The simple hand test that could reveal if you have a hidden brain tumour – and it takes just 30 seconds
The British medic who calls himself ' Medifectious ' on TikTok showed how to do the test in a video with nearly 200,000 views.
2
2
It involves packing one palm on the other, both facing upwards.
Then, flip the top palm up and down as fast as you can for a few seconds. Switch hands, then repeat.
The test checks for something called dysdiadochokinesia, the impaired ability to perform rapid alternating movements.
If you struggle, you could have issues with your cerebellum - part of the brain which sits at the back and is responsible for balance and coordination.
According to the Cleveland C linic, damage to the cerebellum can be caused by a number of serious conditions.
This including stroke, traumatic brain injury, and multiple sclerosis.
It can also be a sign of a brain tumour pressing on surrounding tissue, or a problem with the nerves themselves.
The NHS does not list this hand test as a formal diagnostic tool.
It's used by neurologists as part of broader assessments, but struggling with it isn't enough to diagnose a condition on its own.
Brain Tumour facts: 10 things you should know about brain tumours
In his clip demonstrating the motion, Medifectious said: "Everyone should be able to do it.'
"If you can't do this you might want to get yourself checked."
He added that some patients are able to do the motion perfectly with one hand but have problems with the other, depending on the underlying cause.
Cancerous brain tumours are the deadliest form of cancer for children and adults under 40 in the UK.
They kill around 5,300 people each year - about 15 a day.
But even non-cancerous (benign) tumours can be dangerous if they grow in sensitive areas of the brain.
More than 12,000 people in Britain are diagnosed with a brain tumour each year. Around half of those are cancerous.
Common symptoms include headaches, drowsiness, vomiting and blurred vision - all caused by pressure building up inside the skull.
Other warning signs are mood changes, weakness on one side of the body, confusion, and problems with speech or sight.
Symptoms vary depending on where the tumour is in the brain.
Anyone who develops new or worsening headaches should see their GP. It's unlikely to be a tumour - but it's worth checking.
The most common symptoms of a brain tumour
More than 12,000 Brits are diagnosed with a primary brain tumour every year — of which around half are cancerous — with 5,300 losing their lives.
The disease is the most deadly cancer in children and adults aged under 40, according to the Brain Tumour Charity.
Brain tumours reduce life expectancies by an average of 27 years, with just 12 per cent of adults surviving five years after diagnosis.
There are two main types, with non-cancerous benign tumours growing more slowly and being less likely to return after treatment.
Cancerous malignant brain tumours can either start in the brain or spread there from elsewhere in the body and are more likely to return.
Brain tumours can cause headaches, seizures, nausea, vomiting and memory problems, according to the NHS.
They can also lead to changes in personality weakness or paralysis on one side of the problem and problems with speech or vision.
The nine most common symptoms are:
Headaches
Seizures
Feeling sick
Being sick
Memory problems
Change in personality
Weakness or paralysis on one side of the body
Vision problems
Speech problems
If you are suffering any of these symptoms, particularly a headache that feels different from the ones you normally get, you should visit your GP.
