didn't there any in charge chance? so one of the uh, procedures that was scheduled for uh, another monkey named crosby who was also in my national science foundation funded procedure. in other words, this was a regular pro procedure. they were letting other procedures of other investigators uncomfortable situations go through their stop in mind and eventually for no reason at all or completely made up reason. veterinarians to crosby off of protocols, meaning i might cert came to complete stands deal. so um and then the university said that required various modifications to the my part of the part of an animal protocol is an upset, big set of procedures that i am authorized to perform. and it is, again, it's the federally regulated process in which the, the, i,

as the internal regulatory body mentioned, i signed up on it and the to have signed off on it. and they went back on what they had approved and they demanded changes to it if i had accepted, which i would not be able to hear from the, the prison of the grand research that i was funded to perform. so they put me in a bind where i was, forgive my friends, i was good both ways. mm hm. uh, regardless of what i did, so i basically said, and you are not so totally university, you are not requiring others the researchers and the uncomfortable situation. we do the same thing, in other words, that clearly we're creating the different data center. and so the eventually ended up about in, in, in the summer of the 2015. yeah. about a year and

a half later. and they looked in as of saying they didn't do this, they have not been accused of any wrong doing. they basically said this guy doesn't have his protocol in place. so cancel is brent. wow. and i protested. i provided the various regulators including n, s a n i. and the usda, you're not a united states department of agriculture, which are all regulatory bodies in question, evidence of document town brain, etc. and they all look the other way and the, the most are bridges or a couple of things where national science foundation said it, we by law, it good repeatedly said, is that the content that by law that required not to look into whistle blower complaint, while complaints of our animal wealth thing, which makes no sense at all, no,

no sense. i have no sense at all. i have to ask you what may be a little bit of a naive question. but it seems to me that none of this would have happened. if the other research or the researcher who had given the the monkey and overdose had said, my goodness, i did something terrible. it was an accident. i overdosed the monkey and he passed away. i'll fill out the form and we inform the government. none of this would have happened. why either, why wasn't that the case? why not just just be honest about it and say i made a mistake, the correct? and it's a short answer is, you know, sometimes it's a, it's a, it's not the crime. and so, but the cover of the prime and exactly, exactly important very much. yeah. it was very much like that. they could have said that and it could have come from nothing because everybody mates, most dates and, and in a,

in it man research you tried to minimize must haves. but sometimes mistakes happen . and the thing is, if you really care about the animals, if you really care about the law, you make up for it and you do your darn estimates or doesn't help them again. that's right. none of that happen here, as i don't know why the university and i was, i didn't do it right thing. but my best inform guess is as follows. the university was already under the radar of animal rights activities or previous violations. and they had to take them, you know, there was a publicity, etc. so they clearly had a motive to not to encumber additional, publish it. and i think that i, that's my best guess as to why they wanted the whole thing to go away. and if there was a clear pattern that i kept on the days retaliated against me,

when that they didn't set me up, they turned in an odd job. and then so it basically tells them escalated and eventually ended up into their asking. and i said, for no reason the terminated my plan, what was your longer term experience with the university or even in the broader research industry, was the university's response to your whistle blowing in keeping with the way it normally did business. and if not, why do you think they went after you in the way that they did? or i, i think it was either. they had to come clean with the facts and they'd take it if that past past up to something it would raise more questions. that's my best guess . mm hm. um and so they just had to basically hunker down and, and stay with their original version the of them. or i'm sure they peer that

people raise more questions. now having said that, the university of half of the senate looked at it, they held in a hearing on the roles and everything. and they the committee that heard my case unanimously ruled in my favor. and as a university president, to take corrective actions, have it investigated by an external entities so that there's no conflict of interest, etc. and, and the university president is well with nice place and that all tempers, that i'm not going to take your recommendation. we are speaking with dr. j heck day he is a scientist and whistleblower from the university of augusta on the issue of animal research. please stay with us. we're going to take a short break and come right back. 2 2

