The Chris Voss Show - The Chris Voss Show Podcast – Cover-Up!: COLLUSION IN THE HALLS OF ACADEMIA by Helene Z. Hill Ph.D., Amy Waters Yarsinske

Episode Date: May 30, 2025

Cover-Up!: COLLUSION IN THE HALLS OF ACADEMIA by Helene Z. Hill Ph.D., Amy Waters Yarsinske Amazon.com Helenezhill.com In 1999, Dr. Helene Hill reported her observations and her belief that a young research assistant in the laboratory in which she was working had fabricated results for an experiment that were to be used to support an application for a federal grant from the National Institutes of Health. She reported what she had observed to the supervisor and to the University. As she delved into the laboratory's operations, she was to uncover additional research falsehoods used to fabricate data supporting millions of dollars granted by the government. Neither the faculty members involved, the Research Integrity Committees of the University, the courts, the government commissions charged with investigating research fraud, or the journals that ultimately would publish research based on fabricated results would listen to her. Her story reveals a shocking massive cover-up that impugns the very fabric of scientific integrity throughout the research community. This book is her story.

You wanted the best. You've got the best podcast, the hottest podcast in the world. The Chris Voss Show, the preeminent podcast with guests so smart you may experience serious brain bleed. The CEOs, authors, thought leaders, visionaries and motivators. Get ready, get ready, strap yourself in. Keep your hands, arms, and legs inside the vehicle at all times, because you're about to go on a monster education roller coaster with your brain. Now, here's your host, Chris Voss.

I'm Vaux, Chris Voss here from the ChrisVossShow.com. Anyway guys, welcome to the show. As always, we've got people that bring in their stories, their journeys, their lessons, things that will lighten your life, brighten your mind and make your life better. And of course, you're going to learn some stuff. That's what we're all about here on The Chris Foss Show for 16 years, 2400 episodes. The learning. Opinions expressed by guests on the podcast are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the host or the Chris Foss show. Some guests of the show may be advertising on the podcast, but it is not an endorsement

or review of any kind. Today's featured author comes to us from bookstolifemarketing.co.uk with expert publishing to strategic marketing. They help authors reach their audience and maximize their book's success. If I can learn to say it. Today we have an amazing young lady on the show. We're going to be talking to her about her book. Some of the things you may want to know about that's going on in the halls of academia and medicine. As always, be careful what you put in your bodies, folks. Of course, I've seen some of you McDonald's. better anyway, because I was probably there too anyway. She is the author of the book cover up collusion in the halls of academia out June 3rd, 2021.

Dr. Helene Z. Helena, I'm sorry, Helena Z Hill PhD is on the show with us today. We're going to get into her book and all the good stuff there. Helena, welcome to the show. How are you? Helena Haukai Thank you. I'm okay. Pete Slauson Thank you. I'm just making all the editing I can to do post show. Give us your dot coms. Where do you want people to find you on the interwebs? Helena Haukai www.helenezhill.com. Pete Slauson So give us the 30,000 over you. What's in your book?

What's in my book? First of all, I have to say that I didn't make this book. I provided the information about the book, but it was written by Amy Yarzinski and she did a wonderful job. She's not a scientist herself, but she took all the information that I gave her and she wrote it up and, and you wouldn't know that, that it wasn't written by a scientist. So she was your co-author then.

She's yeah. Or yeah, I guess so. I, the way I've written, the way I've set it on the cover is that it's, what did I say? Helena Z. Hill, as told to Amy Yarszynski. Pete So, give us some deeper details on what the book is about. Helen Z. Hill It's about the fraud that I observed in the laboratory that I was working in that was perpetrated by a younger researcher. I reported him and I tried to get him removed, I guess you could say.

I failed because nobody wanted to believe me. I'm very stubborn. And the first thing that I did was I reported it to my department chairman and also to the head of the laboratory. And then we had to go to a committee, which is called the campus committee on research integrity. I'm not sure that's a good name for it. Makes a campus committee on... Of irony, maybe.