Source: NHS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Ministers face backbench calls to widen access to top tier of sickness benefits
Ministers are facing Labour backbench calls to widen access to their proposed top tier of sickness benefits. Labour backbencher Graeme Downie has proposed a welfare reform Bill amendment, so universal credit claimants with Parkinson's or multiple sclerosis who cannot work do not face repeated medical assessments to receive a payout. If MPs back his amendment, patients with 'evolving' needs who cannot work could also qualify for a higher rate of benefits. The Government's Bill has already cleared its first Commons hurdle at second reading, after work and pensions minister Sir Stephen Timms vowed not to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), with any changes coming in only after a review of the benefit. To meet his promise, ministers have had to table amendments to their own draft new law, to remove one of its seven clauses, which MPs will debate next Wednesday. Universal credit claimants with Parkinson's 'are already possibly struggling financially', Mr Downie told the PA news agency ahead of the debate. He added: 'The cost of living with a condition like Parkinson's can be very high. 'You may well require or need additional support.' The Dunfermline and Dollar MP said patients who struggle with their motor control might buy pre-chopped vegetables or chicken. 'Those things are expensive, so if you're already on universal credit and you're struggling, being able to do that significantly impacts your health, it significantly impacts your ability to live properly,' he continued. As part of the Government's reforms, the Department for Work and Pensions has proposed a new 'severe conditions criteria' for universal credit. Claimants in this category will be entitled to a higher rate of the benefit, and will not be routinely reassessed to receive money. To qualify, claimants must have limited capability for work or work-related activity (LCWRA) and symptoms which 'constantly' apply. Mr Downie's amendment would expand these criteria to claimants with 'a fluctuating condition'. It would cover 'conditions like Parkinson's but also multiple sclerosis, ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis), long Covid and a whole range of other conditions where, you know, in the morning things could be really good and in the afternoon things could be really bad, and even hour by hour things could change', he said. 'I felt it was necessary to table an amendment to really probe what the Government's position is on this, and ensuring that people with Parkinson's and conditions like that are not excluded from even applying and being considered.' Mr Downie's proposal has backing from 23 cross-party MPs. Juliet Tizzard, external relations director at Parkinson's UK, said: 'Criteria in the Bill say that a new claimant for the universal credit health payment will have to be 'constantly' unable to perform certain activities to qualify. 'This doesn't work for people with Parkinson's, whose symptoms change throughout the day. ' People with Parkinson's and other fluctuating conditions like multiple sclerosis will be effectively excluded from getting all the financial support they need. 'The Government has responded to our call and withdrawn the damaging restrictions to Pip. 'Now, they must do the same with the universal credit health element. The health of many people with Parkinson's is in their hands.'
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
RFK Jr.'s warnings about sperm counts fuel doomsday claims about male fertility
It's not uncommon for Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to mention sperm counts when he makes a public appearance. In recent television interviews, political speeches and congressional hearings, Kennedy has repeatedly claimed that teenage boys today have half the sperm that men in their 60s do — a stat that's not exactly accurate. Kennedy has cited the talking point as evidence of a broader health crisis in the U.S. 'We have fertility rates that are just spiraling. A teenager today, an American teenager, has less testosterone than a 68-year-old man. Sperm counts are down 50%,' he told Fox News' Jesse Watters in April, adding: 'It's an existential problem.' Contrary to Kennedy's claims, sperm counts decline with age, so young men have much higher counts than older men. And data about sperm counts in teen boys largely does not exist. Some researchers contend that men's overall sperm counts are lower than they were generations ago, based mostly on two papers published in the last decade. Others say there's no convincing evidence of the trend. And many agree that even if sperm counts are declining, it does not amount to a full-blown fertility crisis. 'This is a very contentious issue in our field, and for every paper that you find that suggests a decline and raises an alarm for this issue, there's another paper that says that the numbers aren't changing, and that there's no cause for concern,' said Dr. Scott Lundy, a reproductive urologist at the Cleveland Clinic. Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesperson, said Kennedy is 'sounding the alarm on a public health issue others are too timid, or too politically cautious, to confront.' The secretary's warning feeds on a burgeoning narrative that men today face a fundamental threat to their fertility. Similar claims have been spread by various wellness influencers, tech startups and young men on social media. Young men concerned about a decline in virility have opted to freeze their sperm, abstain from sex or undergo testosterone replacement therapy. A 2022 study found that 'semen retention' was the most popular men's health subject on TikTok and Instagram. Meanwhile, adherents of the 'pro-natalist' movement have argued that more families should be having children to compensate for a decline in fertility and birth rates in the U.S. The most prominent figure among them, Elon Musk, has cited the declining birth rate as an omen of humanity's collapse. Researchers who study male fertility say the reality is far more complicated and little cause for panic. Fertility and birth rates in the U.S. are declining, in part, because people are choosing to have fewer children or delaying having kids until later in life. Though some men do struggle to have kids, in many cases the issue can be corrected through medical interventions or lifestyle changes. A decadeslong debate In 1993, scientist Louis Guillette shocked Congress when he testified at a hearing that 'every man sitting in this room today is half the man his grandfather was.' Guillette was referring to a generational decline in sperm count. A year before his testimony, a review of papers published from 1938 to 1991 determined that the average sperm count had fallen around 50%. But many researchers have since found flaws in the review — among them, that it included relatively little data from the first few decades of the analysis, the men in the studies were evaluated using different methods and the data analysis did not account for the fact that many men's sperm counts fall within a lower range. 'The paper was widely, wildly cited,' but 'the statistics were not solid,' said Dolores Lamb, who researches male infertility at Children's Mercy Kansas City. In a follow-up review of studies published from 1992 to 2013, eight studies showed a decline in semen quality, 21 showed no change or an increase, and six showed ambiguous or conflicting results. Based on that, Lamb said, 'the preponderance of the data suggests that there was no decline.' In 2021, reproductive epidemiologist Shanna Swan reignited the debate with her book 'Count Down,' which warned of falling sperm counts 'imperiling the future of the human race.' A paper Swan and her co-authors published in 2017 determined that from 1973 to 2011, sperm counts declined by 52% in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. A follow-up analysis in 2022 showed a similar trend worldwide. In an interview with The Guardian, Swan said her work implied that the median sperm count could reach zero by 2045. The research was picked up by men's rights groups, which pointed to it as evidence that men were losing their masculinity. It even inspired a viral publicity stunt to raise awareness about a possible future where people couldn't reproduce: A crowd gathered to watch sperm cells race under a microscope. HHS' Nixon said the 2017 and 2022 papers support Kennedy's claims about declining reproductive health. 'A growing body of peer-reviewed research shows significant declines in sperm counts over the past decades, and pretending this isn't a serious trend is irresponsible,' he said. 'The data is real, the stakes are high and ignoring it doesn't make it go away.' Lamb said the analyses from Swan and her co-authors had a major weakness in their methodology. They assumed that laboratories in different parts of the world were collecting and testing semen in the same way, she said, when in fact the methods likely varied. Swan stood by her team's results, telling NBC News in an email that they accounted for differences in methodologies across studies, as well as the challenges of getting accurate sperm counts. Lundy, of the Cleveland Clinic, said measuring sperm counts can be hard to do consistently. The count itself can go up and down depending on the frequency of ejaculation, time of year, or whether someone is injured or has a fever. His analysis last year found a subtle decline in sperm count among men in the U.S. from 1970 to 2018, but one that likely wouldn't impact fertility in real life. 'What it has done is showed that there's no cause for widespread panic for the typical U.S. male,' Lundy said. The role of diet and environment Researchers who believe sperm counts are declining said it might be influenced by two factors: obesity and environmental chemicals. 'We know that obesity is one of the strongest predictors of serum testosterone, and also to a lesser extent, of sperm counts,' said Jorge Chavarro, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. In particular, he said, obesity can decrease the secretion of key hormones in the brain that regulate reproduction in both men and women. A 2023 study also found an association between exposure to pesticides and significantly lower sperm concentrations. Pesticides 'can imitate or interfere with naturally occurring hormones, and those hormones are necessary for the production of healthy sperm,' said Melissa Perry, the study's author and dean of the College of Public Health at George Mason University. Kennedy has blamed both factors for falling sperm counts in the U.S., but some researchers say it's too soon to draw a link to national or worldwide trends. Vaping, cigarette smoking and binge drinking can also decrease sperm counts. (Research on marijuana use is mixed, with one study suggesting it can increase sperm counts and another finding the opposite.) Testosterone replacement therapy — a treatment that has exploded in popularity among young men looking to feel more energized or to increase their sex drive — can also shut off sperm production entirely. 'Men on testosterone are almost uniformly azoospermic and totally infertile, and sometimes that is only partially reversible if they've been on high-dose testosterone for many years,' Lundy said. Kennedy himself told Newsmax in 2023 that he takes testosterone replacement as part of an 'anti-aging protocol.' Most doctors say the treatment should be reserved for people with a medical condition and is not meant to counteract the normal aging process or increase vitality in young men. What about fertility? While sperm count can influence fertility, it's not the only factor. The shape and movement of sperm can also have an effect, since slow or misshapen sperm can have trouble reaching or fertilizing an egg. Swollen veins in the scrotum called varicoceles can play a role, too. 