net.i'm mark hyman3 3 a little goes a long way when it comes to losing weight. and the latest on the zika virus. a little bit goes a long way when it comes to losing weight and the latest on the zika virus. marlie hall as the week's top health stories.

have been confirmed in nine pregnant women in the united states. that's according to the cdc. all contracted the virus overseas. three babies have been born, one with a brain defect. government researchers are also investigating 10 additional reports of president travelers with the virus. good news for obese people trying to slim down. researchers in st. louis found that just a 5% weight loss could spark the biggest health benefits. a 10-pound weight loss in a person weighing 200 pounds cut diabetes and heart disease risk and the improving function. and transgender children with family support for better mental ahealth according to to researchers at the -- university of washington. those are some of the week's top health stories.

a woman in ohio tested positive with the zika virus is speaking up about her experience. we spoke with her and have more on the story. >> reporter: not many people have been to haiti 25 times. >> i'm georgia and i'm a volunteer educator in haiti. >> reporter: is because of the trips that georgia is part of an even smaller pool. one of just five ohioans to test positive for zika. >> your joints are painful. >> reporter: she traveled to haiti twice a year since 1987, the same year she graduated from seminary school and began spreading hope. she knew as thing or four about mosquito born illness.

>> on hardware last strip -- her last trip december 23rd. she didn't hear about zika. >> we went to the countryside and out in the ocean doing fishing and then we slept outside. >> reporter: eight days later. new year's eve, she had the flu with one difference. >> i was hotter an usual. and i looked in the mirror anda a rash on my face. >> reporter: eight days after that she saw a doctor at her home town. on thursday she learned it was zika that made her so sick. photographs taken, she dealt with the illness. >> it just happened. it is a luxury to be able to say that because it didn't effect me long-term. just ahead. the road.nick popham is next

3 muskies have lost nine of their last ten and are looking to change their current trend against the madison capitols. muskies have lost nine of their last 10 and looking to change their trend against the madison capitals. the muskies mascot is trying to fire up the crowd for the matchup today at tyson center. 1st period, muskies capitalize first with t.j. who sneaks the puck into the net to give sioux city a 1-0 lead. in the 1st, capital tie it back up, but eli smacks it past madison's goalie. 2-1. to the 3rd period, and

boyle has anything to say about it. sioux city within two. the final few minutes of the game, josh with the backhand. it goes in. but not enough, the muskies lose this one, 5-4. and to college basketball now, number eight iowa taking on ohio state in a big 10 matchup. jarred from nba range it is good. puts the hawkeyes up. and mike gets inside and in traffic and a great shot. and later in the 2nd half, hawkeyes up by three. and anthony drives to the basket and nails the shot. iowa up, 55-50. and less than seven minutes to go in the game. beyond the ark, hits the three, but the hawkeyes could not hang onto this one. now, onto the pros and the nba.

dallas, and the timberwolves take on the mavericks and misses and the jumper, and jang gets the rebound to put the game within seven. and then dave adds the one down low. and mavs up by 26. the 4th quarter, the mavericks in the lead. raymond passes to j.j. for the easy lay-up in. 30-point lead for dallas. and they won, 101-128. the 8th annual academy awards underway tonight. stars made their way the dobe theater and protesters express their unrest over the all-white nominees. several top african-american directors also stayed away choosing instead to host a live benefit for flint, michigan,

with lead. and a milestone for a long time radio host as he performed his last radio program at the fitzgerald theater. the long-running companion can be heard across the country. it has a weekly audience of nearly 4 million listeners. 73-year-old keeler has posted for more than 40 years. after tonight, he will perform at the minneapolis state theater in may. and his final july 1st in los angeles. great to have you doing

welcome back. so a little bit of snow and rain [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible 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

for the greater good and the right of human test subjects to know exactly what they're signing up for. 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 world 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 fit in your hand. sharyl: shortly after his birth at the university of alabama at birmingham, sharrissa agreed to enroll dreshan in a study called "support." she says the hospital gave the impression she was simply signing up to get "support" in

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 the "support" study at the same 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?

