MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

The ‘Healing Revolution’ began, according to BIO KING’s website, more than 25 years ago with the establishment of King Bio. Its founder, Dr. Frank King, was inspired to find the root causes of illness and empower the whole person. He cultivated an interest in developing pure water-based homeopathic medicines – a type of natural product that was not, to his knowledge, being produced anywhere else. Committed to researching and developing this new homeopathic medicine, Dr. King moved to Asheville, North Carolina, and opened King Bio in 1989. For more than 25 years, King Bio’s mission has remained true to the empowerment of whole person health, most recently including breakthroughs in whole food dietary supplements. Dr. King’s vision for the company has always centered around three core guiding principles: health, wholeness, and innovation.

On their website, BIO KING also explains: Homeopathy … is energy medicine. Rather than going through digestion, homeopathic remedies deliver their messages almost instantly along the body’s nerve pathways. Like acupuncture, it works bioenergetically (“bio” means “life,” so “bioenergetic” means “life energy”). If the biochemical aspects of the body are like the building blocks of a home, bioenergy is like the invisible electricity that powers it. (A deceased person may have the same biochemical constituents as a living person, but the bioenergy is missing.)

BIO KING is on a mission! To be precise, the mission, as stated on the website, is this:

  • To provide safe, all-natural medicines without harmful side effects.
  • To offer affordable natural medicines that help people overcome common health challenges.
  • To achieve the trust and respect of our customers and uphold the best product quality.
  • To empower people with the most effective ways to achieve abundant health.

Safe medicines?

Without side-effects?

Trust and respect?

Best product quality?

Dr King has been reported to be voluntarily recalling 32 different infant and kids medicines after they tested positive for a microbial contamination. Use of these products could, it is feared, cause life-threatening infections.

Quite a ‘Healing Revolution’!

29 Responses to Some homeopathic products contain active substances after all – dangerous ones, that is!

  • Quite a ‘Healing Revolution’!

    Indeed. And, just as remarkable, this fantastic company does not think it is necessary to mention this recall anywhere on its website. Just as with the previous recall, one has to be a clairvoyant to know they are “voluntarily” recalling their wonderful products. So, if one does not know there is a recall, one will not know there is a recall, unless some third party happens to inform one. Impressively ethical, if you ask me!

  • The products being recalled are:

    DK Attention & Learning Enh.
    Chicken Pox Symptom Relief
    Children’s Appetite & Weight
    Children’s Appetite Enhance
    Children’s Cough Relief
    Children’s Fever Reliever
    Children’s Growth & Development
    DK Newborn Tonic
    DK Nosebleed Relief
    TonsilPlex
    Children’s Ear Relief Formula
    DK Teething
    DK Colic Relief
    Tummy Aches
    Kids Multi- Strain Flu Relief
    Kids Stress & Anxiety
    Kids Sleep Aid
    Kids Bed Wetting (NP)
    Kids Candida 4 oz
    Kids Attention & Learning (SCRX)
    Bed Wetting Prevention (SCRX)
    Chicken Pox Symptom Relief (SCRX)
    Childrens Cough (SCRX)
    Children’s Ear Formula (SCRX)
    Children’s Fever Reliever (SCRX)
    Children’s Growth & Development (SCRX)
    Colic Relief (SCRX)
    Newborn Tonic (SCRX)
    Teething (SCRX)
    Tummy Aches (SCRX)
    Children’s Appetite & Weight (SCRX)
    Children’s Appetite Enhancer (SCRX)

    It would certainly be a healing revolution if those products lived up to the claims in their names.

    Thankfully, these products would never be registered or authorised by the MHRA in the UK: maybe the FDA need to catch up.

  • Dr King has been reported to be voluntarily recalling 32 different infant and kids medicines after they tested positive for a microbial contamination

    I don’t understand. Microbes are very much ‘all-natural’, now aren’t they? So how can they be bad? And I’d think that these microbes would substantially increase the ‘life energy’ present in those products, which according to Mr. King would a Good Thing.
    So why the recall?

