Buffalo Crash; Planes with Problems Allowed to Fly; Some Survivors Beat the Odds in Haiti; Future Uncertain for Detained American Baptists in Haiti; Oscar Frontrunners Come With Friendly Battle of the Exes; Pro-and-Con Conversation on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -Part 1
xfdhe CNN-NEWSROOM-05
<Show: CNN NEWSROOM>
<Date: February 2, 2010>
<Time: 09:00>
<Tran: 020205CN.V11>
<Type: SHOW>
<Head: Study Retracted Linking Autism to Vaccines; Pilots Blamed
for Buffalo Crash; Planes with Problems Allowed to Fly; Some Survivors
Beat the Odds in Haiti; Future Uncertain for Detained American
Baptists in Haiti; Oscar Frontrunners Come With Friendly Battle of the
Exes; Pro-and-Con Conversation on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - Part 1>
<Sect: News; International>
<Time: 13:00>
<End: 14:00>
T.J. HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: All right, thank you there, Betty. It's T.J., sitting in for Ali Velshi today.We're going to be taking you through the next couple of hours here, digging deeper on topics here, and as always, you can hit us up at AliVelshi on Twitter and also TJHolmesCNN.
We want to start today with a story that has really rocked the medical world. Parents, this is one every parent is going to be interested in, because the study and the doctor that started the whole debate about the link between vaccines and autism has now been discredited. Yes, the doctor and that initial study.
We want to go right ahead and bring in our senior medical correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen. This had a lot of people going,
Wow, when this came down. Now, let's give everybody a little background here. This is the study, and this is the doctor that kicked off this whole debate.
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. I was telling you that as a mom and as a medical correspondent, I get zillions -- zillions -- of questions from my friends, saying, Should I vaccinate my child? I'm afraid they might develop autism. So this is really -- people, parents are really concerned.
Well, this is the study that started all of that concern back in 1998. Let's take a little look at this time line here. In 1998, The Lancet, which is a British medical journal, published a study by Andrew Wakefield showing a link between autism and vaccines.
Well, now in 2010, those Lancet editors retracted the study from the published record. Here's what they said. They said, It has become clear that several elements of the 1988 paper by Wakefield are incorrect. Therefore, we fully retract this paper from the published record.
Now, it's interesting, because they -- they won't answer questions. When we called them and said, Can you sort of elucidate further?, they didn't really answer any questions.
HOLMES: Well, explain to us just how rare it is and how extraordinary of a step it is to take -- to go that far and say --essentially wipe this thing from the record?
COHEN: It is really, really rare. I mean, I'm not sure that I can remember a case...
HOLMES: Wow.
COHEN: ... since I've been -- been a medical reporter, which is nearly two decades. I mean, I think there have been a few, but not many.
And we called some editors of medical journals, and we said, How often does this happen? And they said this is extremely rare.
Now, The Lancet did say -- they kind of alluded to a problem with the study where they said that -- they appear to be saying it wasn't properly randomized. In other words, that the study subjects were not selected at random. When you do a study, you've got to select your study subjects at random. You can't hand-pick the ones that are going to prove your thesis. So that appears to be the reason why they retracted, or one of the reasons.
HOLMES: Now, since his initial study, people have, of course, fortified their positions. They either believe that these vaccines lead to autism, or people believe they don't. This study has been discredited in a lot of ways over the years, but, still, is this going to change anything now that we have, essentially, an official retraction of that study?
COHEN: But you're so right. People are in camps about this. They are in camps. There's sort of the Jenny McCarthy camp that says,
There's a link, there's a link, there's a link. I think vaccines cause autism.
And you know, we talked to some of those folks, and I don't think they're going to change. They say there have been many studies since that original Lancet study that find a link between autism and vaccines. They really believe in this.
In fact, there were protests in England in the past couple of days in favor of Dr. Wakefield. You can see they're out there, supporting Dr. Wakefield. These people firmly believe there's a link between autism and vaccines. Many of these people have children with autism, and they believe the vaccines did it. And even The Lancet withdrawing the statement is not going to change their minds.
HOLMES: All right. We talk about other scrutiny of this. I guess this news we got today with The Lancet retracting the study, this makes it official, if you will.
But over the years, so many doctors who were part of that initial study have come out and said, We don't want any part of it anymore. And also, there have been some major -- I mean, some serious official -- I mean, the CDC, as well, who have discredited the study. So, I mean, where are we now? Parents are looking at this like, What do I do now? What's it supposed to be?
