I both agree and disagree with what you are saying here (as I do with just about everything that is written on this site, lol).
When you say that TMS providers actively lie about the risks and side effects of the procedure, you are somewhat contradicting what you said just one sentence prior. After all, the fact that you had to search far and wide to uncover the risks suggests that providers might also not be aware of the risk. Or, perhaps more likely, they consider those claims of risk to be anecdotal and not the result of rigorous scientific research, and so they ignore them.
Because psychiatry in particular, and to a lesser extent, medicine in general, has always operated under the principe that, while their treatments must be demonstrated to be effective prior to being offered to the public, their safety is assumed until rigorous scientific studies prove otherwise. This is exactly backward in my view, but it is also necessary for psychiatry in particular to be able to produce and market any of their organic treatments.
As we were developing our neuroimaging technology, psychiatric researchers began using that technology to see if they couldn’t find the cause of mental illnesses, especially schizophrenia, in the brain. And they did discover several areas of what they were then interpreting as brain damage in schizophrenics that were not present in the control participants. They had hailed these findings as definitive proof that schizophrenia is a brain disease. Until somebody came around and noticed a serious flaw in these studies: they did not control for antipsychotic drug use. Because the standard treatment for schizophrenia was (and still is, I think) to place the patient on APs after a first psychotic episode, which is often expected to take for life, so most of them had been on heavy duty meds for several years. Now, how you can call yourself a serious scientific researcher and neglect to control for such an obvious variable is beyond my comprehension, but to their credit, they acknowledged their error and performed those studies again, and could not replicate the findings of the originals. So, disappointed, they went back to the drawing board in their search for the neurological underpinnings of schizophrenia.
But those studies do suggest something else, don’t they? After all, if the relevant variable was not the diagnosis of schizophrenia, but rather AP drug use, and since they were interpreting those differences in the brain as lesions, that strongly suggests that APs cause significant brain damage, right? They never followed up on that line of inquiry.
It is very easy to claim that these interventions are not harmful to the body when you fail to perform the good science that might demonstrate that harm. While I think that your skepticism of TMS is warranted, I would encourage you (and others in this group) to apply that skepticism universally. I’m not saying don’t use these treatments, and I’m definitely not encouraging people to quit them cold turkey. Because you might assess that the inevitable damage to your body is worth it if your life improves greatly with the treatment. What I am encouraging here is that we adopt the attitude of: caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware. Do your research of course, but also try as best you can to understand the nature of your own unique problem, whatever it may be, so you can make rational and informed choices about which treatments, if any, might be likely to help ameliorate your problem and are worth your time, energy, money, or health for experimentation.