Underthinking Sunscreen

So, I am currently thinking 3 a week. Monday-Wednesday-Friday, but we will see how we go.

So today I was reading about a young lad who suffered 2nd degree burns on his shoulders. The first thing that struck my attention was this kid was named Angus Pattie, so I presumed it was a story about a man who burnt his meat patty on the Barbecue and to make the story out of it he gave the patty a name. Because that is my understanding of how journalism works, personalize the story.

Oh No. Not Angus! He was my favourite.

Then I thought well hang on a minute Angus is a type of cow, so the media were just alerting people to the danger of burning prime beef patties, because the price of meat and milk and stuff going through the roof.

"It's just sickening that a solo mother of 8 can't afford to eat Prime beef every meal of the day in this country, and to top it off it burns more easily."

But no that wasn't the case, in best case of giving a child an apt name since Alden Cockburn the world famous Urologist.....

.... a kid who had used the Cancer society approved sunscreen had received 2nd degree burns (or got cooked, get it Angus Pattie got cooked) after allegedly spending 1 hour in the sun.

"What are you doing in there, Angus?"
"NOTHING MUM, JUST SUNBATHING"

I actually believe he was in the sun, and sorry if offended Angus. But what is the cancer society putting their name all over the worst sunscreen that we have? (again allegedly, I have heard from other people aside this story though, that this is the case).
Is the cancer society president an vampire (a real one, not one of those twilight fags), and figures if he can't go in the sun no one else should too, therefore if they think they are using the best sunscreen and still getting burnt, then they should just stay inside??

Head of Cancer society.

Surely if you are the Cancer Society, you should be only lending your name to products you know will protect people using them. So people can say the Cancer society approves it, it must be good.
Did they test it? When did they test it?

"Yeah, your not burnt at all, this stuff totally works"

I mean that was always my presumption. Cancer society says this stuff is good, and they also say the best protection is to stay out of the sun, so this stuff must be incredible, like wearing shade.

Bill (middle) had forgot to put the shade on his face.

I am not sure why the Cancer society would put their name on an inferior product, (I am basing that on the story, where the pharmacist refuses to stock it because it is overrepresented in complaints). Is it to do with price, because surely its better to have people pay more and know they are covered, rather then save money but only think they are covered and take more risks, not wearing t-shirts or seeking shade?

If you want my recommendation, use the sunscreen that people use to write on themselves with, if it can leave skin underneath pasty white, while the rest burns to a crisp, it must be good!

"I wished they had used Cancer society sunscreen then I wouldn't have this burnt into my back"