COHEN: Right. Most of the authors, most of Andrew Wakefield's co-authors have backed away from that study and disassociated themselves. And pretty much every major medical group: The Centers for Disease Control, The Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, says that there is no link, that the science isn't there.
So parents need to make the decision on their own. I mean, they can go with what all of these major groups are saying. They can go with The Lancet retracting the study. Or, you know, they're free not to vaccinate their children. I mean, that is a choice that parents are allowed to make.
HOLMES: What happens to the doctor now?
COHEN: That's a good question. I mean, you have to wonder if he'll still going to have the same following, but certainly, those protests make you think that he will still have a following.
HOLMES: All right. Like you said, you -- this is probably the topic you get most of the questions on.
COHEN: Oh, absolutely.
HOLMES: I can imagine you're about to get a whole lot more.
COHEN: That's right.
HOLMES: Thank you very much.
COHEN: Thank you.
HOLMES: But again, a major, major news story today, in that the original, the doctor, and the study that started it all, have officially been X'd from the books, if you will. We'll continue to follow that story. Elizabeth will continue to follow it, as well.
We want to move on to another story. We are closing the book on that Colgan Air crash. You'll remember this one. And the blame is going squarely at the pilots.
Federal investigators are weighing in now, almost a year after that Buffalo tragedy.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: Well, a lot of you will remember that Colgan Air crash. It was actually Continental Express Flight 3407 that crashed near Buffalo right at about a year ago, killing 50 people.
Well, we're starting to get answers as to what exactly happened, and the NTSB placing the blame squarely on the pilots. Again, you'll remember 49 people were on board that plane that were killed. One person on the ground was killed. But we have been hearing -- been hearing the past couple of days about exactly what caused this. Meetings by the NTSB, and they're saying the pilot and copilot could have actually prevented this crash from happening.
Here's one of the quotes they're using. They said, The crew did not perform in a way consistent with the training they received. They're saying that the pilot, Marvin Renslow, actually was, quote,
casual and relaxed, engaging in, again I'm quoting, almost continuous conversation with the first officer.
And about that first officer. Her name was Rebecca Shaw, saying she was, quote, startled and confused when that plane entered a stall.
So, they did not hold back in a lot of ways and kind of putting a lot of the blame on those pilots.
Now, they opened, actually, that meeting, actually, in saying,
We are not here to really impugn the character of these particular pilots, not saying they're not good people, just in this particular incident, they did not perform the way the we hoped that training would have taught them to perform.
The NTSB vice chairman, Christopher Hart, talking now today at this hearing about what could actually help in that pilot experience. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTOPHER HART, NTSB VICE CHAIRMAN: The military was famous for world-class training, and not only that, but they had a very sensible and robust wash-out mechanism to take people out of the system who were not -- who just did not have what it took to be a good and competent pilot.
Unfortunately, in the civilian world, ours is not -- our washout system is not quite so good. For example, we -- our standards are if you meet the standards, you can have a license. It doesn't say, if you pass the test first time, the third time, the eighth time. It doesn't say how many times you can flunk the test. It just says if you pass the test, you're in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: All right, let me bring in former DOT inspector and current aviation attorney Mary Schiavo.
And ma'am, I think you -- you just heard what he said there, and that's a little scary to hear: it doesn't matter how many times you flunk, as long as you pass one time. I assume nothing -- I mean, you are the former inspector general there, at DOT. I assume nothing there surprises you that you hear about the conclusions about what went wrong in this crash.
MARY SCHIAVO, AVIATION ATTORNEY: Well, no. And also the NTSB at their prior hearing, I was at the fact-finding hearings on this accident. It was clear they were headed in this direction. And they do find fault with the pilots in about 3 out of 4 times in crashes.
However, there were some additional factors in that manuals, the Colgan flight manuals and aircraft manuals had mistakes in them. And these pilots hadn't actually had hands-on training. They'd never felt a stick shaker or stick pusher before, and that's really pretty shocking. The first time they felt it, they had 50 lives at stake.
HOLMES: And again, as a guy who flies frequently, and a lot of people listening fly frequently, as well, we scratch our heads to think that something like that is possible. That is the first time they actually felt that in a real-life scenario.
But, again, ma'am, are you telling me that some of this stuff --is that an isolated incident, or something like this, that inexperienced of a pilot, is commonplace?