But anyway, so then they held a number of sessions and they interviewed the people involved with myself, the guy who was the head of the laboratory, and then the guy that I believed had fabricated the results of his experiments. And we were interviewed one at a time and they didn't believe me. They believed the boss and they believed the researcher and they were, oh, there was another fellow who actually was the one who reported to me the experiments that he thought were being defrauded and I felt that he was absolutely right and I still believe that he is. This committee met several times and I have all the notes from that committee so I know what was said and it's pretty obvious that they didn't like

the fellow who reported to me, and they didn't like me. And so I would say that there was a fair amount of prejudice there, but in any case, when they finished up and made their decision, they ruled against my findings. And I actually, I went to the Office of Research Integrity at the NIH, which is the office that investigates scientific fraud. And it took about a year and I worked with a woman who was a scientist herself but had turned into a member of that committee. And she was very thorough and she supported me

and she believed that there had been a fraud. And she reported that to her committee at the end of the year and they didn't support her. So they said they ruled against her. But I learned some more information about data that had been fabricated and she suggested that I go back and file a new report to the committee, which I did. I went through the same thing again. They didn't believe me. And actually, her boss, the committee talked to him and her boss actually insinuated that I was lying.

And I wasn't. I don't lie. And the second committee, so the government committee, ruled against me. The second committee ruled against me. And I don't remember exactly how we won. Oh, I decided to file a case to the federal government. It's called a Cuitam, Q-U-I-T-A-M. And a Cuitam is, I am considered to be a relator.

I'm reporting the fraud and I'm stating that the government has been defrauded because the grant that these people were working on was who came from the federal government. That took a very long time. And you detail all that in the book. Yeah, I told that. That's told in the book. The book really focuses mostly on the reports from the various people. I had to choose witnesses, and the book really focuses on the questions and answers of the witnesses. There's a pretty lot of that. Pete Okay. All right. So, lay me a foundation so that people can understand what the importance of this book is for them to read it and hear your

story. Give me some more details of what you were doing, what you were working on, why it's important that there isn't fraud happening, and what does that mean to consumers or people that you want to read your book? Dr. Mary J. Barker Okay. We were in a radiation, a radiology department. Radiology is responsible for x-rays of people and also of radiation that's used. People get injected with radiation, it's called nuclear medicine, and they may use the radiation as a tracer to find things inside of people and so forth. And it's a very important aspect of patient care. And I didn't know you were going to ask me these questions.

I retired eight years ago. And I also, I'm 96 years old and I also suffer from memory loss. Pete Slauson What? are you really 96 though? You said I'm really 96. You're holding up well. That's my husband. He's younger than I am. Ah, you're a, you're a cradle robber there.

Anyway, and nuclear medicine is, is involved in smoking out tumors and things like that. You using, using radiation. It's not involved in radiation treatment, it's involved in radiation studies of the human body. Pete How long were you studying that sort of stuff, or in that field? Julie Say that again? Pete How long were you in that field? Julie Oh, I was in that field for many years.

I got my PhD in 1964. I worked in medical genetics for a while, but I actually started being a radiation person in about 1972. And from then on for what, 60, 50, 60 years, I was in radiation. Pete Now, so what impact does it have to consumers for the story you're sharing here? Did they need to be concerned about, you know, what they're being exposed to if there's fraud? Was it mostly a government sort of fraud to get more money for research or tell us about

how that plays out. I would say that the people who, the person who wrote the grant application, his goal was to get money to do research from the federal government. So ripping off basically government taxpayers, maybe? But what the, what nuclear medicine is all about is that it uses radiation to study what's going on inside a person's body. Are there tumors there? Are there other abnormalities there? And that sort of thing. And you want to be sure that you're not using too much radiation because that's not good

for people. Radiation is basically dangerous. And also you want to be sure that you're not using too little radiation because you wouldn't be able to find the things that might be damaging to the human body that you're studying. So it's important to have the right dose. And these experiments were really designed to study that sort of thing. Yeah. So, I mean, it's important to consumers because they want to have accurate science, accurate

