In the world of pharmaceuticals, a “blockbuster” is the term reserved for a prescription drug which has annual sales in the billion-dollar plus range (with the emphasis on “plus”).

While annual sales in the $500 million range are nothing to sneeze at, the many drugs that attain that level are looked upon as revenue producers. The blockbusters are looked upon as king-makers.

Thus, when drug has the potential to attain the elusive “10-figure” status, some very questionable marketing strategies take place. These include:

•    Failing to disclose or report negative test or clinical trial results;
•    Failing to report adverse reactions;
•    Failing to finalize post-approval testing or reporting;
•    Spending more on advertising a drug than on developing and testing it;
•    Withholding negative information from doctors or using questionable incentives to encourage the writing of prescriptions for a specific drug;
•    Indirectly engineering a campaign to stimulate (while not actually promoting) one or more “off-label” uses of a drug that may actually generate more income for that drug than the approved uses. (The “off-label” market will be described below.)

These revenue-driven strategies do not make a drug better or safer. In fact, every case is little more than marketing winning out over science, safety, and even ethical considerations. In the case of Natrecor nothing good can be said concerning the manner in which the drug was promoted and marketed.

Natrecor, or nesiritide, was approved by the FDA in 2001 to treat congestive heart failure or acute decompensating heart failure in which patients experience shortness of breath and the heart fails to adequately pump blood to other organs in the body.  The drug works by mimicking a hormone-like molecule that dilates vessels to prevent blood from gathering in the heart and lungs thereby allowing the patient to breathe.

 Natrecor is manufactured by Scios, a company which was bought by Johnson & Johnson in 2003.  As many as 600,000 patients have been treated with the drug since its approval.

Natrecor was, and still is, supposed to be used for the sole purpose of treating hospitalized patients with the aforementioned heart conditions. Despite this express limitation on its approved use; Natrecor has become an increasingly popular option in outpatient clinics nationwide where it is used for far longer periods than it was originally approved for. 

Some outpatient clinics even administer Natrecor twice weekly for up to 12 weeks.  This type of use is considered to be extremely dangerous as no study has been conducted to confirm whether long-term use is either safe or effective. 

This “off-label” use of Natrecor has lead to the discovery of severe side-effects and a subsequent push from medical experts and consumer advocates for the manufacturer to conduct further large-scale, longitudinal studies of the drug.

The off-label prescribing of drugs beyond the scope of their approval by the FDA has become a serious concern in recent years. Dosage levels, medical conditions, and treatment durations for which drugs were never intended or tested make the entire area of off-label use problematic at best. At its worst, the practice can be downright deadly.

It is for this reason that the FDA regularly discourages and even warns against such uses of drugs. This has been especially true in the case of powerful drugs like antipsychotics, heart medications, and antidepressants.

The incredibly strange thing about off-label use, however, is that doctors may prescribe drugs to treat conditions for which the FDA has even denied approval. Thus, while a manufacturer cannot market a drug for an unapproved off-label use, a doctor may prescribe the drug for that use.    

Thus, if a pharmaceutical company is able to subtly (or, even not so subtly) stimulate off-label use of one of its drugs, the return in unanticipated profits can be quite significant. In fact, a clever marketing scheme can turn a restricted approval drug with limited sales potential into a billion-dollar blockbuster.

Many times, off-label use of a drug is stimulated by doctors themselves who are acting more like marketing agents than as responsible health professionals.

Dr. Jonathan Sackner-Bernstein, a cardiologist at North Shore University Hospital in New York and an avid opponent of the overuse of Natrecor, co-wrote several journal articles that provide data which links Natrecor to kidney problems and elevated death rates. 

Sackner-Bernstein’s patients taking Natrecor were 80% more likely to die within the next 30 days than patients who had received other treatments such as diuretics or vasodilators. 

The issues relating to kidney safety were known prior to and during the process of FDA approval of the drug and are specifically noted in the drug’s labeling. Yet the increased risk of mortality was not entirely known or appreciated until the drug became widely used in outpatient clinics for extended periods of time. 

Although Scios argued that the Sackner-Bernstein paper included studies done at higher doses than are advised on the drug’s label, those higher doses are precisely what patients are being exposed to when they receive the treatment outside of hospitals.
 