2 2 2 2 2 the, [000:00:00;00] the, by the middle of the 20th century, the portuguese colonial empire was in an acute crisis. a particularly 10 situation had developed in mozambique the people of this country were put in a humiliating position, income inequality ramp, and illiteracy. this respect by the portuguese for the local traditions led to mass unrest. in 1964, the liberation front of mozambie for a limo began its armed struggle for freedom. the regular army was not easy to

resist, but the guerrillas inflicted considerable damage on the invaders through the fighters against the colonial regime were supported by the soviet union and china. whereas the united states and great britain took the side of the invaders board to gaze, responded to the guerrillas attacks with cruel counter insurgency. however, pre limos 10 year courageous struggle was a success after the overthrow of the fascist regime in portugal in 1974. the new authorities surrendered a year later, lisbon fully recognized the independence of mozambie, but the victory had been gained at a high price during the war, mozambique had lost tens of thousands of his sons and daughters the,

the the welcome back to the suppliers. i'm john kerry onto were speaking with animal research whistleblower doctor j hag day dr. every day. thanks again for being with us. thank you. i want to ask you a few more specific questions about your case. i've read several affidavits that clearly and unequivocally show that you have told the truth from the beginning of this case. it seems to me that the university would just want to cut its losses by walking away from this. i've been in a similar situation where the aggressor made a settlement offer and then just quit. but that hasn't happened here. can you speculate as to why that is? there have been. so let me back up and say, i have an ad. there was a lower case under georgia, was a drawer, attaches against the university and,

and the board of regents. and there have been settlement todds and, but i'm not allowed to go into the details of this met the settlement times, but i can tell you that that's a general matter my position in i don't want the university or anybody else to throw money at me and expect me to have said because that personally animals that of hers is the cause of loss. so compliance with the law, etc. and so i want accountability and i want this as a community in the university. i learned from the experience to make sure that this doesn't happen again. mm hm. and i've always, my position has been, i would not settled for anything other than that. i'm also interested in know what the reaction has been. i'm on your colleagues in any industry, but especially in the hard sciences. success is based on truth. anything that is

not based on verifiable, facts ought not be considered. but again, that's not what happened here. does the university's position on this case not do harm to its long term prospects and this area of animal research isn't the university just turning itself by continuing to fight this the, there is the rubber band and that is, in this case. um, i think there is a share appear, but in the part of the lot of people that they, they just want this to go link right. and why a lot of people, i mean, including government agencies. so they had the room and agencies like and it's happened, the us department of agriculture simply dropped the ball. they didn't follow it, you know, but there was one agency that'd be, that'd be level 50 is picking cars out, have jurisdiction, and agency called old office of laboratory animal welfare of our national institute of health. and don't get me wrong. national insurance account is, is

a very upstanding organization, does great work and, and by and large, there are officials are hired principal and ethical. but all law clearly active and not just in my opinion, not just on as a delay, but even mentally have criminal cover up of this because they said on the one hand they said we have certified that the number. that's the university. and i did everything by the book of the did not come, did not violate the animal welfare act in any way. right. and when push came, so when i pressed for details, they said we don't even have jurisdiction in this case. ready because it was the monkey was not covered by the national institutes of health brand, but the national science foundation right now. but at the same time,

they were telling the inspector general of the national science foundation that they were certifying that they looked into this. there's nothing wrong here there. there's no, nothing wrong with just move on. and there's one person that the goal was whose signature is on a lot of these certifications that's absent was last name, spelled w o l fs. and i have no doubt in my mind, my mind that he and knowingly engage in and misconduct as a government official the pedals that university covered up. and that is significant because once they've got this clean bill is held, so to speak from all the university could turn around and say, look, it's been looked at, there's nothing here in the one and that's exactly and what it ended up happening. so in other words,

augusta university was able to use the overall certification of to say that it's been looked at. there's nothing does here hold on. right. one of the affidavits submitted in support of your position says that there were, quote, many other on ethical, possibly illegal occurrences related to monkey welfare and the regulatory infrastructure at augusta university on quote. can you tell us a little bit about that? would you expect federal regulators to become involved in a situation like this? i have compared to everybody including congress at the department of justice and obviously all law and etc, etc. and i think one of the things that is happening is a confirmation bias, because there are other agencies that either i think this is old meals, or there's no problem here because they all think, oh,

our own law has already looked at it and decided there's nothing to it, and therefore we don't wanna look at it even, which is precisely the problem because an animal research not just to us university but. ready in our country as a whole, work time in our system where you have something wrong. the regulated parties, namely the universities and the researchers have the responsibility to report it properly to the government and take propose corrective actions. and right now the, the fact of the matter is, is that system is very easy to game, which is not to say that everybody cheats most people who play by the rules. but if somebody like, in this case of what happened in this case, if somebody wants to achieve cheating, is ridiculously easy because all you need to do is say to the government. but those

