Did you buy the 500 Gems "Red"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brett771

Coc takes a cut( the old after expenses ripoff) then what's left over goes to charity, you didn't really expect them to bleed any did you?

---

They're not heartless... They would not do that. Thats just sick of they ♥♥♥♥♥ed this off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brett771

Coc takes a cut( the old after expenses ripoff) then what's left over goes to charity, you didn't really expect them to bleed any did you?

---

Welcome to every single charity in the world. Charity is big business.
I know this. And so should you.

I did it anyway.

It's a good cause, and nice to see SuperCell standing beside Apple for it :)

I voted no to buying gems for it though, and before you all try and rip me to shreds, I already donate to my chosen charities. Money doesn't stretch far for myself, but i do what I can.


Who knows, I may change my mind :)

I want to but I have no money :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brett771

Coc takes a cut( the old after expenses ripoff) then what's left over goes to charity, you didn't really expect them to bleed any did you?

---

This is directly from the update release notes, and I quote: "100% of the proceeds will go the (RED)'s fight against AIDS. All (RED) monies go to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria."
Correct me if I'm wrong and Supercell means 100% of what they want to give. But I highly doubt that

Wish I could change my vote on the poll because I'm probably going to buy.

Strange that they limit the donation to a specific amount. If there are those wanting to donate more and get the bigger packages, will the 500 Gem equivalent amount still go towards the charity?

http://www.givewell.org/international/charities/gfatm
and then many independent reports on this charity in the media and financial assessors.
It is not one I will support there has been allegations of fraud at global fund since 2004 with Sweden withdrawing annual donations.
http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-25141586

http://m.finetwork.biz/?url=http%3A%...charity%2F7871

There is too many black marks against the global fund but also prudent reasons others have not supported them. Lack of feasible results from programs.


Science and technology
The Global Fund
Heal thyself
Grappling with a controversial malaria programme
Nov 24th 2012 | NEW YORK
THE Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was founded in 2002 to help the world’s most afflicted. In recent years, however, the Global Fund itself has needed treatment. Donations have dwindled because of the financial crisis and reports of mismanagement. In November 2011 the Global Fund said it would make no new grants until 2014. In January its director said he would step down.


By most measures the millennia-long fight against malaria has now had enormous success. Between 2000 and 2010 malaria rates plunged by more than 50% in 43 countries. But questions remain how best to stamp out the disease.
On November 15th the Global Fund’s board said it would end a controversial pilot scheme for treating malaria. Discussions about this scheme began in 2002. The malaria parasite had long developed ways to fend off one type of drug, chloroquine, and doctors feared it would increasingly resist artemisinin, a newer treatment. After much deliberation a committee at America’s Institute of Medicine proposed a new way to supply artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs). A funding agency could negotiate prices with drug manufacturers and subsidise the medicine at the local level. The ACTs would be available at public facilities and sold by tiny drug shops, in many villages the only source of medicine. Use of older drugs would drop. The Global Fund introduced the Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria (AMFm) in seven African countries and Cambodia in 2010. To date it has spent $463m on the programme.
Uncertain medicine
To its supporters, AMFm was a way to expand good treatment dramatically. But the approach was criticised from the start. Oxfam, a charity, worried that the poor could not afford ACTs and that shops would sell drugs to those who did not need them. The American government was sceptical and declined to fund it.
The Global Fund was due in November to decide whether to expand or scuttle the scheme. The prior weeks brought a frenzy of papers and passionate debate. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and ICF International, a consultancy, conducted the main independent review of the scheme. They found that the supply of ACT jumped in six of eight sites where the pilots were held, rising by 26-52%. Prices dropped in most places.
But critics pointed to gaps in the voluminous report. Young children are malaria’s main victims, but the report did not track whether the programme boosted their use of ACTs, noted the American government’s President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI). There was no urgent need to lower the use of artemisinin, as its use was already rare in most pilot sites. Without diagnostic tests, PMI warned, many malaria drugs were likely to go to people suffering from pneumonia or other illnesses.
Oxfam called AMFm a “dangerous distraction”. Members of the Institute of Medicine’s committee mounted a strong defence in the Lancet, a medical journal. The Clinton Health Access Initiative presented evidence that subsidised ACTs did improve treatment for children.
Nevertheless, the Global Fund’s board decided to roll AMFm into its general grant process, rather than expand it as a separate programme. Countries may still use it as a way to obtain ACTs, but they must weigh the programme’s cost against other priorities. Some supporters are already in mourning. “It has very little chance of survival at this point"

