1. Patients launch a $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
ME/CFS: In Free Fall Through the Looking Glass
Jody Smith continues to try to put into words the horror of the altered state that hobbles the brains of those with ME/CFS...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Caa poll

Discussion in 'Action Alerts and Advocacy' started by leaves, Feb 21, 2011.

?

How do you feel about The CAA?

  1. Caa is doing great!

    8 vote(s)
    4.0%
  2. There are some problems, but no drastic changes are needed

    11 vote(s)
    5.5%
  3. Caa needs to change direction

    6 vote(s)
    3.0%
  4. Caa needs to change direction and leadership

    174 vote(s)
    86.6%
  5. No opinion

    2 vote(s)
    1.0%
  1. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,826
    Likes:
    2,132
    WA, USA
    The problem with this is that CAA talks to reporters. They do not stick to what they are good at, such as funding the Lights (which is great).

    Instead they go out there and say crazy things like defending the use of Oxford [what, they'd never heard of Holmes or Ramsay?], spinal tap is not a nice thing so imply it may not be useful in ME/CFS, saying the problem with the CBT/GET study is that this type of therapy is not available in America (not that that there was a high incidence of refusal and dropouts, that the inclusion criteria was invalid for CFS [actually what we call CF in America], that the effect was insignificant and given who the authors were that this was likely to be due to brainwashing rather than actual improvement, and most importantly that this is not an appropriate use of funds because all diseases show similar response to CBT in studies but what's really needed is to better understand the biomedical causes and this needs serious research and funding). And get Reeves whistleblower protection, etc.
  2. Ernie

    Ernie Senior Member

    Messages:
    102
    Likes:
    4
    Susanne Vernon and Kim McKleary both know what they are guilty of. Everyone else is just figuring it out.
  3. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    428
    Raleigh, NC
    I don't think you can have it both ways. .....Do researchers have bank accounts in which you can funnel money into their research? I doubt it...and its not going to happen anyway. People are not going to take the trouble to contact individual researchers and give them money. If you're going to decide to stop supporting the CAA because of their advocacy problems then you're going to pull the plug on their research efforts as well....

    You've essentially decided that their inadequate advocacy outweighs any impact their research might bring.....If that works for you -and my guess is it works for most people -then that's fine but lets not suggest its anything other than what it is.

    I support the Research Network and the Biobank because I believe that, outside of XMRV, they have more potential to impact my life than any other CFS research effort that I know of. I love the research....I read it avidly and its what moves me the most and that's why I stick with the CAA despite all these other problems. I'm really so tired of them kicking themselves and that project in the teeth. I wish they could just get out of their own way.
  4. jace

    jace Off the fence

    Messages:
    855
    Likes:
    170
    England
    The WPI do! Join Count Me In, and give what you can afford, from a single dollar up, next month on the 20th. Don't worry, people, I'll remind you ;)

    ETA For those that want to do something now for the WPI, Andrew has a new matching fund, which will double your money if you are quick http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?10294-WPI-Matching-Fund-2-27-2011-3-31-2011
  5. CBS

    CBS Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,356
    Likes:
    212
    Western US
    I don't think you're in a position to question my support of the researchers who are getting seed money from the CAA. As for having a negative impact on the amount of money being donated to research, I'm afraid that the CAA is their own worst enemy, specifically when it comes to getting donations from the patient community. If it works for you to disregard the patient communities deep concerns about the CAA, that's fine but lets not suggest that that is anything other than what the CAA is doing.

    As for getting money for researchers via a conduit other than the CAA, I'll simply say that you just might be surprised in a few days.
  6. CBS

    CBS Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,356
    Likes:
    212
    Western US
    The CAA is hiding behind the "don't hurt the research" argument up as their only defense like a negligent parent holding the baby over their heads while in a stand off with the Department of Family/Child Protective Services.
  7. toddm1960

    toddm1960 Senior Member

    Messages:
    155
    Likes:
    3
    Rochester, New York
    Changing leadership will not change the direction of this or any other corparate group. Direction and goals (stated or unstated) will be set by funding, who's giving millions to this group. Research will then be taylored to fit the goal of whomever is funding them, so I don't think we need to be worried about losing any current research coming from them. It's been said a few times on this thread.....follow the money......I think all of our energy needs to go into who's supporting this group. My guess is we'll be able to predict the results of all of their reaseach based on this.
  8. SallyQ

    SallyQ

    Messages:
    1
    Likes:
    0
    Have to change drastically to even advocate for us. They remain in the dark.
  9. silicon

    silicon Senior Member

    Messages:
    147
    Likes:
    70
    It's too bad that WikiLeaks never focused on CAA donors!

    I wonder how many people are privy to the information about large CAA donors, and whether they would be amenable to commenting about it...I can't imagine that the CAA itself would ever release that information voluntarily (I would expect that such large donors want their identity safeguarded at all costs).

    Follow the money, and the rationale for the CAA's behavior may become more clear.
  10. harley

    harley

    Messages:
    4
    Likes:
    0
    After watching for a long time and becoming educated, I thought I'd finally add my two cents worth. This is what I see:

    1) The CAA does not appear to be in very good financial shape, according to Guidestar's 2009 990. Their funds are dropping year after year.

    2) It is a small organization. Is this all there is to show after twenty-something years?

    3) They have chosen to focus on research because that is one of the few avenues left open to them where they have not run into a dead end.

