tv Full Measure With Sharyl Attkisson CBS February 28, 2016 11:00pm-11:30pm CST
club." [ cheers and applause ] >> all right, welcome back to the "monopoly millionaires' club." it is time to play the big game. all right, let's find out who's gonna play for $1 million. we are gonna start with our big winner tonight. andrea, you won $42,000. do you want to give that up to take a chance to come down here to play r $1 million? [ cheers and applause ] >> going for the $1 million! >> she's gonna play. come on down. come on n wn. let's play for $1 millioio [ audience barking ] all right, my dear. right here you go. okay. >> all right. >> in front of you is the monopoly board. if you can go around this board in five rolls, if you can n ss go, you and the lottery winners in the dog section are going to
how about that? [ cheers and applause ] but if you can land exactly on go, you and d u alone are going to $1 million. how about that? >> yes! yes, yes! >> if that happens, all the lottery winners sitting in your ction will split tonight's audience jackpot, which is going to be... $300,000! hos that sound? [ cheers and applause ] out in the m mdle of the floor you're gonna see is the monopoly rock 'n' roller. it's gonna start shaking those dice. when you want it to stop, you hit that button one time, take your thumb off it, oka >> okay. >> you got five rolls to get around this board. andrea, this is for... >> both: $1 million. >> yes. >> i wish you the best. okay, fire up that rock 'n' roller! [ cheers and applause ] all rit, big number. let's go, big number. let's s , big number. all right, 4. right this way, my dear. 1... 2...
4. income tax. you're gonna get $2,000 back on a refund. not bad. >> okay. okay. >> all right, you got 4 rolls to go. remember, we want some high rolls or some doubles totoelp us get aroundndhat board. are you ready? >> right. yes. >> all right, fire up that rock 'n' roller! [ cheers and applause ] come on, big numbers. come on, big numbers. [ audience barking ] doubles. there you go. right this way. >> yes. >> 1... 2... 3... 4. vermont avenue. how much is that worth? $3,000. all right. >> all right. >> $5,000 in the bank. you rolled doubles, so that's a free roll, which means you still got 4 rolls to go. >> oh, right. >> you ready? >> yes. >> fire up that rock 'n' roller! come on, big numbers. big numbers. [ cheers and applause ] 5. right this way. 1... .. 3... 4...
how much is that gonna be worth? $6,000. there you go. [ cheers and applause ] up to $11,000. all right, you got 3 r rls left. are you ready? >> gonna get some big rolls. yes. >> let's make them work. all right. fire up that rock 'n' roller! [ cheers and applause ] all right, let's gnow. [ audience barking ] let's go now. come on, big numbers. oh, still good, though. still good. i thought you had that 11. come on. 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8... 9. we landed on chance. okay. >> no. >> four cards are gonna come up. there's some good stuff and d me bad stuff. choose wisely. [ audience shouting ] what number would you like? >> 3. >> show me what's under card number 3. oh! all right. you had 2 rolls left. now you only have 1. here's the thing. you could roll doubles again. okay?
what i don't want you to do is i don't want you to roll an 8 because then you're gonna lose all your money. you have $11,000 in the bank right now, okay? so, don't lose faith. i've seen weird things happen on this stage, okay? >> i'm not losing faith. >> all right, so roll me some doubles. fire up that rock k ' roller! [ cheers and applause ] come on, doubles. come on, doubles. we need some doubles. oh, we need some doubles. >> come on. >> come on, doubles. oh! so close. all right, let's see what you get for this 9, though. 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8... 9. pacific avenue. how much is that worth? we're gonna add $18,000 to your bank. that's gonna bring you up to a grand total of $29,000. you're gonna split that with the dog section. unfortunately, you're out of rolls. you were a great player, andrea. >> thank you. >> congratulations, and thk you for being with us, okay? have a great night.
