In a particularly egregious exchange, King asks Knight, in his mock-serious rhetorical style, “What about a factor you can’t control, like a disease? Cancer. You can’t control cancer.” Knight’s response is horrifying:
I disagree with that because I believe that the ability of the brain and our ability to access it properly to produce the mind that essentially—the concept mind over matter, that we produce a powerful mind. We can cure our own cancer.
I mean, the whole act of the placebo act—you have to take all these placebos in a drug test because if you believe it cures you, it will. And it’s the same concept.
We have an amazing untapped ability inside of us, and as Dean Radin said here, that we create, even affect external activity, the external reality. We affect the physical reality as well. We affect—our body, our DNA hears everything we think. Our DNA is based upon our thought patterns in general. But we evolve them; we change the disease.
The placebo effect is real and documentable. As is the concept that one’s attitude when facing disease can have some impact the efficacy of treatment—to an extent and in certain circumstances. But that’s it. Someone with cancer can’t simply cure his disease with his mind. Suggesting otherwise, while passing oneself off as an expert, is hugely problematic. It’s misleading, and for individuals who make medical decisions based on such bunk information, the consequences could be fatal.
Instead of following up on Knight’s comment, King veered away to another guest and another topic. This was typical throughout the program.
It’s bad enough to have someone like Knight come on your show to talk as an expert about science and health. But then to not challenge such absurd and potentially dangerous assertions is a serious disservice to his audience. King and his staff should be ashamed; the medical, scientific, and journalistic worlds should be outraged.
- 1
- 2





Clearly all disease is partly expression of sub optimal mental processes and arises out of people's misconceptions of reality. If Russ Juskalian, or anyone else, wants to go over that with me I will be happy to explain it very clearly. I am not sure of the meaning of some of what was said on the show. At the same time, these people are on to something and that needs to be acknowledged whether or not you feel that all of that is being said is correct.
Posted by Marty Murray on Thu 7 Aug 2008 at 04:20 PM
"Clearly all disease is partly expression of sub optimal mental processes"
For very small values of "partly", perhaps. Bad vibes ain't got nothin' next to cigarettes when it comes to starting cancer.
And stealing jargon from physics in order to shellac your babble with a superficial coat of respectability is way uncool.
Posted by Blake Stacey on Fri 8 Aug 2008 at 12:38 PM
With such misleading claims made without challenge on this broadcast, King ought to do a massive follow-up show presenting the actual state of brain/hormone research.
Get "Nova ScienceNow" producers to help -- there's a team doing a fine job of accurate, yet 'entertaining' broadcast presentation, in my opinion.
Posted by S Batchelor on Fri 8 Aug 2008 at 03:50 PM
I have been following new research into the power of conciousness to affect reality, and it is amazing how much it really can. A large problem that is I see with this research going mainstream is that it has become taboo for science to aknowledge that the oberver has any real effect on the outcome of an experiment. There is no physical test to prove this in a laboratory, and I have read results of studies that indicate conciousness may possibly be affecting physical reality.
Because scientists cannot study the phenomena, you have those with no scientific training attempting to explain these results in scientific terminology, hence Knights misquoting of scientific theory in support of her argument.
To misunderstimate the power of the mind over body has been the largest weakness of modern science.
Posted by Kevin Petrovsky on Fri 8 Aug 2008 at 04:25 PM
JZ Knight is a cult leader. She runs a compound where individuals with extremely weak personalities seek help to validate themselves. What will you get out of it? You may come to view that there is no wrong - there is no right - there are only "experiences". Attending JZ Knight's "school" is a crash course in borderline personality disorder. How do I know? My sister is or was there - her name is Christy White - you can find her at Morningside Services (Google that) and the only thing RSE taught her about conciousness and reality is how to lose both. Check out scams RSE fraud RSE cease and desist RSE factnet ramtha LARSE EMF Ramtha Securities Fraud Ramtha Arabian Horse Ramtha) then tell me I got it wrong.
Posted by Leemar on Sat 9 Aug 2008 at 12:33 AM
I was going to subscribe to your publication when the opportunity came in the mail this morning. However, this article shows exactly where you stand. Take the blinders off, jump out of the box, try to look at things differently. No wonder you can't see the sailing ships.
Thought is causative, said Shakespeare. Want to argue with him.
Posted by Judith Stock on Sat 9 Aug 2008 at 01:01 PM
ah, good ole What The Bleep... it was excruciatingly popular in my community.
A meta-suggestion for CJR:
S Batchelor says
> "With such misleading claims made without challenge on this broadcast, King ought to do a massive follow-up show presenting the actual state of brain/hormone research."
Here you (CJR) are criticising King's show, and commenter S.B. is suggesting that King do a more inform-the-reader-friendly followup; is anyone from CJR contacting King and asking for his response?
CJR helped do it with ABC's anthrax stories (thanks!); what's the argument (if any) *against* making contact-the-target-requesting-response (and-report-the-result) a standard part of media criticism?
(also - do you CJR writers ever participate in discussions down here in the comments section?)
Posted by Anna Haynes on Sat 9 Aug 2008 at 05:58 PM
For a university professor to question the current dogmas of science is to kiss tenure (and possibly your job) good bye.
The dogmas of science are little better than those of the Church and are based on assumptions that are unverified and can never be tested.
Science accepts the validity of the observer and assumption of purely local causes for phenomena. As today's physics would seem to indicate, both of these beliefs are questionable.
True thinkers tend to be held in disrepute during their own time. Only after decades or centuries do their discoveries begin to be accepted.
Posted by Richard Galenes on Tue 12 Aug 2008 at 10:09 PM