Best Of

Pb brains trust: Anyone have any experience of chiropractors? I've had a bad back for about three weeks now. Friend of a friend has recommended I seek out a McTimoney chiropractor but this could be quackery for all I know.

Cheaper quackery:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Healing-Back-Pain-Reissue-Connection/dp/153871261X/

Six months of back pain I had last year cured just by reading this. Or co-incidentally. An not-uncommon experience, the author claims.

Interim measures, some of which gave temporary relief:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/back-pain/art-20546859

I have no doubt that back pain is sort-of-psychological: your body thinks it's about to damage itself, and tenses up. The trick is trying to get it to relax again. I'd wondered whether this might be a chiropractor's approach.
I have, in the past, managed to cure back pain by going on a boat trip to lool at dolphins. It was so amazing that I forgot all about it. But I think it's like trying to shock yourself out of hiccups: it's not really repeatable (nor practical).

We would need a randomised controlled trial, with a control condition where you go on a boat trip to look at something less exciting. Maybe ducks.

Pb brains trust: Anyone have any experience of chiropractors? I've had a bad back for about three weeks now. Friend of a friend has recommended I seek out a McTimoney chiropractor but this could be quackery for all I know.

I'm afraid I can't be clear - I have heard of both good and bad experiences, and results. Damage can be done.

I think it will depend on the particular condition, and maybe on the particular practitioner.

My only strong recommendation would be to discuss with a GP or perhaps a Physio first with respect to the particular condition, and take their advice very seriously. Many people have access to a GP by Phone service, which may be one place to look for advice.

I would weigh "friend of a friend" advice very lightly.

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Chronic conditions are tied to age.

Plus the reason why the over x population has increased is because we have become better at turning fatal conditions into chronic ones.

Turning a fatal condition into a chronic condition doesn't cure the condition, it just means that the person doesn't die but lives longer with that and other conditions. That may be a good thing for the individual, but its expensive.

Chronic conditions go away when people die. Prevent death, you have more chronic conditions to treat.

Illustrative example - let's imagine 100% of health spending goes on over 65s, and let's say that 40% of the over 65 population has a chronic condition.

We know that the over 65 population has increased by 32%. So the total number of people living with chronic conditions should have increased by 32% too, and the costs associated with them increased by 32%.

But no. Total health spending has increased by more than 3x that much. It is not entirely explained by an aging population. It's either because the age-specific rate of chronic conditions has increased (i.e. the population has become less healthy), or the cost of treatment has grown.

Might it also be the number of different treatments available, as well as the demand for treatments and the cost of those treatments? If you get a new way to treat a certain condition, and it gets passed by NICE, then there's a pretty immediate cost increase.

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Chronic conditions are tied to age.

Plus the reason why the over x population has increased is because we have become better at turning fatal conditions into chronic ones.

Turning a fatal condition into a chronic condition doesn't cure the condition, it just means that the person doesn't die but lives longer with that and other conditions. That may be a good thing for the individual, but its expensive.

Chronic conditions go away when people die. Prevent death, you have more chronic conditions to treat.

Illustrative example - let's imagine 100% of health spending goes on over 65s, and let's say that 40% of the over 65 population has a chronic condition.

We know that the over 65 population has increased by 32%. So the total number of people living with chronic conditions should have increased by 32% too, and the costs associated with them increased by 32%.

But no. Total health spending has increased by more than 3x that much. It is not entirely explained by an aging population. It's either because the age-specific rate of chronic conditions has increased (i.e. the population has become less healthy), or the cost of treatment has grown.

Morning all.

Sorry I missed the 'party' yesterday; out at a family occasion, of which more anon, perhaps.

"Cost' of health is increasing partly because of an ageing population, partly because we're getting better at treating all sorts of conditions and partly because, since the elderly population is increasing the amount of chronic treatable condition has increased. For example, I would think that, because of my general condition, if I'd been me 50 years ago, I'd have been dead by now!
Does that make sense.

If Cyclefree reads here, just to say I don't really believe in any cancer being incurable. I have no doubt that people in your position have been fully and completely cured and their health restored, and I suspect their stories and protocols are online if one goes searching.