Natrecor was never approved to be used as frequently as it is being used in outpatient clinics.  Sackner-Bernstien and other experts, including fellow cardiologist Keith Aaronson, have attempted to show that Natrecor should not be administered in outpatient settings and that the drug’s label should indicate the serious problems associated with unrestricted off-label usage.

In the July 14 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Eric Topol of the Cleveland Clinic was highly critical of the way in which Scios was marketing Natrecor and he even went so far as to state that the drug should be off the market because the FDA was never given sufficient data upon which to have based its approval. 

Natrecor has been aggressively marketed with sales of the drug now reaching almost $700 million this year.  This is because Natrecor is an expensive option, costing nearly 50 times more than standard therapy options. 

Natrecor is billed to insurance companies at up to $700 per session.  When used in hospitals for emergency situations, as intended, the cost, while high, is controllable.  However, when patients are receiving this treatment dozens of times in outpatient clinics, the cost quickly spirals out of control. 

In addition to other questionable marketing strategies, Scios provided doctors with promotional materials advising them on how to bill Medicare for Natrecor uses that are clearly not approved by the FDA. 

The Scios reimbursement guide, also available through a toll-free number, told doctors to use Medicare codes that treat Natrecor like chemotherapy allowing them to bill for lager Medicare reimbursements.

As a result, Medicare managers became concerned that reimbursements for Natrecor treatments in outpatient clinics would skyrocket as a result of the information that Scios has been giving to medical professionals.

In May 2005, Johnson & Johnson announced that in compliance with the FDA, it would revise the labeling for Natrecor to include data indicating an increased risk of mortality within 30 days for Natrecor patients compared with patients taking a placebo or other treatments. 

This was a good start but doctors and other medical professionals were still advocating further studies of Natrecor to determine the health risks associated with the drug.  Milton Packer, a cardiologist at the University of Texas, Southwestern, is concerned that Scios, like Vioxx maker Merck, has not done adequate studies to make sure that its drug is safe.  Although the FDA approved the drug in 2001, many doctors argue that today the vote might be closer and Natrecor would probably wind up with a tougher label.

Then, in May of this year, an independent expert panel, convened by Johnson & Johnson itself, recommended that Natrecor be restricted to severely ill hospitalized patients.  Most experts also agreed that a large-scale clinical trial is needed in order to determine the risks of Natrecor.   

Although a spokesperson for Scios argued that the company could not control how doctors prescribe the drug, Scios itself greatly contributed (or even created) the problem by affirmatively providing doctors with information on how to maximize their billing of Natrecor for off-label uses. 

Many experts consider it ethically irresponsible for a pharmaceutical company to promote an off-label (and potentially harmful) use of a medication for no other apparent reason than financial gain.

Such questionable conduct could have caused significant problems for Scios and Johnson & Johnson if the drug does prove to be as dangerous as it appears to be and it continued to be prescribed in outpatient settings as opposed to hospital situations where it is a life-or-death situation. 

In June, the panel of cardiologists convened by Johnson & Johnson and headed by the highly respected heart researcher, Harvard’s Dr. Eugene Braunwald, recommended strict limitations on Natrecor, including not using it for scheduled “tune-ups” or even administering it outside the hospital.

The panel specifically recommended that Natrecor only be used in cases of an acute type of heart failure when the patient actually shows up at the hospital; that it should not be used in place of diuretics, the first-line treatment for heart failure; and never used for outpatients, scheduled appointments, or to improve kidney function. 

Furthermore, the panel believed that: “Scios should immediately undertake a proactive educational program to inform physicians regarding the conditions and circumstances in which [Natrecor] should and should not be used.”

A member of the panel, Barry Massie (professor of medicine at University of California in San Francisco) also expressed disapproval of the manner in which doctors flagrantly engage in the off-label prescribing of drugs. He believes it is important for doctors to take responsibility for their actions and only prescribe drugs for their approved uses. “It shouldn’t all be blamed on the pharmaceutical companies, no matter what they do to encourage unproven indications.”

On July 20, Johnson & Johnson acknowledged it had received a subpoena from the United States Attorney’s office in Boston requesting documents related to the sales and marketing of Natrecor.