    [/sarcasm]

  • Well said, Richard,
    obviously, these SCAM critics are NEVER satisfied, no matter what!
    You cannot argue that these homeopathic remedies indeed have the potential to act holistically and increase the energy level of the children (i.e. the body temperature).
    So finally, there is a SCAM company that does make (at least some) correct claims about the remedies that they sell, and STILL they have nothing better to do than complain.
    So pessimistic. They should learn to look at the bright side of things!

  • This is a king-sized fraud and reprobate. I had the sickening dis-pleasure to attend a 12hr seminar of his and was disheartened to say the least that I had married someone in a profession that would have him as a member.
    Fortunately there were many right(er) thinking DCs in attendance and his dog-and-donkey show was banded from CE accreditation from the state way into the future. He supports and is willing to say absolutely anything to turn a sale. When you combine Chiropractic and homeopathy ones IQ drops exponentially and ones criminal intent becomes manifest.

    • A wonderful closing sentence, Michael.
      I’d not considered microbes until reading this post: perhaps they’re the little blighters whose oral tradition carries the memory of wolfsbane, Charlotte’s nipple or whatever BS is agitated through to 30C: with the rigour of such shaking like some Victorian educator or catholic nun’s discipline?
      It all makes sence to me now?

      • Edzard

        I am surprised at this post. All your life you and your staff have been expecting adverse effects from homeopathic medicines as effects and adverse effects come together. and now when you see some, you start jumping?

        Also on a lighter note, picking a 1 kg weight for a 200kg weight lifter should not be exciting/or is it dangerous! Or should it be?

        I list out 10 kg equivalent:

        1. Cyclophosphamide
        Percent of Reactions That Were Serious: 97%, Number of Serious Reactions: 33,128, Total Number of Reported Reactions: 34,076, Therapeutic Class: Antineoplastic Agent, Brand Names: Cytoxan, Cytoxan Lyophilized

        2. Prednisolone
        Percent of Reactions That Were Serious: 96%, Number of Serious Reactions: 42,323, Total Number of Reported Reactions: 43,817, Therapeutic Class: Endocrine-Metabolic Agent, Brand Names: Bubbli-Pred, Cotolone, Flo-Pred, Millipred, Millipred Dp, Orapred, Orapred Odt, Pediapred, Prelone, Veripred 20, Pms-Prednisolone

        3. Bevacizumab
        Percent of Reactions That Were Serious: 96%, Number of Serious Reactions: 39,957, Total Number of Reported Reactions: 41,281, Therapeutic Class: Immunological Agent, Brand Names: Avastin (Deaths:5493)

        4. Rituximab
        Percent of Reactions That Were Serious: 96%, Number of Serious Reactions: 30,014, Total Number of Reported Reactions: 31,157, Therapeutic Class: Antineoplastic Agent, Brand Names: Rituxan (deaths:2386)

        5. Clozapine
        Percent of Reactions That Were Serious: 95%, Number of Serious Reactions: 29,470, Total Number of Reported Reactions: 30,914, Therapeutic Class: Antipsychotic, Brand Names: Clozaril, Fazaclo, Versacloz (Deaths 2799)

        6. Dexamethasone
        Percent of Reactions That Were Serious: 93%, Number of Serious Reactions: 38,966, Total Number of Reported Reactions: 41,636, Therapeutic Class: Endocrine-Metabolic Agent, Brand Names: Baycadron Elixer, Decadron, Dekpak 13 Day Taperpak, Dexamethasone Intensol, Dexpak, Dexpak 10 Day Taperpak, Dexpak Jr, Zema-Pa

        7. Zoledronic Acid
        Percent of Reactions That Were Serious: 93%, Number of Serious Reactions: 35,581, Total Number of Reported Reactions: 38,016, Therapeutic Class: Calcium Regulator, Brand Names: Reclast, Zometa

        8. Tacrolimus
        Percent of Reactions That Were Serious: 92%, Number of Serious Reactions: 27,964, Total Number of Reported Reactions: 30,262, Therapeutic Class: Antipsoriatic, Brand Names: Protopic