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 institutes of health and two dozen research bodies, including duke and yale universities and medical schools. researchers had good intentions. they already knew that without enough oxygen, preemies could 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 optimum in order to save as many babies as possible without having the survivors become 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.

similar research around the world was halted midstream. bioethicist dr. john lantos defended the "support" study as an expert witness against families who unsuccessfully sued for damages, including bernita and sharrissa. dr. lantos: this was a study that was well-designed, conducted to the highest ethical standards, with a completely adequate consent that was conducted without harming any babies and led to an important finding that's gonna save lots of lives. 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, the nature of the research, in terms

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 extremely serious and about as 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 debate would 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

describe the reasonably foreseeable risks of blindness, neurological damage, and death. dr. carome w w once a senior leader at the ofofce for 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 black men in tuskegee, alabama in 1932. for 40 years, the men were neither told they were in a study nor treated for their 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 appppved by ethics expertrt where thresearch is conducted. these were prestigious institutions and the federal government. how does something like this slip past evevybody?

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 understand the circumstances of oxygen therapy. sharyl: when the "support" parents learned about the true risks, the surviving study children were six years old. what thoughts did you have? sharrissa: it was really emotional. a lot of crying, 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

to protect people would actually do this. that was mind-boggling. 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, the "support" researchers made a bold, new claim that's particularly controversial -- they said the babies were actually better off 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 doubt that some babies, because theyey were in the study, died as a result sharyl: amid the criticism, the "support" researchers and national institutes of health dug in. they launched a public campaign of opinion letters and meetings to attack the office for human research protections and pressured it to suspend

>> the sensasaonal claims of calling people unethical further detract from the serious diussion that needs to occur. 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. their moms are left asking if 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. sharissa: he was born premature, at 25 weeks. so, we could expect some things, but to know that some others

know, that makes me angry. and soto 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 bjects are fundamentally flawed. thoswho've conducted this sty and the federal government at large have basically said they don't think they did anything wrong? sharrissa: i don't see how anyone can say nothing was wrong with playing russian roulette 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 interview requests. after the study revealed more deaths among babies on low oxygen, the american acadede of pepeatrics issued new to survive. recommendations to keep preemies 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" -- the price of the presidency. this election year will be the

we'll tell you where the

money. sharyl: political march madness is about to begin. tuesday, voters in more than a dozen states 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 s super price tag as well.

spent to attract voters. scott thuman "followed the money" to find out where all that cash is coming from. >> washington is broken. >> i'm fighting for you. >> no excuses, no surrender. scott: from the television ads to campaign events across the country -- >> god bless the great state of nevada. scott: running for president is expensive --ven for a billionaire. mr. trump: i'm funding my own campaign. i'm putting in a fortune and spending a lot of money. scott: and a lot of so-called "outside" money is being pumped into this campaign cycle. 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 political groups supporting them combined have raised nearly $1 billion so far. with nearly half of that money -- 45% -- coming from so-called super pacs, outside groups that can support candidates but are not allowed to coordinate with their campaigns. and there's no legal limit to the amount of cash super pacs

so, where is all that money coming from? on the democrats' side -- hillary clinton has raised $184.1 million according to the center for responsive politics. $57 million of that is outside money y th $50 million alone from priorities usa, the super pac that helped get president obama re-elected in 2012. its top individual donor for this election, at $6 millionon -- $7 million, is billionaire 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

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 million backing his campaign with nearly $50 million coming from outside groups, including four super pacs that share the same name keep the promise. their biggest dononois listed in "open secrets" as the billionaire wilks brothers, at $15 million, who made a fortune in fracking. >> thank you very much. i appreciated. scott: marco rubio rounds out the top three gop contenders with $77 million i ihis war chest. 4 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 dealer 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 each of the top three republicans who are still in the race -- $152 million with some

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 n a gift. and the president's push to close guantanamo. we'll talk to one influential

sharyl: at president obama's last state of the union, he reaffirmed a commitment that was part of his first campaign -- to close gugutanamo 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 blueprint to disperse the 91 remaining detainees, the last of nearly