Sham Treatment Puns

As antidepressants I've tried haven't done anything for my depression, and only gave me nasty side effects I started searching for other options that could help me whilst having more acceptable side-effect profile. There are very few things that work after you fail with SSRIs, and on top of that finding something with decent side-effect profile is challenging.

I've found TMS. It was approved by FDA for treatment resistant depression. However, when I looked deeper in it, TMS seems like a scam. When you look at the data it has very questionable efficacy compared to sham (placebo) treatment.

Here is the article that explains it in detail: https://www.center4research.org/is-tms-proven-effective-depression/

What do you think about this? Is it true that it's no better than sham? What can be alternative with acceptable sides?

PMID: 33720272

PMCID: PMC7961471

DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.0005

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2777527

Thanks in advance !

So now that we're picking after The Big 3 we've been relegated to a bit of a grey zone in terms of who to pick. While the main consensus is that it's between Tkachuk and PLD, ISS now rates Alex Nylander as its #4 prospect behind the Holy Trinity. Logan Brown is a huge monster of a man and he can score. Tyson Jost just ripped it up in the U18's. Alex DeBrincat scored 50 goals in 60 games. I kind of wanted a meter stick to be able to judge these guys in a different way, and then I remembered this canucksarmy article from a few years ago

So, what if we applied this to the forwards in the upcoming draft? Not that it's some complicated affair, we're just rating them on how many points they scored. But still, maybe we'll find out something illuminating. Let's go!

Just like CA, I'm keeping it to forwards from the CHL only. CSS's top 30 NA Forwards:

1. PLD (QMJHL) GP 62 G 42 A 57 P 99

2. Mathew Tkachuk (OHL) GP 57 G 30 A 77 P 107

3. Alex Nylander (OHL) GP 57 G 28 A 47 P 75

4. Logan Brown (OHL) GP 59 G 21 A 53 P 74

5. Julien Gauthier (QMJHL) GP 54 G 41 A 16 P 57

6. Michael McLeod (OHL) GP 57 G 21 A 40 P 61

7. Max Jones (OHL) GP 63 G 28 A 24 P 52

8. Alex Debrincat (OHL) GP 60 G 51 A 50 P 101

9. Brett Howden (WHL) GP 68 G 24 A 40 P 64

10. Tyler Benson (WHL) GP 30 G 9 A 19 P 28

11. Boris Katchouk (OHL) GP 63 G 24 A 27 P 51

12. Pascal Laberge (QMJHL) GP 56 G 23 A 45 P 68

13. Vitaly Abramov (QMJHL) GP 63 G 38 A 55 P 93

14. Sam Steel (WHL) GP 72 G 23 A 47 P 70

15. Jack Kopacka (OHL) GP 67 G 20 A 23 P 43

16. Jordan Kyrou (OHL) GP 65 G 17 A 34 P 51

17. Nathan Bastian (OHL) GP 64 G 19 A 40 P 59

18. Taylor Raddysh (OHL) GP 67 G 24 A 49 P 73

19. Timothy Gettinger (OHL) GP 60 G 17 A 22 P 39

20. Dillon Dube (WHL) GP 65 G 26 A 40 P 66

21. Adam Mascherin (OHL) GP 65 G 35 A 46 P 81

22. William Bitten (OHL) GP 67 G 30 A 35 P 65

23. Givani Smith (OHL) GP 65 G 23 A 19 P 42

24. Vladimir Kuznetsov (QMJHL) GP 68 G 25 A 33 P 58

25. Brayden Burke (WHL) GP 72 G 27 A 82 P 109

26. Carsen Twarynski (WHL) GP 67 G 20 A 25 P 45

27. Jordan Stallard (WHL) GP 68 G 21 A 28 P 49

28. Hudson Elynuik (WHL) GP 56 G 19 A 25 P 44

29. Nicholas Caamano (OHL) GP 64 G 20 A 17 P 37

30. Adam Brooks (WHL) GP 72 G 38 A 82 P 120

So, if we sort them by points we get:

1. Adam Brooks (30) (WHL) GP 72 G 38 A 82 P 120 +29 spots

2

http://www.jospt.org/doi/pdf/10.2519/jospt.2017.7096?code=jospt-site

Hey all, it's been a minute but I'm back. New JOSPT meta-analysis (read: one of the highest forms of research evidence available) shows very low- to moderate-quality evidence that TPDN is better than nothing for pain and pressure-pain threshold and also very low- to low-quality evidence that TPDN is better than nothing for functional outcomes. However, no difference exists in functional outcomes between TPDN and some other PT treatments.

Bottom line: evidence of the long-term benefits of TPDN is currently lacking; however, rarely, if ever, are "passive" treatments such as TPDN or HVLA mobilizations/manipulations used in isolation in our current-day PT practice. I'm still of the belief it can be a helpful supplement to some PT protocols for certain patients. Always, always, always - patient-centered, evidence-based care. If it works with a patient, use it. If it doesn't, don't. There's no hurt in trying if it can open the door for better active treatments down the line.

Thoughts?