[ cheers and applause ] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is resesnsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] sharyl: hello. i'm sharyl attkisson. welcome to "full measure." today we begin with a question of human testing and the dilemma posed by the need to do research for the greater good and the right of human test subjects to know exactly what t ey're
our incredible story begins in 2004 with a federal study of 1300 extremely premature infants. some parents say had no idea they agreed to a risky experiment that could injure or kill their babies. little dreshan cook came into the e rld at 1 lb., 11 oz., fighting for his life. his mother sharrissa was barely six months pregnant when he was born. sharrissa cook: i remember the night that i went into labor, i was a hysterical wreck. i was afraid, i was scared, i was in shock. sharyl: how big was he, do you remember? sharrissa: he would fiin your hand. sharyl: shortly after his birth at the university of alabama at birmingham, sharrissa agreed t t enroll dreshan in a study called "support." she says the hospital gave the impression she was simply signing up to get "support" in caring for a preemie. your thought was, when you signed the papers, that what was going to happen? sharrissa: that my son would be given the best care possible and that even with his prematurity being as extreme as it was, that it would be okay because i had all of this help. sharyl: she had no clue, she says, that the "support" study was actually a national experiment on the most fragile of test subjects -- 1300 extremely premature infants. bernita lewis also agreed to enroll her baby, christian, in
hospital. bernita: christian was born at 27 weeks. sharyl: how much did he weigh? bernita: he was 1 lb, 9 oz. he was very tiny. sharyl: she says a hospital worker told her the study was just to collect data. bernita: she asked would i be interested in christian being in a study. they wanted to use his medical records to help babies in the future. and i told them absolutely, they could use any records they wanted to use. sharyl: did she tell you there was a possible risk of death? bernita: no, there were no risks discussed. sharyl: "support" stands for "surfactant positive airway pressure and pulse oximetry randomized trial." funded with $20.8 million tax dollars, it was a collaboration among the national institus of health and two dozen research bodies, including duke and yale universities and medical schools. researchers had good intentions. they already knew that without
get brain damaged or die. but too much oxygen, they could go blind. the "support" study was searching for the sweet spot. dr. john lantos: the question is -- what level of oxygen would be optimumuin order to save as many babies as possible without blind? sharyl: to find out, the infants were randomly assigned, as with the flip of a coin, to either a low oxygen group or a high oxygen group. the study reached a tragic and conclusion -- the babies in the high oxygen group were more likely to go blind. those unlucky enough to have been put in the low oxygen group were more likely to die. when the findings became known, similar research around the world was halted midstream. bioethicist dr. john lantos defendnd the "support" studydys an expert witness against families who unsuccessfully sued for damages, including bernita and sharrissa. dr. lantos: this was a study that was w wl-designed, conducted to the highest ethical standards, with a completely adequate consent that was conducted without harming any
finding that's gonna save lots of liviv. sharyl: on nearly every point, dr. michael carome disagrees. he's an internationally recognized expert on research ethics at the watchdog group public citizen. what's wrong with what they did in the study, in your view? dr. carome: the parents of these babies weren't told the exact purpose of the research,h,he natureref the research, in terms of how experimental it was, and the risks of the research. sharyl: adding to the controversy, researchers didn't tell parents a remarkable fact -- they had altered the infants' oxygen monitors to give false readings so the hospital wouldn't adjust them outside of their assigned low or high oxygen range. babies in the study were put on oxygen monitors that were rigged to give untrue or false readings? dr. carome: that is correct. sharyl: in terms of things that have happened in the past, how bad is this? dr. carome: i think this is
bad as it gets. dr. lantos: it seems to me that there's a lot of second guessing, arm chair quarterbacking, and playing gotcha here. sharyl: the debateteould be purely academic if it weren't for an extraordinary turn of events -- after questions were raised, the government agency that polices study ethics sided with critics and issued a searing indictment of the government-led study. in a letter in 2013, the office for human research protections told researchers they violated federal regulations for informed consent for their failururto describe the reasonably foreseeable risks of blindness, neurological damage, and death. dr. carome was once a senior leader at the office f f human research protections. the ethics office was in essence saying these consent forms were unethical? dr. carome: absolutely. sharyl: the concept of "informed consent" arose from an american tragedy -- the u.s. government's syphilis experiment on blackcken in tuskegee,e,labama in 1932. for 40 years, the men were