SCHIAVO: It is commonplace industry-wide in the regional carriers. And in the past, that used to be a small percentage of our carriers, but now it's 53 percent of the flights in the United States of America.
And so, the -- the gray hairs in the cockpit, you find those only on the big flights. Sometimes on the transcontinental or the inter-transoceanic. But a lot of our flights are being performed by young people, and in many cases, young people earning at the very lowest salary scales. And as soon as they can escape the regionals, they do. So the experience goes with the bigger planes. More -- bigger plane, more experience.
HOLMES: All right. Well, again, former Department of Transportation inspector general and current aviation attorney --excuse me -- Mary Schiavo. Don't you go anywhere. Because we're talking about that one topic, but we've got something else that's not going to make a lot of frequent fliers feel good. We're going to talk to her again after this break.
And we're going to talk about the last place you want to have an emergency, of course, is 30,000 feet up in the air. But tens of thousands of flights are taking off, even though they need fixes. Yes, aisle or window is the least of your problems.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: All right, don't know if you're going to want to go flying after you hear this story. There's a USA Today investigation just out that finds 65,000 airline flights over the past six years should not have happened because the planes were not maintained to FAA standards. Sixty-five-thousand flights. It's possible you were on one of them. Millions of passengers were on those flights.
The reporter on this story, from the USA Today, was Gary Stoller. He joins us now on the phone from Connecticut, and also rejoining the conversation is former Department of Transportation inspector general Mary Schiavo.
Gary, let me ask you this simple question: after doing this study, are you more nervous about flying these days?
GARY STOLLER, REPORTER, USA TODAY : I wouldn't say I am more nervous about flying, because I've known about these problems for many years and reported on them. I think, certainly, there's a reason for many consumers to have deep concern about the maintenance on their airplane. To have at least 65,000 flights flying in un-airworthy condition is certainly not a good thing.
HOLMES: How were these things, these flights, allowed to take off? I guess we say they shouldn't have taken off, but I guess what mechanisms or lapses are in place that allows them to take off?
STOLLER: Well, often the FAA will only find these problems after the flights have taken off. It could be many months before the FAA looks through records and finds the problem. I also found that something the FAA would find a problem, mention it to the airline. The airplane would continue to fly despite the FAA pointing out the problem to them.
HOLMES: Mary, let me bring you back in here. Where is the breakdown, would you say? And I know some of this has to do with the fact that many airlines are, surprised to hear, and a lot of people would be surprised to hear it, outsourcing the maintenance, even outsourcing it to -- not just some other company, but foreign companies.
SCHIAVO: That's right. And Gary is right on, spot on in this article. What's occurring is we've kind of got a perfect storm. The airlines are outsourcing more and more maintenance issues, and this is a trend that started in the early '90s, except it's increased three- fold.
The FAA often follows the airline. They have maintenance inspectors that find to the airline. But the airlines are allowed to farm out, including to non-FAA approved repair stations.
HOLMES: Mary, why?
SCHIAVO: All they have to do is -- yes. All they have to do is recertify, and they're pretty much on an honor system. We just --we don't have any more inspectors today than we had 15 years ago, and yet the airline industry is dramatically different.
HOLMES: Why is that allowed? Mary, that sounds nuts.
SCHIAVO: Well, it is nuts. But the FAA has the theory; it's their way of doing business. They believe, and they have said this publicly in hearings, et cetera, that they are in partnership with the airlines and that the airlines should be allowed to self-report. If they find a problem and they report it, they receive amnesty.
So, the FAA has taken a bit of hands-off approach, in part. In all fairness to the FAA, they only have about 3,600 inspectors to cover the world.
You know, for example, in China alone there are 100 -- over 100 repair stations. And so they have to cover the word -- world with a very small workforce, so they allow the carriers to self-report. And if the carriers turn themselves in, then they don't get a work action.
But what has happened is they have now farmed out so much of the maintenance...
HOLMES: Wow.
SCHIAVO: ... that quality control has really suffered, and no one can really -- no one can really police it, because a lot of it is simply outside the United States.
HOLMES: Well, let's put up on the screen here a response from the FAA. And Gary, I'm going to bring you back in after we read this statement here. But the FAA saying, U.S. Airlines regard safety as their highest priority -- excuse me -- responsibility. Their maintenance programs reflect that commitment to safety.
Now, after your reporting, Gary, do you have a problem with that statement?
STOLLER: Well, I believe airlines do want to have safe flights. No one wants to have flights that have problems. However, these problems just keep recurring.