        9. Lenalidomide
        Percent of Reactions That Were Serious: 89%, Number of Serious Reactions: 69,123, Total Number of Reported Reactions: 77,417, Therapeutic Class: Immune Modulator, Brand Names: Revlimid (Deaths 6919)

        10. Medroxyprogesterone
        Percent of Reactions That Were Serious: 89%, Number of Serious Reactions: 34,018, Total Number of Reported Reactions: 38,079, Therapeutic Class: Endocrine-Metabolic Agent, Brand Names: Provera, Alti-Mpa (Breast Cancer 23552)

        I am sure you will find this information funny. And if you agree, I can list out some drugs that helped destroy smiles on thousands of faces. That I am sure, you will find really funny.

        • ok Iqbal, let’s assume you required an organ transplant; a donor organ was found and the surgeons did a good job; now you would get both of the two drugs on top of your list for a while; they would temporarily cause severe adverse reactions, but they would save your life, because without them your body would reject the donor organ and you would die.
          WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT THESE DRUGS GENERATE MORE GOOD THAN HARM?
          just as I tried before, I am again trying to explain to you the principle of risk/benefit balance.
          are you totally incapable of grasping it?
          are you utterly impervious to any type of learning?

          • I dare say it happens on both sides of the divide. My mum was given Thalidamide back in the day. For what ever reason she never used it. Good job she didn’t.

          • Thalidomide was a huge (but entirely different) problem.
            The good thing that came out of it is that we now have proper control and monitoring of adverse effects. a system that is still absent from alt med.

          • Edzard

            WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT THESE DRUGS GENERATE MORE GOOD THAN HARM?

            Is that valid for the dead also? And the one’s who went back with cancer?

          • too stupid for meriting a response

        • @Iqbal

          Thank you.

        • Iqbal,

          I’m not sure what your point is. I have regularly prescribed five of the drugs on that list. They are powerful drugs used to treat serious medical conditions, and by their nature they would be expected to have serious side-effects. Deaths from treatment need to be interpreted in the context of deaths from the diseases that they are treating.

          Having said that, I don’t know what you mean by “percent of reactions that were serious”. Drug reactions are graded 1 – 4 by severity, where 1 is mild and 4 is life-threatening. I suppose you would call a grade 3 or 4 reaction serious, but the less severe reactions (to all of these drugs) are much more common. To say that 89 – 97% of reactions to these drugs are serious is just plain wrong.

          Take the first drug on your list, cyclophosphamide. This is a cytotoxic drug which works by attaching alkyl groups to DNA, thereby killing cells. It preferentially kills cancer cells, and for many years it has been part of the standard treatment for high-grade lymphoma (where, along with other cytotoxics plus rituxumab and prednisolone it achieves cure rates in excess of 75% in this otherwise fatal disease), also of breast cancer (where, in combination with other cytotoxics it has been shown to reduce the recurrence rate after primary treatment of high-risk tumours), and many other malignancies, also for conditioning bone marrow for stem-cell harvesting. It is expected to cause vomiting (which can usually be prevented), a transient but marked fall in white cell count (which can be managed safely), temporary hair loss and many other unpleasant effects. As a strongly myelotoxic drug (i.e. toxic to the bone marrow) it can cause dangerous immunosuppression resulting in serious and fatal infections. However, it has saved many lives.

          More recently, I have received six of the drugs on your list. I am quite certain (on the basis of my medical training and years of experience as an oncologist) that had I rejected them in favour of homeopathy I would not be alive today.

          From your posts on this forum, I gather that you are an experienced practitioner of homeopathy in India (a country that I have always enjoyed visiting and found enlightening in many ways) and you consider yourself to be an educated and well-read man, and no doubt you are well-respected in your community and much loved by your patients. Quite frankly, therefore, I am astounded at the nonsense that you repeatedly post. Much of it, to quote Pauli, is not even wrong. Much of it, including your list of 10Kg drugs, I am having trouble making any sense of.

  • Ernst: “to stupid for meriting a response”

    Is too obvious, an affiliate of lobby ACSH and CSICOP will never attack his agobussines!