trades pays that. they looked at it, there's nothing here. and the government uses that, especially the agency is like barbara certified turnaround and long to write down certifying, say that there's nothing untoward happened here. when they in turn and turn the university can use to say, look, the government gave us a clean bill of health and therefore nothing must have happened. so in other words, it is kind of a like a, a look where at all you need to get it started and all you need to do is have the, uh, the honda and so just be the lie to the government with the straight face. and that is it should not be acceptable in any well, it is not acceptable to mileage through the searchers and most of mileage searchers uh privately and tell me uh my fellow research is telling me that this is

not right. it should be pitched. how have investigators or regulators responded to this? this has been dragging on for 9 years now. have you gotten any satisfaction? no, not at all. the. again, not me personally. i mean, i then would tell it again. so i would like to be made a whole, but there's a larger problem here that this case is a poster child for. and that is, it demonstrates that the government agencies, such as all of the work to defeat whistle blowing, which is why wizard blowing and animal welfare is especially pays where government agencies use government resources and power the actually longer. and the criminal activities and the feed was a blog and that has a change. and so this is the larger point i want your audience to take

a take from is, and that is quite beyond what happened to me personally the, the regulatory process in animal research is so it's not just as functional is for all the reasons that i mentioned this badly read so whereby most people are honest, but if you really want to, um, again, the system is ridiculously easy to do. so. dr. jay, hi, good. thank you so much for joining us. and thanks to our viewers for joining us as well. i'm reminded today of the words of the great author and future is george orwell. he said. intellectual honesty is a crime in any to tell of terry and country. but even in england, it is not exactly profitable to speak and write the truth in england. such concepts as justice, liberty, and the objective truth are still believed in. they may be illusions,

but they are very powerful illusions. that was true of england and the 1940s. it also appears to be true about augusta georgia in 2023 john kerry uncle. and this has been the whistle blowers, thanks for joining us until next time. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 of

the take a fresh look around his life kaleidoscopic isn't just a shifted reality distortion by power to division with no real opinions. fixtures designed to simplify all confused who really wants a better wills and is it just as a chosen few. fractured images presented as 1st? can you see through their allusions, going underground can the fabric, sanchez, i've been doing news for 30 years and 2 languages around the world. i'm here in the united states interviewed for president's work and for the us as major television networks, i believe there should be honest, direct,

and impactful the show is called direct impact. the so somebody happened in america recently that made a lot of people in the united states take notice. in fact there were people even in different parts of the world who seem to take notice as well. so what happen? this fox news host, tucker carlson. we have now learned is going to be leaving the fox news network. one of the company's top post tucker carlson is now out. folks news says it's posited company with that topic house and one of its most popular and controversial present it costs and hosted his last show this past friday. tucker carlson, suddenly no longer with cable news guy at fox news. why does that matter?

i'll tell you what matters. it matters because he was the networks most watched. personality with ramos watched news show. so why would they then let him go when you ask? because that's how cable news works. and as good as tucker's ratings were very something he maybe did not know about this business of ours here. let me do this and let me take you through my own journey of how i came to know this secret about cable news that few, including my friend tucker, seem to not understand. it's really more about what they don't understand about the people who run the cable news companies. people like fox news owner, rupert murdoch here, let me take you back. i once had a conversation with

a man who made murdock his billions of dollars. none other than roger is practically invented. fox news on the notion that america needed to have a conservative news network. so roger and i were friends, and we used to talk quite regularly. and one day, during one of those conversations, i remember i asked him, i asked roger rails who was building up and i can't build up fox news. why? he fired a particular host that day, despite the fact that she was quite popular. his answer tomorrow. he said to me, we'll just put somebody else there, and that's going to change. they're watching her, they're watching us. they're watching fox news. that's what roger said, what do you mean by that? seeing what he meant by that is something that i found about the hard way in my own case. she liked tucker, i once out of show that was highly rated. in fact, it was often the highest rated show on cnn one day to my astonishment and

disappointment. they fired me just like the same way. they fox just fired tucker girls. and as i sat there trying to figure out why they would fire me, even though i had some of the highest ratings and the networks history, i remember the words of both roger rails and somebody else. jim walton, st. jim walton was the president of cnn world wide who i worked for, i guess it was my boss right at the very top. and he and i also, i used to have frequent conversations including one where i found myself in mr. walton's office. i was feeling pretty good about myself because i was, well, i was sure that my show's ratings were okay. rick's list at the time my show was beating fox news, adam as nbc and the ratings. i was hoping for a pat on the back one instead. mr. walton says this to me is presidency and he says, look here and cnn wreck,