testing, you know, no one wants to get an overdose of radiation that could be, you know, cause some harm in the long run. And that's never a good thing. Last time I checked, I try and, you know, I try not to hang out at Chernobyl. That's kind of one of my rules. I don't eat off the ground there either. You tell the story and it's an interesting thing. And did, you know, I think there's, isn't there, is this, would this be part of the whistleblower cause or a clause that's in, you know, we have a whistleblower thing for our government, or is it more you were,

more it was embodied in the, in the college or university you're working at, I guess that was- I am definitely a whistleblower. And the government was involved because I was accusing the people in this laboratory of defrauding the government. Pete Slauson Yeah. Mary Flaucus Yeah. Mary Flaucus Yeah. So, do you feel there was a cover-up because they, you know, they didn't, they wanted to

discredit you because they felt, you know, they want more money, right? Mary Flaucus Of course, they want to keep getting grants from the government. And of course, they want to cover it up because they want, they don't want people to know that they're being cheated. Yeah, that's kind of wild there. Also they want to get results. One thing that in medical schools and science studies and so forth,

you have to produce papers in order to get ahead. So you have to write scientific papers and they have to be reasonable and well presented and so forth. That's, that's, and you know, basically what, what we are as scientists is we're paper producers and the more papers you have, you are credited with the, it kind of makes you seem like you're a better scientist because you've got a lot of papers. Yeah.

Doesn't, you know, they don't, a lot of times people don't even look at what the papers are about. It's just that, oh, you have a stack of papers. It's wonderful. So you must be really good. I have a stack of papers in the back, but they're just blank papers for the printer. Does that count? Oh, okay.

Really smart, evidently. We'll hire you. You know, sometimes being a whistleblower in government, you know, we've seen this in movies, portrayed in movies, dramatized, if you will. But you know, it can be kind of dangerous because you're putting your job on the line, you're putting your credibility on the line. I have tenure. My job wasn't really on line, although the dean of the medical school at one point actually threatened to fire me, which he could not do.

But it was a very nasty thing for him to write and tell me that if I didn't desist, I would be fired. Pete That's a, that's a threat, you know? Julie It was definitely a threat. Pete It's definitely a threat in intimidation of a witness or intimidation of a whistleblower, really, when you think about it. Julie Yeah. Pete I'm familiar with that. Julie I got a copy of that letter, I've saved it, don't worry.

Pete So, did, in the book, did you get anything resolved or is it still an open case that's still pending or working or it's you're, you're trying some different avenues. It sounds like to. It's finished. And it's finished because it went to the, we, we, I had a wonderful lawyer who, who was really, I mean, this was not his field. He wasn't a radiation biologist. It went to the... I had a wonderful lawyer who was really... This was not his field. He wasn't a radiation biologist, but he learned so much about radiation and he spoke so well.

But when the case finally went to the judge, it didn't go to a jury or anything like that. It just went to the judge. The judge ruled that the principal investigator didn't know at the time that he wrote the grant application that the data was false. And so since he didn't know, he wasn't ruled to have done anything wrong. Now that seems kind of weird, doesn't it? Yeah. He was gonna know later on, but didn't know at the time

that he submitted his grant application. Okay, you got the grant and he got the grant. And actually it could have all been straightened out. The National Institutes of Health, people could have told him to try again, do the experiments over again and that sort of thing, but it never came to that. Because the head of the lab never really owned up to the fact that he knew that the data had been fabricated. Isn't that wild? That is wild. And you know, this is important. We don't need fraud and different things in our research because, you know, I don't want

to get the wrong thing and have it, you know, give me issues health wise or kill me or maim me or anything else, you know, I already do enough of that on my own at McDonald's as I joked about earlier. There's an organization called Retraction Watch and they are always looking for scientific fraud. Are they really? Yeah. No.

And they do a very good job of that, actually. And they've been going now for maybe 20, 25 years, something like that. And over the years, you know, they've, they've accumulated the data on, on scientific fraud. And I'll probably, what would you say, George, maybe, maybe five, 10% of data that's published isn't true. Wow. Wow. Now is, you know, we see a lot of these studies and it seems like there's a study for everything

now and you know, we hear sometimes that some of these studies are paid for by the organizations that are looking for data to use as, like, why cigarettes are good for you? And it's paid for by Philip Morris. And you're like, wait, this seems really... And they get this researcher back that sometimes, sometimes, you know, smoking is good for curing cancer. I mean, in the long run, it does kind of cure cancer. You should die. Never heard that.

