Author: TomsWrite

Posted on

Glyphosate and Wheat

A wheat farmer weighs in on Wheat Belly
By Dr. Davis | January 8, 2012

Keith Lewis, a wheat farmer, left this insightful comment about modern wheat growing practices:

You conclude in your book that modern wheat breeding has dramatically changed the nutritional value of wheat. Modern wheat farming has as well.

I have been a wheat farmer for 50 yrs and one wheat production practice that is very common is applying the herbicide Roundup (glyposate) just prior to harvest. Roundup is licensed for preharvest weed control. Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup claims that application to plants at over 30% kernel moisture result in roundup uptake by the plant into the kernels. Farmers like this practice because Roundup kills the wheat plant allowing an earlier harvest.

A wheat field often ripens unevenly, thus applying Roundup preharvest evens up the greener parts of the field with the more mature. The result is on the less mature areas Roundup is translocated into the kernels and eventually harvested as such.

This practice is not licensed. Farmers mistakenly call it “dessication.” Consumers eating products made from wheat flour are undoubtedly consuming minute amounts of Roundup. An interesting aside, malt barley which is made into beer is not acceptable in the marketplace if it has been sprayed with preharvest Roundup. Lentils and peas are not accepted in the market place if it was sprayed with preharvest roundup….. but wheat is ok.

This farming practice greatly concerns me and it should further concern consumers of wheat products.

I went on a wheat and refined sugar free diet before I read your excellent book. I lost 30 lbs in three months. What a remarkable change…… In my 69th year I have never felt better.

In the book ‘Wheat Belly’, I focused on the changes introduced into the plant itself. But there are other aspects of wheat beyond the genetics and biochemistry of the plant, such as bleaching agents, pesticides, additives, and residues of herbicides like Roundup, as Mr. Lewis points out.

How much worse can this thing get?
What Do We Really Know About Roundup Weed Killer?
It’s probably in your garage and on your lawn. And it’s used on nearly every acre of corn and soy. But what risks does it pose?

By Elizabeth Grossman

A farmer in central Illinois sprays his cornfield with glyphosate. Seeds have been genetically engineered to tolerate the chemical so farmers can apply it to entire fields without destroying crops. As a result, its use has skyrocketed but some experts say research is needed exploring what happens to it in the environment and how much people are exposed.

The world’s most widely-used herbicide has been getting a lot of attention lately.

Last month, an international agency declared glyphosate, the primary ingredient in the popular product Roundup,  a “probable human carcinogen.” The weed killer also has made recent headlines for its widespread use on genetically modified seeds and research that links it to antibiotics resistance and hormone disruption. Several national governments are planning to restrict its use, and some school districts are talking about banning it.
So what do we know about glyphosate? Five key questions and answers:

How Is Glyphosate Used?
Introduced commercially by Monsanto  in 1974, glyphosate kills weeds by blocking proteins essential to plant growth.  It is now used in more than 160 countries, with more than 1.4 billion pounds applied per year.

Glyphosate, often sold under the brand name Roundup, is probably in your garage or shed because it’s ranked as the second most widely used U.S. lawn and garden weed killer. These products have been promoted as easy-to-use and effective on poison ivy, kudzu, dandelions, and other weeds.

But the primary use is by agriculture. Nearly all the corn, soy, and cotton now grown in the United States is treated with glyphosate.

Its use skyrocketed after seeds were genetically engineered to tolerate the chemical. Because these seeds produce plants that are not killed by glyphosate, farmers can apply the weed killer to entire fields without worrying about destroying crops. Between 1987 and 2012, annual U.S. farm use grew from less than 11 million pounds to nearly 300 million pounds.

“By far the vast use is on [genetically engineered] crops – corn, soy and cotton – that took off in the early to mid-nineties,” says Robert Gilliom, chief of surface water assessment for the US Geological Survey’s National Water Quality Assessment Program.

In addition, some five million acres in California were treated with glyphosate in 2012 to grow almonds, peaches, onions, cantaloupe, cherries, sweet corn, citrus, grapes, and other edible crops.

View Images
Glyphosate, marketed by Monsanto as Roundup, is the second most popular weed killer for residential yards and gardens.

What Happens to Glyphosate in the Environment?
Despite its widespread use, USGS hydrologist Paul Capel said there is “a dearth of information” on what happens to it once it is used.

Monarch Butterfly’s Reign Threatened by Milkweed Decline
Glyphosate is not included in the U.S. government’s testing of food for pesticide residues or the monitoring of chemicals in human blood and tissues. As a result, there is no information on how much people are exposed to from using it in their yards, living near farms or eating foods from treated fields.

A recent USGS study sampled waterways in 38 states and found glyphosate in the majority of rivers, streams, ditches, and wastewater treatment plant outfalls tested. Not much was found in groundwater because it binds tightly to soil.

Glyphosate also was found in about 70 percent of rainfall samples. It “attaches pretty firmly to soil particles” that are swept off farm fields then stay in “the atmosphere for a relatively long time until they dissolve off into water,” Capel says.

What About Exposure Through Food?
Before genetically engineered crops, glyphosate residues in food were considered unlikely, says Charles Benbrook, research professor at Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources. But since about 2005, pre-harvest use of glyphosate “results in very high residues,” he says. Traces were found in 90 percent of 300 soybean samples.