we don't care about ratings. they just don't matter. we don't make money off of our ratings. we make money off of subscriptions. yep. that's the secret. the cable news. it's not about what people watch, it's not even an exercise in democracy. really. it's not even so much about journalism, really anymore. it's a business, it's a business, and the business is about clearance. you say once a channel like fox or cnn, are guaranteed a place on directv and comcast dish and verizon. they've made it. they really don't have to do much else. they have 100000000 subscribers before they even open their mouths. that is what i eventually came to understand and it's what tucker maybe didn't understand. then again, maybe he did. maybe he knew that on cable news,

you get challenged the status quote, but he didn't have any way. and i really that, that. and that the dominion lawsuit is what really got him fired. because after all, his writings, as i learned from not one but 2 of the biggest names in cable news in terms of executives told me, ratings they just don't matter. and joining me now is um this sabrina sal body. she's a, she's the cause of the revolutionary blackout network. and sabrina, thank you so much for joining us. i'm going to start with what your reaction was. the moment you heard that the fox news ad essentially fired, it's the most popular and highest rated anchor in tucker crossing to. yeah, so i think for me, i was very much surprised. i didn't understand where fox news would hire a would fire. one of their,

basically their top show i so that was really interesting to me, but then i figured it must have something to do with something that he's been discussing on that show more of the anti war, a rhetoric he's had voices come on like armada and jimmy door that are anti war and i wondered if that was the reason why they decided to remove tucker cross. and so i really felt like it was the content that he probably discussed that they felt was a little too far for, for their audience. you know, i've been reading a lot and i mentioned those moments ago is i was setting this conversation between me and you of that. a lot of people don't understand the campbell news does not make it's money. offer ratings. people that, oh my god, why would they do that? he has a house. they don't care about ratings. they don't care about ratings. they make their money off subscriptions. it's a business. they're guaranteed 800000 subscribers. pardon me? a 100000000 subscribers a year between directv and comcast, etc, etc. so what do they have?

one guy doing, uh, you know, uh, 3 dot 3000000 viewers or another guy doing 2500000 viewers. it's kind of all the same to them, to business. it's not a, it's not an editorial news model like it used to be. that's right, and i can imagine they'll probably be more changes over there or fox. i mean, we saw seeing and go through a re shuffle of sorts. they have a new manager that came in and decided to change the content on cnn and say that they're not just gonna focus on the liberal audience. they're also gonna focus on the conservative audience as well. and we saw that with that trump town hall. so i think there are ships happening in mainstream media. i think part of that has to do with the fact that since joe biden, one of the presidential election of viewers have dropped off off from mainstream media. trump did give them a lot of a lot of readings and a lot of support. so i think that they're trying to move the ball in different places to see what can bring more viewers back. but i think the reason my viewers are leaving, but by the way, let me just stop here with the trump. the truck was

a circus. so everybody wanted to go and watch the circus. they wanted to be in the big top. they wanted to buy tickets to watch a circus, and that's essentially what, what trump represents. and if that's why ratings were up, that's why ratings were, were rob, i, i, i don't think it's necessarily that the business is changing. based on the guy who's in office. i don't think there's any difference between trump and obama, and biden, or any other president of the united states because the policies are essentially the same. and the business interests which i have clenched fists with those policies. and the government are the ones that are really mandating what we watch or what we get on these cable channels. i think i, i leave it to you. you say what? i think more people are starting to seek out independent media. i think they're tired of hearing the same narrative that you get from the state department. and i think that they are starting to question things more and we can point to the pan demik. that's something that more americans to started to question are since the

information has changed from a cdc. so this information like that, and then also this war with russian ukraine. war americans are starting to question . should we really send billions of dollars to ukraine over the past, like year and a half the why should the why should they? they didn't question a rock. they didn't question of got us didn't. they didn't question. yeah. man, they didn't question. lydia. they didn't question syria. why wouldn't make americans all of a sudden wake up and, oh, wait a minute. my government is spending between 50 and a $100000000000.00 a year in some places i. i can't even find on a map. why would they change the economy? a lot of people are still struggling right now. the gas prices, depending on what state you live in, the gas prices are still high for some of us. then there's the price is that the grocery store food is still expensive. this inflation that we're dealing with. so people are saying that more so people who are not left this have said this to me as well. they're saying now that like wait a minute, i'm paying what?