  • a further press-release by the FDA was published today (http://www.drugnews.in/2018/08/28/hundreds-of-human-pet-homeopathy-products-recalled/):
    TUESDAY, Aug. 28, 2018 — Hundreds of Dr. King’s water-based homeopathic drugs for children, adults and pets may be unsafe to use because of high levels of microbial contamination, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Tuesday.
    Due to the risk of infection, consumers with these products made by King Bio Inc. of Asheville, N.C., should throw them away, the agency stressed.
    Products covered by the recall include: Dr. King’s Children’s Cough Relief; Dr. King’s Chicken Pox Symptom Relief; Dr. King’s Children’s Ear Relief Formula; Dr. King’s Children’s Appetite Enhancer; Dr. King’s Attention and Learning Enhancement for Kids; Dr. King’s Cold Sore treatment; Dr. King’s Wart Freeze; and pet products for urinary incontinence and digestion relief.
    A full list is available on the King Bio website.
    Those at highest risk from the recalled products include infants, children, pregnant women and people with weakened immune systems, the FDA said.
    In July, King Bio voluntarily recalled three homeopathic drug products due to confirmed microbial contamination, and on Aug. 22 it expanded that recall to include 32 more products. On Aug. 23, the FDA advised the company to recall all of its water-based drug products.
    The FDA recently inspected King Bio’s facility and collected product samples, and the agency is testing and analyzing those samples.
    “We take product quality issues seriously, and when we see substandard conditions during the course of our inspections — in this case conditions that are leading to high levels of microbial contamination with the potential to harm the public — we act swiftly to try to ensure the products are removed from circulation,” FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb said in an agency news release.
    Early this year, the FDA and Federal Trade Commission issued a joint warning letter to King Bio for illegally marketing an unapproved product to prevent, cure or treat opioid addiction, the federal officials said.
    “In recent years, we’ve seen a large uptick in products labeled as homeopathic that are being marketed for a wide array of diseases and conditions, from the common cold to cancer. In addition to our concerns with contamination, some homeopathic products may not deliver any benefit and have the potential to cause harm,” Gottlieb said.

    • Shut up and take my money Ernst!

      Ghostwriting by Monsanto is influencing peer-reviewed scientific journals
      https://www.ehn.org/monsanto-science-ghostwriting-2597869694.html

      Aug. 22:

      When the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology (CRT) published a series of papers reviewing the carcinogenic potential of weed-killing agent glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, in September 2016, the findings were so significant that they were widely reported by media outlets around the world.

      The findings were critical to Monsanto – the company was facing doubts by European regulators about allowing glyphosate to remain on the market. As well, Monsanto was facing a growing mass of lawsuits claiming its weed killer caused people to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

      Sixteen scientists from “four independent panels” signed their names to the published work, declaring to readers that their conclusions were free of Monsanto’s intervention. Underscoring the supposed independence of the work, the declaration of interest section stated: “Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel’s manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.”

      It has since become evident that these papers were anything but independent. Internal Monsanto documents forced into the public spotlight through litigation show that the papers were conceptualized from the outset as a deceptive strategy for Monsanto. One of Monsanto’s top scientists not only reviewed the manuscripts but had a hand in drafting and editing them. The finished papers were aimed directly at discrediting IARC’s classification.

      • you lost me
        nothing to do with me

      • Compared to this apparent admirer of his, Mr. Ullman appears almost intelligent 😀

        • Change Monsanto papers for CSICOP papers and the result will be the same. Shut up y take my take money Björn!

          • “take my money”
            ???
            you seem to like that expression.
            what is it supposed to mean?

          • From: progressive:

            “The industry’s PR campaign to reframe the GMO debate and intimidate journalists through harassment and name-calling has been remarkably successful in my view,” says food author and journalism professor Michael Pollan. “I think this is partly a function of the political and public relations naiveté of many of my fellow science writers.”