    4) The dead ends are complicated, but at least partly of their own making. The present is shaped by the past, as someone said. They are unlikely to acknowledge any responsibility for failure. Instead, they will pat themselves on the back.

    5) They failed at advocacy--the funds for CFS research are pathetic, and we still have to deal with the CDC homepage.

    5) They failed at defining the disease. We still have to deal with the GET and psychiatric labels and with the lack of Canadian criteria.

    6) They failed at being a membership organization. In fact, it seems they have no interest in being accountable to patients.

    7) They are playing footsie with the federal government. The experience with the CDC taught them nothing.

    8) Even thought they have failed to get substantial funds from the government, hope springs eternal.

    9) Getting more money for their research is more important than advocating for the patients. They are in a compromised position, which limits their ability to be effective advocates.

    10) They are competitive with the WPI and other research organizations, which complicates their ability to lead and coordinate.

    11) They are not national, regional or local, nor are they an association.

    12) The CAA board seems to have an irrationally high regard for their leaders.

    13) The CAA doesn't seem competent to lead the advocacy efforts that are so desperately required. Since the announcement of the XMRV discovery, what they have FAILED to do is far more consequential than anything they have done.

    14) They want the authority but they don't want the responsibility that comes with it, nor are they interested in being accountable to anyone but themselves.

    15) Anyone who expects them to change is foolish. What you can expect is to get dizzy from the spinning.
  11. justinreilly

    justinreilly Stop the IoM & P2P! Adopt CCC!

    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes:
    1,166
    NYC (& RI)
    harley, good summary. Good point that they are not an association, they're a loose canon.

    Don't know if we can find out who the donors are. i think it would prob take a lawsuit (but could be wrong), which isn't a good option, imo.
  12. harley

    harley

    Messages:
    4
    Likes:
    0
    I don't think they are required to make that information public, and as the CAA is not very transparent, I don't think we'll ever know. It is a shame that it necessary to ask in the first place, or that they would feel the need to hide that information.

    Personally, I would be curious as to whether any drug companies or agencies are giving them money and if so, whether those companies have access to the Biobank. That isn't necessarily a bad thing at all, but it is the sort of information that, in my opinion, should be disclosed to patient blood donors if it is the case.
  13. justinreilly

    justinreilly Stop the IoM & P2P! Adopt CCC!

    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes:
    1,166
    NYC (& RI)
    Dr. Vernon Spoke Out Against Us in the Media, Why Doesn't She Speak Out For Us Now?

    I am reposting from my comments to Cort's "Guilty" Article.

    Dr. Yes found this gem:

    [emphasis added]
    :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::(:(:confused::confused::eek::eek::headache::headache::Retro mad::Retro mad::Retro mad::Retro mad::confused::headache::headache::Retro mad:

    (http://www.maryafischer.com/oprahmagazine1.html)

    Dr. Yes said:
    I entirely agree. This is very serious and shows she has spoken to the media in support of the CDC lies which were based on the Reeves definition. I have criticized her before saying that since she was a co-author on the paper, the Reeves criteria are one of the weapons most used to oppress us and that she works for CAA now, she needs to actively speak in the media about this travesty.

    Some said, well, maybe she should in a way, but she is a scientist and maybe she feels uncomfortable speaking in the media. OK, so now with this evidence that she is comfortable speaking in the media against us with knowing misrepresentations as a government scientist, why isn't she speaking for us as our paid representative, exposing the Reeves criteria and demanding they be scrapped?

    Posted by Cort:
    [emphasis added]

    Dr. Vernon was right? She was promoting a study done by CDC with the Reeves criteria. You can't extend that conclusion from Reeves criteria tired people to actual ME patients. Invalid definition = invalid study. Period.
  14. harley

    harley

    Messages:
    4
    Likes:
    0
  15. harley

    harley

    Messages:
    4
    Likes:
    0
  16. Andrew

    Andrew Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,942
    Likes:
    1,188
    Los Angeles, USA
    To echo a sentiment posted earlier, it is not good to contact news agencies and tell them CAA does not speak for us. It makes us look bad. Instead, tell them who does speak for us. The negative approach almost always backfires.

    I think in many ways McCleary is shooting herself in the foot. She has received enough feedback to understand what is wrong with her style of presentation, but she chooses to do nothing about it.

    Here is a press release from the IACFSME, who by nature of being an organization of academics, scientists, and health practitioners is expected to release low-key statements. Yet their release is powerful when compared to what McCleary does.
  17. Dreambirdie

    Dreambirdie work in progress

    Messages:
    4,912
    Likes:
    2,949
    N. California
    I agree. I think Mindy Kitei would be a great spokesperson.

    The WPI also. Why don't they speak up more publicly on our behalf?
  18. WillowTree

    WillowTree ME/CFS is NOT fatigue!

    Messages:
    35
    Likes:
    47
    Illinois
    I also agree. So far, from what I have seen, I have been impressed with the work and the press releases issued by the ME/CFS Worldwide Patient Alliance. They do have a place on their website where the media can contact them. This may be another organization to which we can direct the media.
  19. Ernie

    Ernie Senior Member

    Messages:
    102
    Likes:
    4
    The truth always ends up coming out. It's only a matter of time.
  20. leaves

    leaves Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,193
    Likes:
    14
    I agree Andrew: I won't sign the petition for that reason.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page