'If you lined up 100 men who are having fertility problems, about 35% or 36% would have varicoceles,' said Dr. Stanton Honig, a urology professor at Yale School of Medicine. 'That's one of the most treatable, reversible causes of male factor infertility.' Honig said doctors tend to get concerned when sperm counts fall below 15 million sperm per milliliter of semen, or less than 31% of sperm being mobile. But even then, a suboptimal sperm count doesn't necessarily mean an inability to reproduce. 'You have to get to pretty low sperm concentration levels before you start seeing an impact on a couple's ability to become pregnant,' Chavarro said. Even men with high sperm counts may struggle to have kids. Up to half of male infertility cases have an unknown cause, according to a 2007 study. Lundy said the issue deserves more attention to better understand men's health — not because of any fears about humanity dying out. 'This is not the end of our species as we know it,' he said.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Labour's 10-year health plan for the NHS is bold, radical
The government's 10 Year health plan to revive, modernise and future-proof the NHS in England – has arrived as the service is facing a dual crisis. It has been unable for a decade now to provide the rapid access – to GPs, A&E care, surgery, ambulances and mental health support – which people need and used to get. Normalisation of anxiety-inducing, frightening and sometimes fatal delay has produced a less tangible, but also dangerous, crisis – of public satisfaction, born of a profound loss of trust that the NHS will be there for them or their loved ones when they need it. Barely one in five people in Britain are happy with the NHS. Polling by Ipsos this week, ahead of the NHS's 77th birthday on Saturday, found that about 60% of voters have seen little improvement in it during Labour's first year in office. About the same proportion do not expect things to be much better by the time of the next election in 2029. It is hyperbole to say, as the plan does, that 'the NHS now stands at an existential brink'. The dissatisfaction with access problems is acute – but behind it lies enduring public support for the service itself. However, it is no wonder Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting have acknowledged the seriousness of the patient's condition and diagnosed radical surgery. It is blindingly obvious that, as the plan says: 'The status quo is no longer an option.' The authors of the 168-page document have produced a serious, detailed and impressive piece of work. It is unsparing in describing the many failings that mean the NHS is not just often frustrating for patients to use but also ill equipped to deal with the relentless demand for care created by an ageing, growing and increasingly unhealthy population, which is unlikely to fall soon. It also charts a new course for a service so indispensable that it is part of the nation's DNA. Labour's repeated claim that the Conservatives had left the NHS 'broken' helped win them last year's general election. And it has allowed the party during its time in government to blame the service's every dysfunction – staff shortages, overcrowded hospitals, inadequate mental health care – on its predecessors. But that time is over. The plan implicitly acknowledges that this narrative, a frequent refrain by Streeting, is no longer enough. After a year in power, this is Labour's prescription for how it will nurse the patient back to health. This – progress on delivering the planned transformation – is now a legitimate yardstick by which to judge Labour's stewardship of the nation's most treasured institution. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion The plan is as bold and radical as Streeting insists. But its key objectives – 'three big shifts' in the NHS's modus operandi from analogue to digital, treatment to prevention and hospital to community-based care – are familiar. They have been the stuff of previous NHS plans, and multiple inquiries, for decades – much promised, but rarely delivered. For example, the planned network of new 'neighbourhood health centres', with teams of health professionals and patient-friendly long opening hours, are very similar to the 'Darzi centres' proposed by the last Labour administration, of which few actually opened. Streeting does not pretend that the job of transformation will be easy. But there is a daunting array of obstacles to overcome. Will money needed to temporarily 'double run' old and new services during the transition be found? Will staff used to working in hospitals prove willing to switch to community settings? Will the gamble on technology pay off? Will the plan's failure to include big shifts to improve public health – such as mandatory reformulation of food or minimum unit pricing of alcohol – mean that the tidal wave of often-avoidable illness continues to outrun the NHS's ability to treat it? And will the decision to shed half of NHS England's 15,300 staff during its merger with the Department of Health and Social Care mean that Streeting does not have enough progress-chasers to ensure his tablets of stone are yielding real change? But the greatest risk Streeting faces is time. Alan Milburn, health secretary under Tony Blair and now Streeting's chief adviser, admitted later that the 2000 NHS plan bought him time to rescue the service from the derelict state his predecessors had left it in. But the often snail-like pace of previous NHS reforms suggests that, despite Labour having four more years in power, even that may not be enough for this plan to produce real, tangible benefits – changes to waiting times and the convenience of interacting with the NHS that patients notice. Voters keen to see 'our NHS' restored and improved may need to temper their expectations of rapid change, and ministers may have to do so too.