As a result of this virtual tidal wave of disapproval concerning the questionable tactics associated with the marketing of Natrecor, Johnson & Johnson added a clear disclaimer to its hotline used by doctors seeking information on how to charge Medicare and insurance carriers for the drug. The disclaimer clearly seeks to discourage the heretofore rampant off-label use of Natrecor. 

The disclaimer warns of the “lack of clinical data” regarding off-label use of the drug and that Scios “does not recommend Natrecor for this use.” Johnson & Johnson now plans to follow up on the panel’s suggestions.

Fortunately, in the case of Natrecor, the often ineffective checks and balances in the healthcare system finally worked to forever deprive Natrecor of the blockbuster status its manufacturers had so desperately attempted to achieve.

Unsubstantiated online marketing claims by Emerson Direct Inc. about their anti-smoking product, Smoke Away, have lead to a $1.3 million settlement between the Florida company and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

The FTC complaint against Emerson Direct, Inc. (doing business as the Council on Natural Health) of Naples, Florida, and its owner Michael J. Connors charged that the company could not support claims that the product made quitting smoking easy and did so without cravings or side effects.

The FTC also alleged the credentials of doctors were misused and that one chiropractor did not have the expertise he was claimed to have.

Also implicated in the complaint were Thomas De Blasio, M.D., a physician from Manalapan, New Jersey, and Sherry Bresnahan, D.C., a chiropractor from Algonquin, Illinois, who were involved in advertisements endorsing the product.

The FTC disputed a number of statements made about Smoke Away in a variety of advertisements including a national television infomercial, 60- and 120-second national television ads, 60-second radio spots, and on Web sites.

The company claimed Smoke Away enables smokers: to quit smoking in seven days or less; to quit smoking quickly, effortlessly, and permanently; to eliminate nicotine cravings; and that the product caused no withdrawal symptoms or side-effects such as weight gain, insomnia, or tension.

Claims were also made that Smoke Away is more effective than nicotine patches, nicotine gum, and prescription medications for smoking cessation.

The FTC charged that these claims were false or unsubstantiated and that Connors also misrepresented the company’s policy of giving prompt refunds to dissatisfied consumers.

In addition to the significant settlement, the company is prohibited from making any claims about the benefits, performance, efficacy, safety, or side-effects of Smoke Away or any other smoking cessation product or program unless those claims are true, non-misleading, and substantiated.  Distributors and sales agents must also be notified about the settlement.

Likewise, the defendants are prohibited from making any claims about the benefits, performance, or efficacy of any food, drug, or dietary supplement unless those claims are backed by scientific evidence. Doctor’s claiming to be experts must have actually tested the product.

A new, minimally invasive procedure may help in the diagnosis of lung cancer stage   thereby preventing unnecessary surgery. Lung cancer is currently the number one cause of cancer death for Americans.

The study, which appears in the August 24/31 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, is the result of research by Jouke Annema, MD, PhD at the pulmonary medicine division of Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

All the 100 subjects in the study were suffering from non-small cell lung cancer, the most common kind according to the American Cancer Society. Two tests were performed on each subject.

The first test, transesophageal ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), uses ultrasound technology to direct a fine needle through the lung lymph nodes. The needle harvests cells from the lymph nodes, which are then checked for signs of cancer.

The second test, mediastinoscopy, is done by inserting a scope through a tiny hole in the chest to observe the patients’ lungs. This is another means for taking and examining tissue samples.
Although about 2% of the EUS-FNA tests turned up false positives for cancer, doctors believe the new procedure will reduce the number of thoracotomies (partial or total removal of a lung).

Currently as many as 40% of thoracotomies for non-small cell lung cancer were done unnecessarily because of imperfections in determining the extent of the disease prior to surgery.  Researchers conclude about 16% of thoracotomies in their study could have been avoided by using EUS-FNA.

A series of significant lawsuits against the government of Ontario involving Toronto nurses infected by SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) have been allowed to continue after a ruling by a judge of the Ontario Superior Court.

