Curious: What exactly do we hate about Autism Speaks?

Post Reply New Topic

* I had a change of mind. I figured the discussion would find it's way back to the compensation packages of top executives.

Compare and Contrast


http://www.charitynavigator.org/__asset ... _Final.pdf



TheSunAlsoRises

Thanks, that's actually the reference I provided earlier in the thread, that I derived statistics from.

I quoted that US statistic of 378K above from that source, for organizations the size of the NAS in the UK, that generate income from 100M to 200M, but failed to list the source again.

Another, significant contributing factor to the level of expertise that was purchased by Autism Speaks when forming the organization, was that the founder was vice president of the GE corporation, and president of NBC. He was an extremely successful individual in his endeavors in the corporate world, and understands the necessity of top talent, and what it means for success, in any organization.

Without a 25 million dollar donation from an influential friend, or without this influence in general, it's not likely the organization would either have the level of talent and/or success in developing an organization that in 7 years has the support of 340,000 volunteers.

Considering the NAS has been around since 1962, the potential remains that autism speaks may eventually be able to get into some of the direct aid pursuits that the NAS does on a national basis in the UK.

Not likely they will be able to do that though, without increased financial support. Taking a pro-vaccine stance, has lost the organization some support, among those that believe that vaccines are the cause of autism. It appears that the organization made about a 10 percent increase in funding as of their latest consolidated financial statement; hopefully people are gaining renewed faith in the usage of vaccines.

In my humble opinion, in the next 5 to 10 years, Autism Speaks( by itself )will have produced enough college educated young adults on the spectrum that they want need to attempt to reach out to the Self Advocates in the Autistic Community. They could theoretically take the same stance that a lot of adult autistics are taking against them, you know the: "You didn't want to deal with me when i needed you, so why should i deal with you now type of mentality". BUT, the impression i get, they probably want. Their doors appear to be open. Make no mistake, Autism Speaks is going to continue to grow and change in order to meet the needs of their constituents. They are NOT going to be the ones who get left behind.

I wonder where Steve Jobs and Apple would have been IF he took a "let's don't deal with them", "we hate them", "they don't represent US attitude" towards Bill Gates and Microsoft instead of a : I'm not going to try to beat them simply because we can't so let's partner with them on certain projects and applications that can benefit US and THEM" attitude.


The sooner you build those bridges the better it will be for the little ones coming AFTER.

There is IRONY in ALL of THIS.

I see IT, clearly.

TheSunAlsoRises

I still have no idea what you are attempting to prove by this. It is just an irrelevant statistic - similar to the fact that half of all people are of below average intelligence.

More advertising for how marvellous Autism Speaks has been, is now, and will become. (Sarcasm).

Your argument is that Autism Speaks is a good organisation, because they are not the worst organisation.

You are welcome. By the way, excellent breakdown.

Autism Speaks does NOT appear to be a BAD organization based upon their compensation packages. They're similar to other organizations with comparable revenues, location, size, and scope especially if you're able to extrapolate for the market value of their scientific expertize.

TheSunAlsoRises

there is no doubt that autism speaks is not any worse or better or less legitimate than any other organization.im not sure if this says very much though

It speaks volumes. It is the reality in which we live with. And, we make the best decisions we can based upon this reality.


TheSunAlsoRises

And, why is the status quo so desirable?

Fact: Autism Speaks are big and grab a lot of money.
Deduction: They are good.
(more sarcasm)

if no one ever thought behond the status quo we would all still be living like the middle ages.a cliche saying but still very true.i dont know if any of you saw the J edgar hoover movie out recently,but he was ridiculed for believing finger print technology would ever be a tool in law enforcement

This is your opinion I responded to, with that statement:




It is relevant, because your argument here is that Geraldine Dawson is being overpaid as the Chief Science Officer at Autism Speaks. She receives significantly more compensation than the CEO of the Autism Speaks organization and more than twice as much as Mark Lever, who is a CEO in a country where the median salary in a position such as his pays half of what could be expected in the US, per the reputable resource I provided.

You played down her qualifications as an individual qualified to do research. The statistic indicates that the skills that qualify an individual as a Chief Science officer are 50% more valuable on average than the skills of a CEO, in the UK.

It is just as relevant as statistics from the UK that indicate a Computer programmers skills on average are more valuable than a Data Entry Operators skills.

It's not surprising that a computer programmer makes more than a data entry operator, nor should it be surprising if one is aware of the statistical data that a chief science officer could make more than a CEO of a Charity. Running a Global biomedical Science research division of a charitable organization, is not the same thing as running a charity.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12720

Objectively speaking autism speaks receives 3 out of 4 overall stars by the Charity Navigator organization, the largest independent evaluator of charities in the US. For perspective the Mayo Clinic receives 1 out 4 stars in the US. So, no, they are not the highest rated charity in the US, but they are definitely independently rated as a good charity by both the BBB and the Charity Navigator organization that independently evaluate charities, in the US.

