A fair question. It's my understanding that the Christian Science Monitor attempts to be phenomenological and "objective" in all of its reporting, and some readers have long prized that publication for precisely those characteristics. But it's important to note that the Christian Science Monitor is the house publication of the Christian Science religious denomination, and that the denomination has a view of health and disease that is not mainstream and not evidence-based. (I write this as someone who has visited the Mother Church in Boston and has heard about both the denomination and the newspaper at their headquarters offices as an interpreter for officials from China who were studying religious diversity in the United States.) Thus, on this story I was much more inclined to submit a link from the New York Times (different editorial tendencies) than I would be to submit an article by the same author from the Christian Science Monitor. Most journalists benefit from submitting their work to an editor.

The CSM is not an organ for the Christian Science church. Is there some reason we believe the guy who wrote this post is a Christian Scientist?

You called this piece into question in part because of a past affiliation with the CSM. The CSM is a credible journalism venue; it's not fair to attribute fundamentalist Christian Science beliefs on people who happened to have worked there.

Right; this is a lengthier restatement of what I just said. The CSM isn't L’Osservatore Romano. It's a serious (if lately diminished) news venue.

Anyways, my point is simple: fundamentalist Christian Science devotees might lack credibility in medical debates. But people who have merely at some point in their careers affiliated with the CSM do not.

It's strange to give NYT a free pass, though, which has had its own scandals with both fabricated stories and a penchant for editorializing its reporting. CSM is at least as serious and careful and unbiased.