A New Decade of ME Research: The 11th Invest in ME International ME Conference 2016
Mark Berry presents the first in a series of articles on the 11th Invest in ME International ME Conference in London ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

CAA celebrates “Hope on the Hill”

Discussion in 'Institute of Medicine (IOM) Government Contract' started by Ember, Dec 10, 2013.

  1. Ember

    Ember Senior Member

    Our perspective on the federal government and why we continue our work
    barbc56 likes this.
  2. Andrew

    Andrew Senior Member

    Los Angeles, USA
    If the government offered us a chance to be buried alive, the CAA would probably describe it as a wonderful opportunity to work in partnership with the government. And they would probably apply for a grant to dig the holes.
    Ren, RL_sparky, caledonia and 6 others like this.
  3. JT1024

    JT1024 Senior Member

    So agree Andrew!
    justinreilly likes this.
  4. justinreilly

    justinreilly Senior Member

    NYC (& RI)
    So disgusting.

    These lies are what they and HHS tell our members of congress when the members ask them in response to our emails. Then the congresspersons write to us to say, everything's fine, you misunderstood, HHS is doing what CFSAC recommended.

    CAA are parasites that prey on us who are too sick to defend ourselves. I have warned them repeatedly that this IoM stuff is the last straw, that if they don't do a 180 and help us, that it will we war and CAA will be destroyed after we deal with the IoM and related issues. Vernon and accomplices don't care. Their only strategy is collecting fat pay checks until CAA is bleed dry and then they will move on to fat government jobs as a reward for operating a sham astro-turf patient org.
    caledonia and Ecoclimber like this.
  5. Ecoclimber

    Ecoclimber Senior Member

    As anyone really dissected, this spiel from the CFIDS Association? "It serves as a non-voting liaison committee representative on the CFS Advisory Committee and works to build appropriate relationships with HHS, CDC, FDA, and the NIH to ensure that ME/CFS is high on 'federal agency radar."

    They then list thefollowing events that are specific evidence that ME/CFS is on the 'federal radar' as though the events listed below were the results of the CFIDS? Notice the connection...clever

    1. This was done at the behest of the CAA? Could I see the written documentation for this?

    2. Are we talking about the CFI in which the CAA had no say. It was result of thet generosity of the Hutchins family foundation.

    3. This was done at the behest of the CAA. Could I see the written documentation for this? And this is positive?

    4. This was done at the behest of the CAA. Could I see the written documentation for this? And this is positive?

    5. The CFSAC has actually no broad powers to accomplish anything and over its history has accomplished very little, if any benefit on medical treatment and acceptance within the medical field. CFSAC is a venting mechanism.

    6. No, this is not entirely correct considering the controversy that ensued over the contract and could ultimately end up as the IoM Death Panel for the ME/CFS patient community as it was for the Gulf War Veteran patient community as reported by CNN of 22 veteran suicides a day.


    Finally, they inserted the Wikipedia propaganda piece for the IoM but then most patients are unaware of how money flows and influence is peddled in Washington from special interest groups, lobbyists, PAC money especially from the medical/health/disability industry even including our friends from the APA.

    I couldn't tell the difference between this article 'Hope on the Hill – ME/CFS in Washington DC' and articles posted on the HHS website.

    What would be considered extremely beneficial for their patients is how they spend donations from patients. They should explain their low score on financial rating 2 stars by Charity Navigator, their large executive salaries and why theycontinue to refuse to have their finances audited by an independent reviewer.


    Izola and justinreilly like this.
  6. Izola

    Izola Senior Member

    So glad to see the bright lights on this. I thought I was pretty much alone in my digust about finding nothing usepul in their magazine or organization. And the psycho babble origins of some of that stuff they published made me want to scream. So I did. alone. And that crap about were you abused as a child? Yeh, my mother slapped me and it opened up a floodgate of invitations to exotic viral and bacterial pathogens to come after me as they wished. Well, that was a nice vent!

    (I spent several exhausting years helping family members so there is a wide gap in my connection to ME issues.)
  7. justinreilly

    justinreilly Senior Member

    NYC (& RI)
    @Izola , unfortunately, there are a good number of uninformed people who have no clue that CAA is a parasite on them, judging from the comments and like on their blogs and Facebook.

    I chuckled when you said you thought you were the only one who was disgusted about CAA! Somewhere around two years ago, the criticism of CAA was getting to an operatic pitch and overshadowed everything else here. The single longest thread in PR history is called CAA is Listening or something like that, and what they (i.e. Jennie who was there representative here; she's no longer on their board) heard was 150 pages of hate mail posts. There was also the two polls that were about 90% and 100% disapproval on PR and mecfsforums, etc, etc.
  8. justinreilly

    justinreilly Senior Member

    NYC (& RI)
    Then a whole bunch of frequent advocacy section posters got kicked off of here by Cort essentially for criticizing CAA too much. that's how mecfsforums started, it was all the people that got kicked off. Some of the people were a bit annoying in their extremism and repetition, but they definitely shouldn't have been kicked off. they are still banned which is ridiculous. that's one reason why the advocacy section is fairly tame/ not well attended here these days. It really is too bad.
  9. caledonia


    Cincinnati, OH, USA
    I don't see any reason why we can't bring this up to @Mark and the board (the people now running PR).
  10. Kina


    Sofa, UK
    I will answer some of this as I am aware of what went on a few years ago and Mark is very busy with end of year issues/articles. I can't go into details related to specific members who were banned but I can say that nobody was banned for 'criticizing the CAA too much'. I have read all the related reported posts that led to members being banned and members were banned for repeated rule breaches, disrupting the forums, creating sock puppet accounts, and some asked to have their accounts banned.

    Those who asked to have their accounts banned can always contact us via the 'Contact Us' form and ask to have their accounts re-instated. We have not received any emails directly from those who feel they were unfairly banned so it's hard to review the details with them.

    If anybody wants to discuss this with me in further detail you can contact me via Conversation.

    Thank you.


    PS -- this thread is not the place to discuss past moderation issues.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page