The three lawsuits affected by the ruling include:

·A $600-million class-action brought by a nurse (Andrea Williams) infected with SARS in May 2003

·A $12-million lawsuit brought by the family of a nurse (Nelia Laroza) who died in June 2003

·A lawsuit on behalf of 53 infected nurses (each seeking over $17 million in damages) including one by the family of a nurse (Tecia Lin) who died in July 2003 

Although some parts of the lawsuits were dismissed, the remaining claims were permitted to continue. Two of the lawsuits allege that prior to the second outbreak known as SARS2, as Toronto was the subject of a World Health Organization travel advisory, government officials lowered their guard, eased hospital infection-control measures, and publicly declaring that the outbreak had been contained.

The suit by the Ontario Nurses’ Association alleges negligence in the handling of the SARS outbreak, arguing officials failed to provide adequate and timely information alerting nurses on how to protect themselves.

Although nurse Laroza began showing symptoms of SARS in May 2003 and believed she had contracted the illness, an emergency-room doctor sent her home with instructions to take Tylenol. Laroza died of SARS-related complications in late June 2003 after having infected her teenaged son. Six patients in the orthopedic ward where Laroza worked also died of SARS.

Her son stated: "Winning this motion and allowing our case to go to trial is a huge step towards finding out why our mother was allowed to die."

The plaintiffs claim that provincial officials pressured WHO to lift its travel advisory prematurely because it had severely affected tourism to Canada’s largest city. The government is accused of favoring tourism and economic considerations over infection control and the health of the Ontario residents.

The province of Ontario is considering whether to appeal this ruling.

The CPSC, in cooperation with Lamplight Farms Inc., of Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, has announced a voluntary recall of some 963,000Tiki® Bamboo Torches and approximately Replacement Fuel Canisters manufactured in China. Consumers should stop using the recalled products immediately.

The surface coating of some flame guards on these bamboo torches and replacement canisters can absorb the fuel and ignite. This can cause the torch and nearby combustibles to catch on fire, posing a risk of burn injuries and property damage.

Lamplight Farms has received 33 reports of torches catching on fire. There were six reports of minor injuries and nine reports of minor property damage.

These 5-foot-tall Tiki® bamboo torches consist of a bamboo pole with a weaved basket at the top and a metal flame guard, which is a circular black piece that holds the wick in place and attaches to the fuel canister.

The recall includes the Tiki® Beachcomber, Seagrass, and Sandpiper model torches. The recall also involves replacement canisters that have the metal flame guards. Recalled units have the following UPC numbers: 086861010372 (Beachcomber), 086861013335 (Seagrass), 086861010457 (Sandpiper) and 076354995262 (Replacement Canister). The UPC number and the model name are written on the packaging or attached tag.

The products were sold at Wal-Mart, The Home Depot, Lowe’s and other home and hardware stores nationwide from December 2004 through July 2005 for between $5 and $6. The replacement canisters were sold for about $1.40.

Consumers should immediately stop using these torches and contact Lamplight Farms to determine if they are included in the recall. If so, they will receive free replacement flame guards.
Lamplight Farms can be reached, toll-free, at (866) 239-6664 anytime, or by visiting their Web site at www.lamplightfarms.com

In a new identity theft scam, criminals are posing as members of local courts in order to obtain confidential information by accusing people of failing to appear for jury duty. So far, incidents have been reported in Arizona, Washington State, and Texas.

When the Harris County District Court Clerk’s Office in Houston found out about the scam in Arizona they informed the public via their Web site and received a number of calls reporting similar incidences in Texas.

In carrying out the scam, the caller questions a consumer about their failure to appear for jury duty after receiving a summons in the mail. Caught off guard, the victim often claims they never received the notification. The scammer then asked for confidential information for “verification.”

Court clerks, however, will never call you and ask for your Social Security number, credit card numbers, or other sensitive information. Moreover, such information should not be given out over the phone, even if the caller claims to be part of the judicial system.

Most courts follow up on jury notices by mail and never call prospective jurors. If you are in doubt, you should ask for a name and telephone number to call the person back on. A return call will either confirm the clerk’s story or reveal a scam has been attempted.

While the Canadian Police Research Institute has now stated that Tasers and other “conducted energy devices” are acceptable because the advantages they provide outweigh the risks they pose.