I mean, there were some of those ads that were going on in the 60s and 70s, whereas, you know, doctors approved camel cigarettes for smoking, you know, and there's a doctor sitting there holding the thing, you know, and so I think there was some sugar lobbies that did some cheating that way. They hire data and researchers to, you know, sugar is good for you. Snort it today, you know, that sort of thing. You know, it's important that we get accurate data and of course our taxpayer dollars, we all contribute to that.

So we want those used properly to fund us and stuff like that. But 10%, that's pretty huge How much would you estimate that is a monetization of fraud out of all the you know funding that goes on for this sort of thing? You know if I think 10% is is a little high more like 7 or 8 percent something like that, but as far as funding is concerned, funding is, you know, the money is coming, a lot of it is coming from the government and the government is being defrauded. Pete Yeah. In your book, do you put forth any steps that maybe, you know, governments or colleges or universities or anybody who's involved in this,

these studies can improve on, or maybe, I don't know, maybe we need more investigators or something like that? Did you put anything in your book that, you know, gives people maybe a roadmap to move forward and avoid or eliminate fraud? What I have suggested is, let me see if I can say it, I think that people cheat because they want to get ahead. They need to get research grants. You apply to the NIH for research grants and very few of them are going to succeed. So principal investigators are breaking their backs trying to get their research funded and because the competition is so great, they don't succeed. As a result of that, that kind of encourages people to cheat. And I think that what I think we could do to ameliorate that is to make sure that everybody

who wants to do research ought to have some funds in order to do it. Now if you're going to be big time and have a big lab and all that sort of thing then you're going to get more money but it just it shouldn't be that's that when that the that of the people who are applying for research grants so few of them are funded. I mentioned the irony that the result has been confirmed even though the experiments were faked. In fact, if they had done the experiments correctly, they would have found the correct answer. Absolutely. Absolutely. In my book that hasn't come out yet called The Crying Window, hasn't come out yet called the crying window. I actually found the experiment that shows

that the guy was right, even though he had been making up the data. Pete Slauson Really? So, the guy you turned in? Edna Friedberg One experiment that did it. Pete Slauson So, the guy you turned in had been doing it right and the data was right, even though he was cheating? Is that correct? Edna Friedberg It was really, basically, his was cheating? Is that right? It was right. Basically, his boss was involved in the experiment with the guy who wound up doing the cheating. It was the first experiment that they did with this particular radioactive compound. So the experiment was done right.

The boss didn't like the way the setup was and so he had his postdoctoral fellow change it and when he changed it the guy started making up the data. And I speculate that. I mean I have no proof. I mean I could show you that but I could show you that the data is not right. And my explanation of that would be that he made it up. What did the… You know, we analyze, we have numbers that are involved here. And you analyze the numbers and you can see that the numbers are impossible.

So they just logically, they're're beyond the pale, I guess. Mary Yeah, yeah. Pete So, let me ask you this. You want to teach, you know, we want people to buy the books, so they read the book and hear your adventure. What do you hope people learn from what you went through? Mary I hope that they'll learn that we need to change the way scientific research is financed by the government. And that we ought to have more money so that more people can get funding and maybe those more people are not going to get as much as they might like.

But at least they should, everybody, or not everybody, but most everybody should have access to some research funds so they don't have to split their sides trying to write grant applications and then finding that only 15% of them are going to be funded and they're in the 85% that are not funded. So they have to go back to the drawing board, write it again, keep splitting their sides to, and it's very frustrating. It's boring, it's frustrating, it's hard. Pete Yeah. It sounds like it's a hard business and therefore, you know, maybe the only inclination to cut corners or cheat. Now, you mentioned your next book that's coming out. Tell us about that book. Does it have a title yet?