syphilis. an outcry in 1972 led to new rules. researchers are now required to disclose risks to test subjects and get their voluntary informed consent. and studies like "support" must be approved by ethics experts where the research is conducted. these were prestigious institutions and the federal government. how does something like this slip past everybody? dr. carome: that i ia great concern of ours. we looked at the consent forms from 22 institutions and they all failed in their duty to protect human subjects in this study. dr. lantos: most of the criticism is not coming from parents, but from regulators who, in my opinion, don't really
oxygen therapy. sharyl: when the "support" parents learned ababt the true risks, the surviving study children were six years old. what thoughts did you have? sharrissa: it was really emotional. a lot of cryinin a lot of disbelief, a lot of heartache, and then it was anger. i'm his mom, you know, i'm supposed to protect him, but it was almost like i threw him out to the wolves, you know. bernita: i was angry. and i couldn't believe that some people who vowed, who took oaths to protect people would actually do this. that was mind-bogglili. sharyl: if you had been told the risks involved and what they were really going to do, would you have signed him up? bernita: absolutely not. no. sharyl: yet there were no apologies. instead, t t "support" researchers made a bold, new claim that's particularly controversial -- they said the
for having been in the study. dr. lantos: the risks of not being in that study were comparable to the risks of being in that study and perhaps even higher. sharyl: dr. carome argues that's simply wrong. dr. carome: there's no d dbt that some babies, because they were in the study, died as a result. sharyl: amid the criticism, the "support" researchers and national institutes of health dug inin theyeyaunched a public campaign of opinion letters and meetings to attack the office for human research protections and pressured it to suspend enforcement action. >> the sensational claims of calling people unethical further detract from the serious dr. carome: the research community, many in the bioethics community and nih, have rallied together to defend this unethical research, and so that's part of the problem. sharyl: today, dreshan and christian are both nine and doing well considering their challenges. but they have many lingering health struggles, from respiratory problems to brain disorders.
the "support" study factors in. bernita: we don't know if it would have happened anyway, or if it was caused by this. and it's just a game of just wondering. arissa: he was born n emature, at 25 weeks. so, we could expect some things, but to know that some others could have been prevented, you know, that makes me angry. and so, to the doctors or to the researchers, best thing i can say is shame on you. sharyl: more than 80 years after the tuskegee experiments, the "support" study has reopened painful wounds and is raising questions as to whether the protections for human test subjects are fundamentally flawed. those who've conducted this study and the federal government at large have basically said they don't think they did anything wrongng sharrissa: i don't see how anyone can say nothing was wrong
with babies. babies who had no say so, no choice, no anything, just trying to survive. sharyl: numerous "support" researchers, the national institutes of health or nih, and the university of birmingham at alabama declined our intview requests. after the study revealed more deaths among babies on low oxygen, the american academy of peatrics issued new to surviveve recommendations to keep preeeees on the upper end of the oxygen curve. in other words, doctors should not do what the "support" researchers did to half of the babies. still ahead on "full measure" -- this eleleion year will be the most expxpsive in history. we'll tell you where the
money. sharyl: litical march madness is about to begin.n. tuesday,y,oters in more than a a dozen ststes will caucus or cast primary ballots in the 2016 presidential contest. so many delegates are at stake that it is known as super tuesday. super tuesday has a super price tag as well. millions of dollars will be spent to attract voters. scott thuman "followed the money" to find out where all that cash is coming from. >> washington isisroken. >> i'm fighting for you. >> no excuses, no surrender. scott: from the television ads to campaign events across the country -- >>od bless the great state of nevada. scott: running for president is expensive -- even for a billionaire. mr. trum i'm funding mywn
i'm putting in a fortune and spending a lot of money. scott: and a lot of so-called "outside" money is b bng pumped into this campaigngnycle. that's money spent by organizations other than the campaigns of the candidates. according to the federal election commission, the 2016 presidential candidates and the outside popotical groups supporting them combined have raised nearly $1 billion so far. with nearly half of that money -- 45% -- coming from sosoalled supepepacs, outside groups that cacasupport candidates but are not allowed to coordinate with their campaigns. and there's no legal limit to the amount of cash super pacs can raise or spend. so, where is all that money coming from? on the democrats' s se -- hillararclinton has raised $184.1 million according to the center for responsive politics. $57 million of that is outside money with $50 million alone from priorities usa,a,he super pac that helped get president obama re-elected in 2012. its top individual donor for this election, at $6 million