from the economist.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by queenxo

http://www.givewell.org/international/charities/gfatm
and then many independent reports on this charity in the media and financial assessors.
It is not one I will support there has been allegations of fraud at global fund since 2004 with Sweden withdrawing annual donations.
http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-25141586

http://m.finetwork.biz/?url=http%3A%...charity%2F7871

There is too many black marks against the global fund but also prudent reasons others have not supported them. Lack of feasible results from programs.


Science and technology
The Global Fund
Heal thyself
Grappling with a controversial malaria programme
Nov 24th 2012 | NEW YORK
THE Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was founded in 2002 to help the world’s most afflicted. In recent years, however, the Global Fund itself has needed treatment. Donations have dwindled because of the financial crisis and reports of mismanagement. In November 2011 the Global Fund said it would make no new grants until 2014. In January its director said he would step down.


By most measures the millennia-long fight against malaria has now had enormous success. Between 2000 and 2010 malaria rates plunged by more than 50% in 43 countries. But questions remain how best to stamp out the disease.
On November 15th the Global Fund’s board said it would end a controversial pilot scheme for treating malaria. Discussions about this scheme began in 2002. The malaria parasite had long developed ways to fend off one type of drug, chloroquine, and doctors feared it would increasingly resist artemisinin, a newer treatment. After much deliberation a committee at America’s Institute of Medicine proposed a new way to supply artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs). A funding agency could negotiate prices with drug manufacturers and subsidise the medicine at the local level. The ACTs would be available at public facilities and sold by tiny drug shops, in many villages the only source of medicine. Use of older drugs would drop. The Global Fund introduced the Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria (AMFm) in seven African countries and Cambodia in 2010. To date it has spent $463m on the programme.
Uncertain medicine
To its supporters, AMFm was a way to expand good treatment dramatically. But the approach was criticised from the start. Oxfam, a charity, worried that the poor could not afford ACTs and that shops would sell drugs to those who did not need them. The American government was sceptical and declined to fund it.
The Global Fund was due in November to decide whether to expand or scuttle the scheme. The prior weeks brought a frenzy of papers and passionate debate. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and ICF International, a consultancy, conducted the main independent review of the scheme. They found that the supply of ACT jumped in six of eight sites where the pilots were held, rising by 26-52%. Prices dropped in most places.
But critics pointed to gaps in the voluminous report. Young children are malaria’s main victims, but the report did not track whether the programme boosted their use of ACTs, noted the American government’s President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI). There was no urgent need to lower the use of artemisinin, as its use was already rare in most pilot sites. Without diagnostic tests, PMI warned, many malaria drugs were likely to go to people suffering from pneumonia or other illnesses.
Oxfam called AMFm a “dangerous distraction”. Members of the Institute of Medicine’s committee mounted a strong defence in the Lancet, a medical journal. The Clinton Health Access Initiative presented evidence that subsidised ACTs did improve treatment for children.
Nevertheless, the Global Fund’s board decided to roll AMFm into its general grant process, rather than expand it as a separate programme. Countries may still use it as a way to obtain ACTs, but they must weigh the programme’s cost against other priorities. Some supporters are already in mourning. “It has very little chance of survival at this point"

from the economist.com

---

theres just no way I'm reading all that bro. buy the gems or don't, it's 5 frighin dollars...

I bought it an hour before the damn update.
:(