While I am not into sports, and I had never heard of Thomas Herrion prior to his death, I do find his death interesting.

What I find interesting are the reports that are coming out about it. After an autopsy, the medical examiner is unable to find a cause of death. That would pretty much rule out an enlarged heart (stressed from being overweight), and a bunch of medical conditions — which can be gleaned from studying the physical body.

Yet oddly, Fox news and other news organizations are still saying that they wonder if Herrion’s weight played a part in his death. I find this to be deceptive and misleading. The medical examiner is waiting for toxicology reports (i.e. to see if drugs played a part in his death).

When you look at Thomas Herrion’s photos, he has the classical look of someone who used steroids. I have no clue whether the guy did or not, but I can guarantee you, if he did — you certainly won’t hear of it. I certainly have my suspicions.

Let me put it this way, the NFL doesn’t openly talk about steroids in situations like this. Just six months ago, Reggie White died very similarly, and they told everyone the cause of death wouldn’t be determined for oddly “four to six weeks” just as they are saying with Thomas Herrion.

Reggie White died eight months ago now, and we never heard the cause of his death, and we won’t hear the cause of death of Herrion either. I can pretty much bet on that one…

Just curious, if anyone finds the factual determined cause of death about Reggie White, and it seems plausible with toxicology reports, please let me know. I’d be shocked. In my search this morning, no news reports came up in late January or early February 2005 — four to six weeks after Reggie’s death. There were lots of speculative reports days after his death around Christmas time — but nothing after the medical examiner got his toxicology reports.

Hmmm……

For the past ten to fifteen years, people in the medical field have been touting the seriousness of the sun, and skin cancers. Wear SPF, put on that sunscreen, they say. It could save your life.

Perhaps they are right, but I am still out in the jury room.

I don’t use sunscreen.

I refuse to douse myself in chemicals — dangerous chemicals we know little about. To me it is like borrowing money from Peter to pay Paul. Somewhere in that mess, I am going to pay. So instead of borrowing time, I choose to do what I know works — avoid the sun when I feel I am getting too much. Old wisdom.

I try to be cautious not to get too much sun for me. If I am out during the full sun of the day and I feel like I might be burning, I either seek the shade of a tree, or a don a hat or blouse. It’s that simple and no company makes a buck off of that logic! Plus, it’s totally safe.

Oddly enough, scientists just uncovered new data that even after all these years of sunscreen use, skin cancer is on the rise!

Go figure, we are nation that has become obsessed with sunscreen. I watch everyone slather it on. They do it in front of me, they talk about it — they even tell me about in their blogs. They are diligent people following medical guidelines.

You know it and I know it.

The study reveals:

A team of researchers led by Leslie J. Christenson of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., analyzed medical records of patients under the age of 40 in the state’s Olmsted County between 1976 and 2003. Specifically, they tracked the number of people afflicted with so-called nonmelanoma skin cancers, which include quamous cell carcinoma (SCC), as well as basal cell carcinoma (BCC), the most common form of skin cancer in the U.S. Over the study period, 485 patients were diagnosed with skin cancer. When the researchers controlled rates for age and sex, they found that between 1976 and 1979, the rate for BCC in women was 13.4 in 100,000. By 2000 to 2003, however, the occurrence had increased to 31.6. The rise for men was less dramatic, increasing from 22.9 in the 1970s to 26.7 after 2000.

Isn’t that interesting?

What has changed over the years?

Is it that women are nowing using sunscreen more than ever before in history?

That sounds logical to me.

The article instead deduces that perhaps young people are NOT heeding the message. Quite speculative that science is…wouldn’t you agree?

Among those young people — mostly women aren’t heeding the message.

Hello, women!

Look at your husband. Is he as obessive as you are when it comes to putting on sunscreen? Does he make sure the children are coated along with you? Or, is it you who worries??

Men haven’t been sold the bill of goods that SPF will reduce wrinkles because obviously they could care less about them. But as women we care — though most of us don’t know that our SPF doesn’t effectively block out the wrinkle-causing UVA rays. The best chemical agent responsible for that is banned in the U.S.

The marketing media targeted women and I’ll bet their message got across to women. Wouldn’t you? Heck, I’ve even bought the organic kind and stuffed it in my drawers just in case. That’s how strong the marketing message to buy was. It even inflicted a non-user like me!

Men, are you as obsessive as the woman in your life? Come on, be honest…this is science we are talking about!

I think not. I am confident you are not. I don’t even need to hear the answer, but honor me anyway. Please. Speak your mind for the benefit of others and myself…

So, what conclusion does this leave you? Are you getting the message that perhaps you aren’t heeding the warning — or perhaps the all-so-good-for-you potion might not be so good afterall?