philanthropist and political activist george soros. bernie sanders has raised $95.4 million -- nearly all from direct campaign contributions. sanders has negligible super pac backing. his biggest chunk of outside support is $1.7 million from the union national nurses united. sen. sanders: american democracy is not supposed to be about billionaires buying elections. scott: among the top republicans -- donald trump has $27 million fueling his presidential bid with 70% of that money coming from the candidate himself. trump's biggest outside money, $1.8 million, comes from the super pac, make america great again. ted cruz has $101 1 llion cking his campaign w wh nearly $50 million coming from outside groups, including four super pacs that share the same name keep the promise. their biggest donor is listed in
billionaire wilks brothers, at $15 million, who made a fortune ininracking. >> thank you very much. i appreciated. scott: marco rubio rounds out the top three gop contenders with $77 million in his war chest. $34 million of those dollars are from outside groups. the biggest chunk, $32.9 million, from conservative solutions pac -- its biggest donor is a luxury car aler in south florida -- braman motorcars. but money alone can't guarantee a candidate will win the nomination. just ask jeb bush. the former florida governor far outraised ch of the top three republicics who are still in t t race -- $152 million with some $118 million coming from the super pac right to rise. sharyl: and all that money gone. thanks, scott. scott: still ahead on "full measure" -- we read the political funny pages and talk with some of the happiest people in america -- the political cartoonists who see this election as a gift. and the president's push to close guantanamo. we'll talk to one influential senator who gives a simple
sharyl: at presidentbama's last state of ththunion, he reaffirmed a commitment that was part of his first campaign -- to close guantanamo bay. this week, he announced how he would do it and why. pres. obama: for many years, it's been clear that the detention facility at guantanamo bay does not advance our national security - it undermines it. sharyl: the plan is a blueint to disperse the 91 remaining detainees, the last of nearly 800 who have either entered or exited since 2002. of the 91, 35 would be transferred to other countries. the rest, deemed to be too dangerous to release, would be moved to a facility, yet to be named, in the united states. the white house claims closing guantanamo would have an added bonus of saving g tween $65 million and $85 million a year. pres. obama: keeping this facility open is contrary to our values. it undermines our standing in
it is viewed as a stain on o o broader record of upholding the highest standards of rule of law. sharyl: among those vying to be the next in the oval office -- sen. rubio: we are not going to close guantanamo. donald trump: we are going too loaded u uwith some bad dudes,s, believe e . sen. cruz: expand it and let's have some new terrorists there. senator sanders: i think we should shut down guantanamo. in the long run, it will help us. mrs. clinton: we don't need guantanamo hanging out there over our heads. sharyl: wednesday, attorney general loretta lynch testified before congress and confirmed highest standards of rule of law. that transferring detainees to the law. president obama has not been successful in closing gitmo
office. recently, we spoke with senator lindsey graham, who sits on both the appropriations and armed services committees, who explained why it's not likely to close now. how can it be stopped? sen. graham: because congress won't let it. there's no way you're going to bring guantanamo detainees inside america without a plan approved by the congress. three years ago, i sat in the oval office with the president offered to help him close gitmo under one condition -- that the people who are brought into the recently, we spoke with senator lindsey graham, who sits on both united states be held under the held indefinitely without trial, no requirement in a war to let prisoners go as long as they're dangerous. we couldn't get there, so, at the end of the day, the only reason guantanamo bay is not closed is because president obama would not tell the left something they didn't want to hear. sharyl: president obama has shown, though, that he doesn't need your approval, hasn't he? sen. graham: yes, he would. there would be no funds available to transport the prisoners from guantanamo bay into the u.s. we can't make policies, we're not commanders in chiefs, but we do control the purse strings. i don't see any scenario where the congress would agree to fund to transfer the prisoners and set up a new jail. these are not common criminals . they're enemy combatants, the hardest of the hard.
back to the fight of americans and our allies. they need to stay in jail. sharyl: logistically, could he not empty out the prison before he tells you he's done so? sen. graham: no. he'd have to have funds to move them. sharyl: but he's released prisoners before without telling you in advance. sen. graham: he's repatriated prisoners to third countries not inside the u.s. sharyl: can he do that with all of them? sen. graham: no, there's no way that he's going to be able -- 49 are deemed by his own administration to be too dangerous to release. sharyl: do you think congress will take some kind of proactive action to tell him not to?o? sen. graham: i think there's going to be a bipartisan rejection to president obama's call to move people inside the united states given the conditions we face throughout the world. wherevev you put these prisoners, they become a magnet for terrorist attacks. there is talk about moving them to charleston. i can tell you this, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that any of these detainees are coming to the brig in charleston, period. shshyl: that "brig" in charleston is in senator