In reaching this conclusion in its report to Canadian police chiefs, the Institute was apparently not overly troubled by the enormous number of deaths that have occurred in cases where a Taser has been used.

The specific finding by the Coroner of Cook County, Illinois, that a Taser was, in fact, the cause of death of a man arrested in Chicago also appears to have been ignored in the report as the type of definitive evidence it was seeking to support the claim that the devices can cause death.

This report comes at the same time that police officers in five states have filed lawsuits against Taser International claiming they suffered serious injuries after being shocked with the device during training classes.

One officer, a Missouri police chief, alleges that he suffered heart damage and two strokes after he volunteered to be shocked with a Taser in April 2004, while hooked up to a cardiac monitor that was supposed to show the Taser was safe. The officer also claims he suffered hearing and vision loss as well as neurological damage.

Other injuries claimed by the officers involved include spinal fractures, burns, a dislocated shoulder, and soft-tissue damage. A previous lawsuit file in February 2004 alleged a sheriff’s deputy suffered a fractured back in 2002.

The lawsuits challenge Taser International’s central marketing claim that its device is safe and charge the manufacturer of misleading its customers concerning the potential risks posed by the stun guns. Taser is also accused of minimizing and misrepresenting the 2002 fractured back case even after its own doctor found a one-second shock from a Taser caused the injury.

The lawsuits also allege Taser International withheld reports of injuries to at least 12 other police officers and that the company has ignored credible research suggesting the device can be extremely dangerous, if not fatal.

As with all previous allegations against it, Taser International has stated that it intends to vigorously defend the claims. The company has denied any of the 144 deaths which have occurred following the use of a Taser was caused by its product.

Clearly, both sides cannot be right in this matter. As we reported on August 7, Taser International has now issued a training bulletin warning that repeated blasts of the Taser can "impair breathing and respiration."

According to a posting on Taser’s website, for subjects in a state known as excited delirium, repeated or prolonged stuns with the Taser can contribute to "significant and potentially fatal health risks."

The three-page bulletin appears to counter instructions in a training manual Taser International issued only last year. It also departs from Taser’s previous dismissals of safety concerns raised by groups such as Amnesty International, which has documented 129 U.S. and Canadian deaths of people stunned by Tasers.

The Houston Police Department (HPD), Taser’s biggest U.S. customer, has formed a review committee of police officials and community leaders, including representatives from the NAACP and League of United Latin American Citizens, to study the use of Tasers in the city of Houston.

The committee started by reviewing the HPD use-of-force policy, training sessions that officers receive, and the first 200 incidents in which Tasers were used in Houston.

Houston will also be involved in a study of Taser use conducted by a national police-research organization according to a report in the Houston Chronicle.

Obviously, a non-lethal weapon becomes a problem when it starts killing people. Many experts and critics of the Taser stun gun believe that time has long since passed. 

For example, using a number of sources, The Arizona Republic has now compiled a list of 144 cases in the United States and Canada since 1999 where a death followed the use of a Taser stun gun. http://www.azcentral.com/specials/taser/#

The sources used included autopsy reports, computer searches, police reports, media accounts, and Taser International’s own records. To date, the research indicates that medical examiners have cited the Taser to some extent in 18 deaths. In four cases it was a cause of death, in 10 it was a contributing factor, and in four it could not be ruled out as a cause of death. 

This, however, seems to be just the “tip of the iceberg” when it comes to Taser International’s mounting problems with respect to its approximately 100,000 stun guns now being used by some 7,000 U.S. law-enforcement agencies.

Despite the company’s spirited defense of its product, Taser International’s stock has continued to fall from $33.45 in December 2004 to $9.72 on July 30, a decline of over 70%.

From the very beginning, many experts questioned the safety of the 50,000 volt “non-lethal” weapon. A lack of adequate testing and independent medical evidence supporting the company’s bold marketing claims have been cited by such diverse critics as Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union, and a consulting electrical engineer as reasons for removing the stun guns from the market until more extensive testing is done especially with respect to how the device affects pregnant women, people on drugs, or those with heart conditions.