The inspector general for the Department of Transportation has pointed out that airlines and the FAA have poor oversight over a lot of the repair-station work. So the oversight is not being done; the work isn't being done. Yes, I believe that airlines would like to have safe operation, but there are so many problems.
HOLMES: And last thing here to both of you, if you can, quickly, for me. Do the airlines, frankly, need some kind of help? Of course, they are trying to keep a business running, and we historically, over the past few years, several years at least, they have been losing, hemorrhaging money, in a lot of ways. Do they need some kind of federal help to raise these standards, because a lot of this seems to be the result of them just trying to cut corners and save money.
Gary, I'll let you take it, and Mary, I'll let you wrap up.
STOLLER: John Gollier (ph), a former member of National Transportation Safety Board, had suggested that some of these fines or maybe even all of the fine money at the FAA, when they find a problem, actually be invested back into the airlines' programs to improve these maintenance programs. That's one idea. Whether it work -- whether it will work, I guess we don't know.
HOLMES: Mary, you go ahead. What do you think will work?
SCHIAVO: I'm going to use the big R word: regulation and re-regulation. The problem is that the airlines are in a situation very much like they were in the '30s. They're breeding -- bleeding red ink. They need help on safety. They have lost control on some of their operations. And the airlines were regulated because they asked for it in the '30s.
I think we're in a situation where we have to seriously consider whether we don't need additional federal oversight over these operations to ensure that we don't backslide. We want to keep safety right where it is: No. 1 priority.
HOLMES: All right. Well, Mary Schiavo and Gary Stoller, again, from the USA Today. It is an interesting, albeit a scary read. But thank you both for being here. We will hopefully continue this conversation later. Thank you both so much.
Well, no matter what you do out there, send a text, maybe buy some popcorn, raid that mini bar, chances are you've done at least one of those things. But you have to realize how much you get ripped off when you do so. We're going to be breaking down just how much you are paying through the roof.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: Taking a look at some of the top stories we're keeping an eye on.
Just say no to sex. It's an age-old debate. Does sex ed that teaches abstinence only does it work? Well, University of Pennsylvania researchers now say such programs may influence kids to delay sexual activities, especially if those programs don't just preach morals.
Turning to the president now, who's taking his message beyond the beltway and straight to the people today, holding a town hall in Nashua, New Hampshire. That's happening next hour. He's going to spotlight his proposal to boost lending to small businesses. CNN will bring that to you live when it happens.
Also, We Are the World is back. More than 75 stars came together yesterday to re-record that charity anthem. This time they were raising money for charity. Pink, Kanye West, the Jonas Brothers, just among the few to take part. The song first came out, as you'll remember, 25 years ago to raise money for Africa.
Well, a lot of you out there in this position, you can't believe the size of that cell-phone bill. You can't believe how much you got to shell out for popcorn at the theater. You can believe this, though: you're getting ripped off.
Stephanie Elam, my dear, dear friend, good to talk to you. Always have good advice for you when I get to talk to you on the air. And I don't understand why you don't just call me and tell me this stuff. Yes, just call me and tell me.
STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I could text you.
HOLMES: No call.
ELAM: I could text you, but then you're probably not -- you're probably not going to like it as much, T.J.
HOLMES: All right.
ELAM: Because what CNNmoney has found out, CNNmoney has done a little digging here. And they found out that text messaging actually has quite the markup. Let's say, oh, 6,500 percent of a markup.
That's because they're short, quick, and cheap to send these text messages, and they cost the carriers a third of a cent to deliver, but you know, most of us would pay for a text plan with our cell-phone bill, so it usually costs, like, 20 cents going out or ten cents coming in. And most of us do have a bundle that says, you know what? Unlimited texting. So they're making money hand over fist when it comes to texting, T.J.
HOLMES: So it only costs them very little to allow you to send the thing, but they're charging you a lot for it. Now, are we better off doing the text plans?
ELAM: I would say you probably are.
HOLMES: OK.
ELAM: Simply because if you go over it, then you get hit with another limit, too. It depends. My niece just got a telephone --her cell phone. She texts me all the time. I just went to unlimited texting. Just makes it easier.
Now, that's not the only place.
HOLMES: All right.
ELAM: Because it happens. It's true. She'll just say, Hi, Auntie.
The next place that you find out you are getting ripped off a bit is at the movie theater. Believe it or not.
HOLMES: We know this one.