            The tactic industry allies employ to discredit questions about GMOs is to narrow the discussion to food safety. Pro-GMO scientists and writers mock experts and critics, by portraying them as loonies who think eating a bag of corn chips is akin to ingesting a bottle of arsenic. But this is a misleading line of attack, since GMO concerns are wide-ranging, including how well they are tested for safety, their impact on agriculture and the ecosystem, and the toxicity of glyphosate

            Lawyers in one case told a judge that documents show Monsanto funnels money to the Genetic Literacy Project and the American Council on Science and Health in order to “shame scientists and highlight information helpful to Monsanto and other chemical producers.”

            Translate this techinques in Edzard Ernst blog (or any CSICOPshills):

            “The industry’s PR campaign directed by CSICOP and affiliates (Center for Inquiry, ACSH, Nightingale Collaboration, Health Watch, Science Media Centre) to reframe the homeopathy debate and intimidate journalists, scientist and people through harassment and name-calling has been remarkably successful in my view,” says Pr. Hahn: “I think this is partly a function of the political and public relations naiveté of many of my fellow science writers and pseudoskeptics.”

            The tactic industry allies employ to discredit questions about NHRMC or manipulation in E. Ernst trial is to narrow the discussion to alleged implausibility of homeopathy. Pro-CSICOP “scientists” and writers mock experts and critics, by portraying them as loonies (“SCAM biased promoters or quacks”) who think use homeopathy or acupuncture or chiropractic is delaying conventional and effective treatment feeding conspiracy theorists. But this is a misleading line of attack, since CSICOP concerns are wide-ranging, including how many conventional drugs fail during clinical trials, their impact in the ecosystem, and the toxicity of many of drugs during the treatment and reemergence of stronger diseases.

            Lawyers in one case told a judge that documents show Friends of Science and Medicine in collaboration with James Randi Educational Foundation and Good Thinking Society funnels money to the NHRMC in order to “shame scientists and highlight information helpful to PR Sense About Science cliens and other pseudoskeptical organization”.

            Then, shut up and take my money, Ernst!

          • nothing of what you write makes the slightest sense; to me it feels as though it was written by someone who need psychiatric help.

          • Definitely something amiss in the department of coherence.

          • There is nothing wrong with gmo products, unfortunately for you, mullan… perhaps you are allied with the powers of evil that want to reduce the population of earth by not producing enough food for people..who knows. I have a feeling that there are lots of people at such a shortage that are definitely grateful that someone somewhere has provided means to make more corn…

            Still, it definitely wouldn’t hurt to know…what’s your problem anyway?

          • Oh dear, the text comes from a web page. Your response is exactly the same,

            “Pro-GMO scientists and writers mock experts and critics, by portraying them as loonies who think eating a bag of corn chips is akin to ingesting a bottle of arsenic. ”

            E. Ernst: “nothing of what you write makes the slightest sense; to me it feels as though it was written by someone who need psychiatric help.”

          • We know you are clipping text from web page(s), it is very easy to find which ones also. What you are clipping and what you are rambling about is what makes no sense. This discussion is about contaminated toy-medicine and the blog is about alternative medicine. Your inapt ramblings that seem to revolve around Anti-GMO paranoia, are what makes no sense.

    • A full list is available on the King Bio website.

      I was skeptical because I didn’t find it. Now I have. It is certainly an improvement in comparison with the past. The list is rather impressive.

  • I’ve no relevant qualifications or experience, other then being widowed by cancer over an 8-year journey.

    My efforts to follow what’s being said rely on life’s skills at detecting obfuscation posing as complexity.
    It’s curious that complexity is often brought into my grasp by medical professionals with decades of practiced understanding. These are like the people who gave my wife seven extra years. They were honest when no more could be done.
    Obfuscation arises as a signature of those seeking to assert evidence of CAM and/or to undermine scientific endeavours and discipline. Another trait of CAM is claiming more can be done when, in fact, it can’t.

    When the ludicrous request, “take the money, Ernst” is flapped, I wonder if the speaker would concede “no more can be done” or keep peddling the H2O master-memory pills to a traumatised and soon to be grieving family?

    If the conversation is about patients instead of career salesmanship, I trust the warts and all honesty of our medical professionals over the obfuscating delusionists every time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories