ps. Nerve stimulation is more targeted and precise than psychiatric medications. Meds just go everywhere.
It's amazing how often treatments are introduced, and even become quite popular, despite being supported by only scant evidence. Sometimes this leads to good outcomes, sometimes, not so much.
One could make a strong argument that a more liberal approach, even outright grasping at straws, makes sense if you're dealing with a serious condition like chronic pain, epilepsy, or depression, and more proven treatments have already been tried without success.
It's maybe not so clear that it's wise to use an intervention that's also supposed to be effective for major ailments like pain, epilepsy, and depression, just because a preliminary-looking study with low statistical power says it might help you burn through your Anki deck 13% faster. Side effects do happen.
Facebook and reddit groups are a wealth of finding out what options are available and how they might affect you. There is a lot of “quack” info in the groups. But also a lot of great tips.
Topomax is a common example. Major side effect is it makes people stupid. Not everyone, but a large percentage. Neurologists often fail to mention this.
Anything without peer reviewed multiple intergenerational studies would not trust worth. All these new biohack tech I would only consider them to be an experiment. It is find that you want to volunteer for the, just treat them as an experiment and accept the risk involved.
The argument is (as with many of these therapies) that it is rare to have robust enough methodologies when testing this and that the positive effects claimed are often null/negligible or worse non-reproducible.
Arguing peripheral nerve stimulation is effective because it is used as a therapy, gives it as much evidence-based robustness as homeopathy.
parent did not argue that. The parent criticized the method and did not challenge the result.