Uh, no. Christian Science, like the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses, are yet another American-made Christian sect founded in the 19th century by a charismatic leader:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Baker_Eddy

Val Kilmer is even a member! They definitely have a quieter, less evangelical profile than those other sects, but they do appear in the background of American cultural life, with Christian Science Reading Rooms in many cities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Reading_Room

That said, despite them being a new religious movement and having very suspect beliefs about medicine, this thread isn't the first time I've heard that their newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor does very good journalism, outside of the health news reporting.

CSM is fantastic (yes, outside health adjacent of faith healing) in terms of long-form investigative journalism.

They essentially don't have much to do with religion apart from including a page on religion and you wonder a bit about health topics.

The name should be read as The Monitor, owned by Christian Scientists. Christian Scientist is a specific sect. Monitor here is like any other newspaper name, it could be The Christian Science Times, or Christian Science Observer

Like kevinmchugh pointed out, imagine parentheses to group "(Christian Science) Monitor". Christian Science is a set of beliefs that the "First Church of Christ, Scientist" adhere to.

Stuff like the belief that disease is a mental error rather than physical disorder, and that the sick should be treated not by medicine but by a form of prayer that seeks to correct the beliefs responsible for the illusion of ill health.

Sadly, this makes the appearance of the word "Science" even more confusing to the casual observer.

Fair enough. Though I do want to say anecdotally at least that mind over matter can be pretty powerful stuff...

Placebo's and Nocebo effects wouldn't exist without it.

True. I'd still rather listen to what my oncologist has to say, though.

That's what Val Kilmer did, yep.

https://www.etonline.com/val-kilmer-explains-why-he-got-chem...

There are no religious nuts in cancer-holes.

FYI: whether the placebo effect even exists is somewhat controversial (in a different way from does god exist). https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=placebo+effect+myth There certainly is a lot of bad science and misinformation about the placebo effect.

This seems to be a search that contains one editorial-style article (it isn't labeled as opinion/editorial, and is published in what superficially seems to be a research journal, but it is neither a study or meta-analysis, simply a stream of conclusion opinions and just so statements) and lots of secondary reporting of that same article.

I don't know... if it was 'somewhat controversial' you wouldn't be the first person trying to tell me about it...

And I am quite adept at finding controversial topics...

Annnnd my sources are usually from things like the NCBI... and Mayo Clinic...

But to be fair to you, I did find this study done by Wayne B Jonas posted to the NCBI: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6707261/

So I'll give it some consideration; but yeah... I usually ignore this kind of thing because of how misinformation is first seeded as being "They don't want you to know this" or "Unknown to others, but now you can learn the truth" etc, etc.

So no offense. Just me being my usual critical self.

Edit: I'd like to post this excerpt from the start of the article. It basically reiterates what I was ultimately getting at, while still pushing the authors original point and your point about placebo itself being a myth.

> The fact is people heal and that inherent healing capacity is both powerful and influenced by mental, social, and contextual factors that are embedded in every medical encounter since the idea of treatment began. In this chapter, I argue that our understanding of healing and ability to enhance it will be accelerated if we stop using the term “placebo response” and call it what it is—the meaning response, and its special application in medicine called the healing response.

That would be wrong too. I don't know who said it, but a well known quip about them is that they are neither Christian nor scientific. (It may actually have been Mark Twain for once, he had a brief disappointing interaction with them).

They believe Jesus (but mostly the founder, Mary Baker Eddy) came with secret knowledge of how you can heal by thinking the right thoughts. This is possible because, basically, objective reality is an illusion/all in your mind. On the heresy scale, if JW is a 3 and Mormonism is 4, i would say Christian Science is 10.

They regularly come up in the news when their kids die from rejecting medical treatment in favour of faith healing (or maybe correct-thinking healing is more accurate).

CSM lost almost all its connection to CS along with the decline of the cult's popularity.

How are you calibrating that scale and where would Seventh-Day Adventists be on it