Do we really want the CAA to only get $20,000 when it could easily get over $100,000 for research into our disease at no cost to us and not at the expense of other ME/CFS organisations? Were fighting to get our lives back can we really afford to throw hundreds of thousands of research dollars away?
The second and final round of the Chase Community Giving contest begins on May 19th. Both the WPI and the CAA are through to that round and are the only CFS organisations in it. In the first round, WPI was 5th with 2,978 votes; the CAA was 23rd with 1,078 votes. Both won $25,000.
In this final round, the charities ranked 1-25 by voting will get the following cash prizes:
1st. $500,000
2nd. $400,000
3rd. $300,000
4th to 5th. $200,000
6th to 10th. $100,000
11th to 15th. $40,000
16th to 25th. $20,000
So if the votes play out in the next round as they did in the last, WPI might get $200,000 and the CAA a measly $20,000.
Being from the UK, I didnt have much awareness of the CAA until I joined these forums but I have seen a lot of people criticising the CAA for making clumsy and potentially harmful public pronouncements, failing to update its website quickly to remove misleading and unhelpful information about our illness, and for paying a high salary to the CEO.
However, the CAA has, I believe, an impressive approach to research funding - a lot of the good stuff at the recent NIH State of Knowledge conference was CAA funded. On their website (here), their CEO says: We are transforming from a patient support and advocacy organization to one laser-focused on stimulating and supporting research. Im especially impressed by their insistence on data-sharing among researchers whom they fund in order to accelerate research (details about their research programme and approach here).
To me, it makes no sense to withhold votes from the CAA because of unhappiness about their public pronouncements, slow website updating, high salaries or similar issues. Not getting a big prize from Chase wont affect those things but getting big $$$ would mean that they have much more money for research.
Please, if you were among the nearly 2,000 people who voted for WPI but not the CAA in the first round, consider whether it is better for all our health for the CAA not to have much more money to spend on research.
Its one thing to avoid donating money to the CAA when youd prefer another ME/CFS research organisation to get it, but thats not the situation were in here. This is free money and if the CAA dont get it, it will go to charities who are not in the same desperate need as we are.
I hope this starts a productive and civil discussion on this specific issue: does it make any sense not to vote for the CAA in the Chase Contest? If you want to make general comments about whether the CAA is good or bad, that would be off-topic here and not helpful so please make those comments on the existing thread for that purpose (here).
The second and final round of the Chase Community Giving contest begins on May 19th. Both the WPI and the CAA are through to that round and are the only CFS organisations in it. In the first round, WPI was 5th with 2,978 votes; the CAA was 23rd with 1,078 votes. Both won $25,000.
In this final round, the charities ranked 1-25 by voting will get the following cash prizes:
1st. $500,000
2nd. $400,000
3rd. $300,000
4th to 5th. $200,000
6th to 10th. $100,000
11th to 15th. $40,000
16th to 25th. $20,000
So if the votes play out in the next round as they did in the last, WPI might get $200,000 and the CAA a measly $20,000.
Being from the UK, I didnt have much awareness of the CAA until I joined these forums but I have seen a lot of people criticising the CAA for making clumsy and potentially harmful public pronouncements, failing to update its website quickly to remove misleading and unhelpful information about our illness, and for paying a high salary to the CEO.
However, the CAA has, I believe, an impressive approach to research funding - a lot of the good stuff at the recent NIH State of Knowledge conference was CAA funded. On their website (here), their CEO says: We are transforming from a patient support and advocacy organization to one laser-focused on stimulating and supporting research. Im especially impressed by their insistence on data-sharing among researchers whom they fund in order to accelerate research (details about their research programme and approach here).
To me, it makes no sense to withhold votes from the CAA because of unhappiness about their public pronouncements, slow website updating, high salaries or similar issues. Not getting a big prize from Chase wont affect those things but getting big $$$ would mean that they have much more money for research.
Please, if you were among the nearly 2,000 people who voted for WPI but not the CAA in the first round, consider whether it is better for all our health for the CAA not to have much more money to spend on research.
Its one thing to avoid donating money to the CAA when youd prefer another ME/CFS research organisation to get it, but thats not the situation were in here. This is free money and if the CAA dont get it, it will go to charities who are not in the same desperate need as we are.
I hope this starts a productive and civil discussion on this specific issue: does it make any sense not to vote for the CAA in the Chase Contest? If you want to make general comments about whether the CAA is good or bad, that would be off-topic here and not helpful so please make those comments on the existing thread for that purpose (here).