ELAM: I think most of us maybe know this one. The movie theater popcorn, 900 percent markup there. A medium bag, it costs them 60 cents to make. and it costs $6.
The theaters are like, Look, people, we really make our money off the concession stands. We don't make our money off of the movies. That's a fractional part of their income. So really, movie theaters are in the business of selling junk food and water and soda pop and all that kind of stuff. So that one we kind of knew about.
But the hotel mini bars. Are you a mini bar guy?
HOLMES: I'm a mini bar guy.
ELAM: Actually, that's true. I knew the answer to that question before I asked it.
But you're looking at a 1,300 percent markup here to use the stuff in the hotel mini bars. Now, these things in that little drawer and also in the refrigerator are usually marked up by three to four percent of retail. And they often include rarer products, so you feel, Ooh, I don't know how much this would cost, because it's some, you know, almonds that they harvested at the top of a mountain some place I'd never heard of. So that's part of the issues there.
But the hotels are saying you're paying for the convenience of having it in your room.
HOLMES: Yes.
ELAM: The other thing that you have in your room there, movies, and the hotel movies are also marked up. They're marked up by 200 percent. That's because, you know, the movies in the room can cost you about 10 to 15 bucks. If you just went and one from your store, it would be like five bucks. So that was also up there, too.
And don't even talk about getting a bottle of wine at dinner. That's also really marked up. You don't even want to know about that. Cheaper to get a bottle.
HOLMES: Obviously, I need to call you, because I'm wasting money left and right. Stephanie Elam, always good to talk to you, my dear friend. Always good advice. Thank you.
ELAM: You too, my friend. Take care.
HOLMES: All right. Well, as we know, the job market out there is tight right now, but if you're looking for work, why not check out the best? Fortune magazine out with its list of the 100 best companies to work for. Just in case you didn't get enough of a dose of Stephanie Elam, here she is again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELAM (voice-over): It's a bear business that's gone to the dogs. What company lets you work side by side with your four-legged friend? Find out after the break.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ELAM (voice-over): What company lets employees bring their dog to work? Build-a-Bear Workshop. And kids are welcome, too.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I feel so well-taken care of here, because of the family environment that we have.
ELAM: At the toy store's headquarters in St. Louis, employees can opt for a compressed workweek. But other benefits also make working more bearable. A concierge takes care of dry cleaning, on- site oil charges and even Fido could be picked up for doggie day care.
Build-a-Bear Workshop is 80th on Fortune magazine's list of the best 100 companies to work for.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HOLMES: We saw, of course, people being pulled out of the rubble of Haiti's earthquake days and even weeks after they were buried alive. So why did they survive against all odds whiles so many others did not?
Our Dr. Sanjay Gupta looks for answers to a life-or-death question.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): We've seen story after impossible story of survivors beating the odds. This 5-year-old boy was pulled out after eight days. He was severely dehydrated.
This clerk at a hotel store was found after 11 days. He survived on food and drinks left in the store's wreckage. That's according to his brother. This man says he was entombed in the rubble for 14 days with a fractured hip. He says he had no food and survived by rationing water from a two-gallon jug.
And then there's this seemingly impossible image of this girl, rescued after 15 days. Rescuers think she had access to water from the bathroom where she was trapped.
In all more than 130 were rescued since Haiti's earthquake three weeks ago.
(On camera): So what really dictates someone's ability to survive these types of situations? You might guess the first requirement to survive is air. Imagine being trapped in a situation like this in a closed space with not enough oxygen, you're probably just going to have hours.
In fact, a lot of rescue workers when they show up in a situation like this, they'll actually bring this carbon dioxide monitors. You make carbon dioxide when you exhale. And they'll look for carbon dioxide pockets. If they find a carbon dioxide pocket, it's possible that someone is alive in there and quietly breathing.
(Voice-over): Water is the next critical element. Now there's no consensus on just how long a person can survive without it.
In fact, the study to find out would be unethical. Seventy-two to 96 hours, that seems to be the window. So anybody found after three to four days most likely had some access to water, even if only licking the dew off surrounding services.
Food comes next. People have gone up to two months as part of a hunger strike or a fast. And they survived. Accounts by earthquake survivors talk about eating rotten apples and other food that had been next to them.
This woman may be the longest survivor ever trapped after a disaster. Naqsha Bibi. She reportedly lived for more than 60 days buried in the rubble of her home after an earthquake in Pakistan 2005. I met her myself.