Forgive me, I was away answering other posts.

I never said, the status quo was desirable BUT often-times that's what we have to work with until we can change things. I don't mind sarcasm, in fact; I'm open to just about anything as long as you can take it as well as you can dish it out.


TheSunAlsoRises

No, I did not.

This is your initial statement that you made that I responded with her storied qualifications, that are available on Wiki as well as many other sources.

You then responded to her qualifications I provided as meaningless cut and paste.

An individual hired as the Chief Science Officer of the largest global biomedical research division for autism, of a Charitable organization, is certainly paid for the complexity of the position that they are responsible for, not to put the money into her bank as you suggest in your statement above.

And the qualifications required to do autism research, does not in itself qualify one to be a Chief Science Officer responsible for running a global biomedical research division of a Charitable organization.

The fact though, that you gave her credit for something, in that she was qualified to do research, is the most accurate comment you have stated in regard to her, that I have seen yet, although a small aspect of her qualifications required to be Chief Science Officer at Autism Speaks.

I can see where you may not have intended to play down her qualifications in that specific statement, but your negative comments, regarding her general credibility, have not been backed up by actual evidence, other than opinion.

I could list all of her qualifications again, to make the point clearer, but it is still in the thread for review.

I am giving the individual credit where credit is due.

You also stated:



The word skims suggests that one is concealing the money one is taking from an organization, embezzling, etc. Obviously, the records are an open book, and this is not happening. You asserted that there is no question that Geri skims almost 1% of the entire income of Autism Speaks.

I provided the evidence, both through her qualifications, and through statistical facts on salaries in the US, that her salary is well within the realm of what other people are being paid in similiar sized organizations with similiar responsbilities, as one that is warranted.

And, that the transparency and accuracy of the finances reported for the organization she works for are rated at the highest levels by independent evaluation.

You haven't provided any hard evidence, that her salary is not warranted, other than your assertion that she skims almost 1% of the entire income of Autism Speaks.

If you can provide any actual evidence to support these comments you have made, I will take the time and effort to review it to attempt to form an opinion based on any evidence you might provide.

I understand you don't like Autism Speaks, but in reviewing any organization, the merits of the individuals that work for that organization, or the effectiveness of the organization, it is worthwhile to pursue facts that are available.

You need to look up the definition of the word "skim".

You seem to enjoy re-posting the same glorification of Autism Speaks, over and over again - so maybe you should copy and paste all Geri's curriculum vitae yet again. I assume no one bothered to read it the first time.

For one, planting obvious Press Agents, to correct our thinking,

For two, undercutting funding for my organization, Death Speaks, which is much closer to a cure.

These minor charities clutter up the place. It all comes down to "Life is not fair," Then you die.

Now some sell do overs in the next life, if you bought a ticket. Some claim they will Cure unfairness in this life, if only they can spend all the widows and orphans money on themselves and their learned friends, they are surely the brightest and best and will come up with an answer.

Now I hate to be the one to mention it, but for all the money scammed, we are no closer to a cure for anything, or any closer to God.

All Religions, Charities, Social Services, spend almost all the money on themselves, their offices and Temples of Business, and in hiring people with lots of education who live on Grants like Congress.

All the money goes to Middle Class and above.

The Services Providided, only what is available, we pocketed $50 Million by putting a link to CDC postings. The Research they do is not used by anyone for any purpose but fund raising. In a world where Billions are spent, a few million scattered around is not earth shaking Science, it is just renting names.

Lately they have gone cheap on that and tried to get big names involved as fake news. It is not working, People who have a name for a reason, avoid fake reporters, and Press Agents claiming to be posters.

The Charities are all years behind the science, unable to deal with that and fund raising, and a distructive political outreach program, of attacking sites like Wrong Planet, and posting page after page about how we are all wrong, Autism Speaks is right, from a non involved person.

It is hard to have a conversation about autism around here without the same pages of psychobabble aghogday posts, and defenses of Autism Speaks,

Misinformation facts about some chosen parts of the past are not science, or do they have anything to do with the local conversation, except to disrupt it,

What exactly do we hate about autism speaks, aghogday.

There is plenty of room to start the Autism Speaks Brownnose thread.

This thread is about dislikes, growing to hatred,

I did, look up the definition of the word skim, and the reference on Geraldine Dawson's credentials from Wiki is provided below in case anyone is interested in why this person warrants a high level of pay because of their qualifications as a chief science officer.:


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Dawson