigation (hence why my platforms are open and public, please see below). If you want people's trust, you have to earn it by being transparent and accountable. This isn't a gameshow or a movie premiere, we are dealing with some of the most gravely serious issues ever to afflict mankind. This isn't about you or your ego. It's not about your being offended that people would "dare" to ask you some pertinent questions.

It's about stopping this atrocity and helping those suffering its effects. If the whistle-blowers are correct that the life expectancy for many vaccinated is 3-5 years, then we haven't the time for celebrity showboating. We need answers, we need accountability, we need action - and we need it now.

(Please note my alternate resource, Informed Consent Matters, has a page on treating vaccine injury here.)

Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader funded, with no advertisements or paywalls, and entirely depends on your generous support to keep going. If you would like to make a contribution, please do so through Patreon, BuyMeACoffee or bank transfer to: Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA. Your support is really appreciated. Thank you.