Oh, it's called The Crying Window. Okay, The Crying Window? Yeah, it's really an autobiography. It's called The Crying Window because when I got my first scientific job, my husband had his, we were hired by the University of Colorado Medical School and I was in the biophysics and genetics department and my husband was, he's a surgeon so he was in the department of surgery. And I would ride my bicycle to work and we had two little daughters and the youngest was about three years old. And the house was a beautiful house that we had bought. And there was a windowsill.

And she would stand on the windowsill and she would stand and look out the window. And I would ride my bicycle past the window as I went to work. And she would cry and cry and cry and say, you didn't kiss me goodbye, you didn't kiss me goodbye. And of course I had. And one day she got so angry that she kicked the window and she broke it. Hey! And the glass went all over the driveway. And to me, that was a metaphor for the rest of my life. Yeah. You know, so you find that the truth is important to you and that it has

value and it's probably very important to the scientific community. And in telling your story, I mean, did the government believe you? I mean, the government had to step in somewhere here, right? Dr. Edna Friedman You know, the government, what's the government? Unfortunately, we didn't have Donald Trump in those days, but the government is a huge entity. The Office of Research Integrity was responsible for investigating my charges. I had a woman who had been a very good scientist herself, and she was now one of the investigators at the Office of Research Integrity.

And she spent a year interviewing me, going over data and so forth, and she believed that I was right. And at the end of the year, she presented all of the information to her committee and said, and her boss said no, didn't believe her. And she had written a report and I have a copy of that report in which she stated that she believed that I was right and that the university should go back and examine things. And her boss denied that.

And so the case was closed. So that was, that was the end of it with the office of research integrity, as far as my charges were concerned. Wow. But now you're out telling your story and getting people familiar with your stuff. It sounds like you had quite a thing there. How many years did this take that you were going on with this back and forth and kind of feeling a little bit maybe in limbo? Mary F. Kennedy I saw the, I made the first charges of scientific fraud in 2000. And the case

finally closed, I think in 2012. So it took 12 years. Pete Wow. 12 years of your life. And you know, I'm sure that, you know, it's not cool, you know, the people are second guessing you and you're trying to prove your ideas and everything and other stuff. Dr. Edna Friedberg I think people looked at me, I don't think I had, well, I know I didn't have very many friends. Now you talked a little bit about, you didn't know how to fight.

You were ashamed for being a whistleblower. Talk, talk to us about what that feeling is like going through that compression zone of, of, you know, you're, you're putting yourself out there. It's not, you know, it's not all fun and games and you know, there's a lot, there's a lot probably that potentially you could have as a downside. Mary Feehan We know as the case developed, once I went to the courts and filed my case for Quetam,

then we got all of the data from the laboratory and we could analyze that. And I had a statistician who was an expert witness for me. And I also had a radiation biologist who was an expert witness for me. And both of them went over the data very carefully and agreed with my findings. So I had just the support from them and we didn't lose because of their testimony. What we lost, we lost because the judge said that the principal investigator did not know that the data had been fabricated when he filed the grant application. Now, does that make sense?

I don't think that makes sense. But that doesn't matter if it's, you know, it's like saying you didn't rob a house if you came through the front door or something, I don't know. I'm just kidding around. But yeah, that doesn't make any sense at all But yeah, that doesn't make any sense at all. Dr. in favor of the appeal. And again, it was the same thing. And as a matter of fact, in the appeals court, there were three judges. And the kind of the lead judge was a woman. And as a matter of fact, her background was very similar to mine. She grew up in Philadelphia, as I did, and she and I were about three years apart in age and so forth, which I thought was kind of interesting. And the first thing that she said was,

I don't know what's, basically, I don't know what's going on here. I never took a science course in my life. What's she doing? Judging science. That's the way the courts are. That's true. I don't know, the judges are scientists most times.

I don't know. But so... So I would argue, and that's one of the things that I really think is important, that scientists should be judging scientists. Yeah. And that this, I should never have had to go to the federal courts in order to run this case. I should have had a scientific body

that I could have gone to. Would have had radiation biologists, people who knew radiation and what it was all about. Should have been the judges. That's not the way it's set up now. That's just wild. I know that scientists do, what is that called peer review?