Even the International Association of Chiefs of Police have suggested that further testing is needed. The organization advocates using the device only to subdue violent suspects; not to use it on handcuffed persons unless they are “overly assaultive;” to use it the least number of times; and to seek medical attention for anyone who has been shocked.

In addition, all types of Taser-related lawsuits abound. Personal injury and death claims have been commenced in a number of states. In March of this year, Mesa, Arizona, settled a claim by a 43-year-old man who fell out of a tree after being shocked twice with a Taser by a city police officer. The City paid $2.2 million to the man who became a quadriplegic and another $200,000 to the hospital where he was treated.

A class-action lawsuit was commenced only last week in U.S. District Court in Chicago by the city of Dolton, Illinois, on behalf of police departments across the country for being misled about the safety of the Taser and for leaving the police with weapons that are too dangerous to use on the street.

The law firm representing the city of Dolton claims to have already been retained by other police departments in four states. Paul Geller, an attorney from that firm, states that the law suit would be dropped if Taser would agree to take back the stun guns.

The potential for huge personal injury and death claims have left many municipalities rethinking their purchase of Tasers. Some police forces like those in Birmingham and Lucas County (Ohio) have either stopped issuing the weapons or have pulled them of the street altogether. Other cities like Chicago have backed off making additional purchases.

The mayor of Birmingham ordered police to stop using Tasers after the death of an inmate who had been shocked with a Taser several hours before he died.

The mayor of Dolton, which suspended their use, calls his city’s purchase of Tasers “a mistake” because “they need far more testing.” He went on to say that losing the money his city paid for the Tasers was far less than the financial risk posed by even one wrongful-death lawsuit.

On January 6, 2005 Taser officials disclosed that federal authorities had launched an inquiry into claims made by the company with respect to its safety studies. The Securities and Exchange Commission was also probing an end-of-year sale which appeared to inflate sales in order to meet annual projections. 

In May, The Arizona Republic also reported that “Taser International was deeply involved in a Department of Defense study that company officials touted to police departments and investors as ‘independent’ proof of the stun gun’s safety…This information is surfacing at a time when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Arizona attorney general are pursuing inquiries into safety claims that the Scottsdale firm has made.”

On July 17, the Associated Press reported a Texas man died after being shocked between three and six times with a Taser by an off-duty police officer who was acting as a security guard. The man’s wife said she was suing Taser International because her husband “didn’t deserve the death penalty.” It appears the men had done little more than trespass on private property and confront the officer who had chased him.

The report went on to state: “In the past nine months, at least six people in Texas – including three in Fort Worth – have died after authorities shocked them with a Taser gun.”

On July 27, a prisoner being held in a Queens, New York, police station died after being shocked with a Taser.   

Finally, on July 30, several news sources reported that (for the first time) the Cook County (Chicago, Illinois) Medical Examiner had ruled the February 10 death of an agitated 54-year-old man was caused by being shocked excessively with a Taser.

The finding indicated that the 57-second shock was sufficient, in and of itself, to have killed the man. Why such a long shock (ten times the usual amount) was administered has not been explained.

Although the Chicago police force will continue to use the Tasers they already have, an order for additional units was suspended.

Taser has vigorously defended its stun guns in every situation where it has been linked to an injury or death. The company continues to maintain that Tasers are non-lethal and that all of the reports regarding deaths and injuries associated with the device are baseless and can be explained      
away on the basis of other causes.

A recent training bulletin issued by Taser, however, advised police that “repeated, prolonged, and/or continuous exposures to the Taser may cause strong muscle contractions that may impair breathing and respiration, particularly when the probes are placed across the chest or diaphragm.” 

Given all of this information, it is difficult to image how the Canadian Police Research Institute reached its conclusion that the benefits of the Taser and similar devices outweigh the risks they pose to anyone who is shocked with any of them. It now appears that the courts will be the forum in which the final verdict on the Taser will be rendered.

Just in case you thought you had heard about every sleazy way there is to make a buck, consider this one.

The state of Connecticut is taking legal action to stop the selling of fake replacement air bag covers by Hicks Air Bag Covers of Alabama which markets its product nationwide without the air bags as an inexpensive alternative to installing a complete replacement system.