Doctors aren't there to restore your health, they are there to recommend whatever the conventional drugs or surgeries are for your condition, and allocate it according to a formula. Your health is in your hands.

I applaud your approach to life though - that's what we should all be doing.

I 100% disagree with this post. It’s unscientific nonsense and a slur on the medical profession. Sadly some cancers are incurable with what we have now. Anyone promoting non medical approaches is generally a charlatan, and there will be zero evidence to back up the claims.

Thanks. Actually it isn't at all unscientific. We intervene medically on our bodies every single day. We eat three square meals, we drink, we are exposed to mental stresses of various types, we take or lack sleep, we take or lack exercise. All these are things that happen with far higher frequency than any medical protocol and are just as potent. It would be utterly unscientific - it would be quasi-religious even - to assume that only medically diagnosed therapies have a profound impact on the body.

Nor have I advised Cyclefree to ignore her doctors or shun medical treatment - merely that she should inform herself widely about a whole body approach to regaining her health.

As I said, I would be extremely surprised if some people with Cyclefree's exact condition had not been fully restored, and I think the lady herself is quite savvy enough to know when someone is genuine and when someone is selling snake oil, without your pathetic, and under the circumstances rather revolting intervention.

I suspect Cyclefree is rather less gullible than you. Of course the impacts of eating well, exercise etc have an impact on your health and I would never claim otherwise. But perhaps you will give me the mechanisms by which metastatic cancer can be reversed by eating the right food. Because if you can, the next Nobel is coming your way. Without going all expert on you I do lecture on Oncology. You?

I have removed the @ tags, because unlike you, I am not a loathsome insensitive point-scoring little turd who thinks it's OK to launch into an fierce debate about a serious illness whilst tagging in a sufferer.

One mechanism by which food could help reverse cancer which I'm puzzled you're not aware of, is the Warburg effect, wherein cancer cells have an increased need for glucose vs. the body's own cells. Given that the body can happily run on ketones (burning fat) and cancer cells cannot efficiently use ketones, a ketogenic diet, or at the very least a far smaller allowance for carbohydrates and sugars and a far larger one for fats, would seem to be an advisable complement to cancer treatment.

Perhaps you can do some research on it before your next lecture.

Calm down. I’m sorry if you think I shouldn’t have tagged Cyclefree - I did it almost automatically and you may think it was wrong. I wasn’t trying to score points, and you know, she is a tough old bird who can look out for herself.

Now, on to your magic cure. I’m going to thank you for this, because I am going to include it in next years lectures. It’s a brilliant example of how social media can drive some people to think that one facet of cancer behaviour holds the secret to treatment that bizarrely the medical profession is somehow ignoring.

There Warburg effect is well known. Cancer cells arise following a series of events, typically are hungry for energy and nutrients to allow for unchecked growth. We know this. Lots of treatments interfere with DNA biosynthesis to prevent cells replicating.

Sadly many cancer types are able to mutate to become resistant to treatment. I strongly suspect this to be true of depriving them of glucose. Evidence suggests that cancer cells can survive without glucose, but prefer not to.

I will also say this. No one w old be more grateful than me if suddenly there was a diet treatment available, with evidence, trials etc that worked. I lost my mum to cancer last year and have had leukemia myself. It touches all of us. But there isn’t a grand conspiracy out there. There are thousands of papers and you know - it doesn’t work. Most cancer treatments are combination therapies. Multiple drug regimes to avoid resistance. There is a possibility that diet can be an adjunct. But you are not eradicating cancer cells by depriving them of glucose alone.

There, nice and polite, even though you choose not to be.

Well done. You've described it very well. For those faced with this taboo subject for the first time what you want above anything is clarity and honesty.

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.

That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.

Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...

Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.

I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.

Does the carnivore diet really work?

In one sense it’s just another fad that works by restricting calorie intake: The high fat intake probably helps with satiation, which is the main problem most dieters face - hunger is difficult to cope with. It’s also an expensive way to get your calories.

On the flip side, if it works for you then it works. Just make sure to supplement your diet with enough veggies to supply the essential bits and pieces you won’t get from meat alone - quite a few of the nuttier end of the US right wing “eating meat makes me more manly” brigade made themselves quite seriously ill due to things like vitamin C deficiency.