Or they do a peer review on- They do, absolutely. And stuff like that. And I know that's some things, but I think those are not necessarily to, to root out, to root out fraud. I don't know, is there anything like that to root out fraud in a peer review? Maybe that's what they- I don't think so.

I don't think so. I don't think so. But you know, the Campus Committee on Research Integrity at the New Jersey Medical School where all this was going on, that could be your peer review. But that committee that was looking at my charges was not a peer review committee. It was mostly administrators. It was no one who knew anything about radiation. And there were only two scientists on the committee. One was the chairman.

And I believe I don't have any firm evidence of this, but I believe that she was very friendly with the head of the laboratory. Pete Yeah. It would seem that there is a bit of conflict of interest there. The administrators at the college, or, you know, who are interested in getting more money in the door, are like sitting there going, eh, you know, whatever. Yeah.

I mean, it seems like that would definitely be a conflict of interest. like sitting there going, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh,'s kind of a weird, weird. He was up to some too. You never know.

She is like, she turns in guys who are doing fraud. So, so I think I lost because she's just a fussy old woman who's chaotic. What the judge said? Mary E. Flaherty Yeah, oh, Kwik-Sotik. Kwik-Sotik. The judge said she's Kwik, that I was Kwik-Sotik. Pete Slauson

Really? Kind of weird. Don Quixote. Mary E. Flaherty Don Quixote. Pete Slauson Don Quixote. Oh, that you were on a mission to, yeah, okay, Chase. Mary E. Flaherty Tilting with windmills, right?

Pete Slauson Tilting with windmills. That sounds like something I've heard around these days. So as we go out, give people your final thoughts on picking up the book dot coms where they can go to find out more, etc., etc. Jai Radha I hope people will read the book. I hope people will read The Cry window. And also my first book, which is really for scientists, it's called Hidden Data. I see it's backwards when I'm looking at it.

The subtitle is called The Blind Eye of Science. What is that about? This is the data. So it's not for the normal reader. It's for scientists. It's an analysis of eight experiments that were done in the laboratory, which all have some fraud in the end. And also the NIH application for the grant. Huge amount of fraud. Huge amount of fraud, huge amount of

fraud. Pete Slauson That's one. Julie Lennon Making up numbers, just making up numbers. Pete Slauson Making up numbers. That's what we do on the Chris Voss show, we make up numbers too. We just, we just… Julie Lennon Make up numbers? Pete Slauson I don't know. I started that joke line thinking I could fall through and something would come to me and it just didn't. So, I'm stuck.

Julie Lennon Thought you were going to say musical numbers. Pete Slauson Yeah, musical numbers. I just needed some help from you. Yeah, the musical numbers. I know. We do that. There's a musical number that we can show. Does that count? Anyway, that joke fell flat as hard as it could be. So, give us your dot coms. We go out. When is the launch of the new book too, if you would please? Mary Flapp I think it's going to come out this summer. Pete Slauson Okay. All right, we'll watch for it. And what was the dot com one more time?

Helena Z. Hill, MD www.HelenaZHill.com Pete Slauson Thank you very much, Helena, for coming to the show. We really appreciate it. Helena Z. Hill, MD Thank you. And thank you for interviewing me. I really appreciate having the chance to talk about all of this. I hope people will listen and worry about keeping science honest. The more you know. Most scientists are honest, some are not. Pete Slauson Thank you for being brave, standing up, telling

your story and holding up ethics and morals and trust and honesty. We need more of that in this world. Thank you very much, Alana. Alana Menezer Thank you for listening to me. Pete Slauson Thank you. And thanks for tuning in. Go to Goodreads.com for just Chris Voss and all the places on the internet where you are. Order the book where refined books are sold and watch for her future upcoming book. It's called Cover Up, Collusion in the Halls of Academia, out June 3rd, 2021. Thanks for tuning in, go to Facebook.com, ForchessCrisposs, LinkedIn.com, ForchessCrisposs, and all those crazy places on the internet.

Be good to each other, stay safe. We'll see you next time. And that's out.