The state’s Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, along with Senator Leonard A. Fasano, and the Auto Body Association of Connecticut (ABAC) will argue for a complete ban on the sale and installation of air bag covers without air bags.

Currently, the law prevents the sale to repairers or dealer but not individuals. Such laws have already been adopted in Florida, New York and other states.

On its web site and in mailings to Connecticut auto body shops, Hicks openly markets its product as a cheap replacement for use in damaged vehicles. The covers come in 50 colors and fit almost all vehicle makes and models. They cost about $75 to $85.

A full air bag assembly costs between $600 and $700. Of course, that includes the air bags which are a nice touch especially if you are involved in an accident.

In 2003, the company’s owner, Lawrence G. Hicks, pled guilty in federal court to selling counterfeit General Motors air bag covers to individuals, auto body shops, and used car dealerships for use in repairing damaged vehicles.
 
Hicks admitted selling more 4,600 of the counterfeit air bag covers in 1999 and 2000.

According to 2003 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics, air bags saved about 2,500 lives during that year. Nonetheless the Hicks catalog offers the covers alone without the life-saving air bags.

One auto repair specialist stated; "As an auto repairer, my top priority is to fix vehicles so they are safe to drive. ABAC is always very concerned about safety issues. These fake air bag covers endanger public safety and should be outlawed.”

For consumers, it may not always be obvious if air bag has been properly replaced. Thus, when buying a used vehicle, motorists should check for the maker’s logo on the bag cover. The absence of a logo is an indication that the cover is a fake and there may be no air bag underneath.

Just in case you thought you had heard about every sleazy way there is to make a buck, consider this one.

The state of Connecticut is taking legal action to stop the selling of fake replacement air bag covers by Hicks Air Bag Covers of Alabama which markets its product nationwide without the air bags as an inexpensive alternative to installing a complete replacement system.

The state’s Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, along with Senator Leonard A. Fasano, and the Auto Body Association of Connecticut (ABAC) will argue for a complete ban on the sale and installation of air bag covers without air bags.

Currently, the law prevents the sale to repairers or dealer but not individuals. Such laws have already been adopted in Florida, New York and other states.

On its web site and in mailings to Connecticut auto body shops, Hicks openly markets its product as a cheap replacement for use in damaged vehicles. The covers come in 50 colors and fit almost all vehicle makes and models. They cost about $75 to $85.

A full air bag assembly costs between $600 and $700. Of course, that includes the air bags which are a nice touch especially if you are involved in an accident.

In 2003, the company’s owner, Lawrence G. Hicks, pled guilty in federal court to selling counterfeit General Motors air bag covers to individuals, auto body shops, and used car dealerships for use in repairing damaged vehicles.
 
Hicks admitted selling more 4,600 of the counterfeit air bag covers in 1999 and 2000.

According to 2003 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics, air bags saved about 2,500 lives during that year. Nonetheless the Hicks catalog offers the covers alone without the life-saving air bags.

One auto repair specialist stated; "As an auto repairer, my top priority is to fix vehicles so they are safe to drive. ABAC is always very concerned about safety issues. These fake air bag covers endanger public safety and should be outlawed.”

For consumers, it may not always be obvious if air bag has been properly replaced. Thus, when buying a used vehicle, motorists should check for the maker’s logo on the bag cover. The absence of a logo is an indication that the cover is a fake and there may be no air bag underneath.

The Morrison Milling Company of Denton, Texas, is voluntarily recalling all lots of HyTop® Blueberry Muffin Mix because it contains undeclared whey and eggs.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk proteins or eggs run the risk of serious or even life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume the product.

The product was sold at retail stores in Texas, New Mexico, and Louisiana and is packaged in paper pouches. Net Wt. 7 oz. UPC 5070006006 all lot codes.
 
The recall was initiated after if was discovered that an incorrect ingredient statement was placed on the package. The packaging error was limited to two day’s production, and no other Morrison Milling or HyTop® products are part of this recall.

The company has received information about a reported allergic reaction concerning this product. An investigation is ongoing.
Consumers who have purchased this muffin mix and who are known to be allergic to milk proteins or eggs should contact The Morrison Milling Company at 800-866-5487 or 800-580-5487 for instructions for product disposal and a refund.