So what is the likelihood of exposure? The people most likely to be exposed are working on or living near farms where glyphosate is used, says University of California, Irvine professor Bruce Blumberg.

What Is known About Effects on Human Health?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had determined that the science “does not provide evidence to show that glyphosate causes cancer.” But now the EPA says it will analyze new findings by the UN’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, which declared in March that glyphosate probably raises the risk of cancer in people exposed.

The UN agency based its decision on human, animal, and cell studies, says National Cancer Institute scientist emeritus, Aaron Blair who chaired the IARC review committee. The studies found glyphosate in farmworkers’ blood and urine, chromosomal damage in cells, increased risks of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in some people exposed, and tumor formation in some animal studies.

The big unanswered question is the potential health effect of low levels over extended periods of time.
Monsanto called the IARC conclusion “inconsistent with decades of ongoing comprehensive safety assessments.”

The American Soybean Association and National Corn Growers Association also denounced the finding. CropLife America, a trade association representing pesticide manufacturers, says, “It’s important to remember that glyphosate acts on an enzyme that exists only in plants and not mammals, contributing to the low risk to human health.”

One study suggests that glyphosate may affect pathogens such as Salmonella in ways that can contribute to antibiotic resistance. Other recent research suggests it can interfere with hormones.

Yet the really big unanswered question is the potential health effect of low levels over extended periods of time.

So Where Does This Leave Us?
The EPA is reviewing its approved uses of glyphosate and expects to release a preliminary assessment of the human health risk later this year. This is expected to include new restrictions.

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka, alarmed by suspected links to human kidney disease, has banned it. Brazil is considering a similar move. Mexico and the Netherlands have imposed new restrictions, and Canada has just begun a process to consider new rules.

Posted on

Williams and Winkler

Williams and Winkler

During a 1978 taping of “Happy Days,” the studio buzzed with anticipation. The show was at its peak, and the episode was introducing a strange, outlandish new character, Mork from Ork, played by a little-known comedian named Robin Williams. Behind the scenes, however, Williams was not feeling like a cosmic visitor from another planet. He was overwhelmed. Nervous energy poured out of him as he paced the floor, uncertain about how the live audience would respond. Henry Winkler, who played Fonzie and was already a household name, noticed the young actor’s anxious behavior.

Winkler quietly pulled Williams aside backstage. They sat on a stairwell where the noise of the set was muted, the only sound being the murmur of the crew and Williams’s restless tapping fingers. Winkler spoke calmly, his voice steady. He told Robin to lean into what made him unique. He did not hand him a script or instructions. He simply reminded him of his strength as a performer. “Trust the moment. Let the moment guide you,” Winkler recalled saying in later interviews.

When the cameras rolled, Robin Williams unleashed an unforgettable whirlwind of unscripted brilliance. Wearing a red jumpsuit and antennae, he spun lines, bounced off props, and improvised at a pace that stunned both cast and audience. Even seasoned crew members had to suppress laughter during takes. Henry Winkler watched from the side, astonished. “I was watching someone levitate in front of me,” he said. “That’s when I knew he was going to change comedy forever.”

That guest appearance on “Happy Days” became a career-defining moment. It led directly to the spinoff “Mork & Mindy,” which premiered in 1978 and made Robin Williams a national sensation. But few people at the time knew about that quiet conversation backstage, the moment of reassurance that preceded the storm of genius.

Robin Williams, years later, reflected on that night with deep appreciation. In a 2001 interview with James Lipton on “Inside the Actors Studio,” Williams briefly mentioned how terrified he had been before stepping onto the “Happy Days” set. “I was the new guy on a hit show. Henry didn’t need to do anything, but he saw me, saw that I was shaking. He made me feel like I belonged. That gave me the freedom to fly.” Williams did not elaborate further, but the brief nod to Winkler’s kindness spoke volumes.

Henry Winkler often spoke fondly of Robin in later years, especially after his tragic death in 2014. During an appearance on “The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson,” Winkler recalled that first meeting. “He was trembling like a leaf. And then suddenly he was a hurricane. It was like watching pure electricity take human form.” Winkler’s voice cracked as he remembered Robin’s laugh. “That laugh… it filled the room before you even heard the joke.”
After Williams’s passing, Winkler gave multiple interviews, each time focusing not on Robin’s fame, but on his humanity. In a conversation with The Hollywood Reporter, he said, “He made everyone feel seen. That night on ‘Happy Days,’ I thought I was helping him. But really, I just got a front-row seat to brilliance. That was the beginning of something none of us could have imagined.”

In 2018, Winkler spoke again about Williams while promoting his memoir “Being Henry.” He revealed that for decades after that episode, whenever they ran into each other, whether backstage at events or at award shows, Williams would still call him “The Fonz” and wink. “He never forgot,” Winkler said. “And neither did I.”
What began as a moment of quiet reassurance blossomed into a pivotal turning point in television comedy. One man saw another not as competition, but as a spark waiting to ignite. And when it did, it lit up an entire generation.

Posted on

Quote of the Day

“There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see.”
Leonardo da Vinci (1452 – 1519)

Posted on

Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals

In a Frontiers in Public Health review article, researchers report on the wide body of science connecting adverse effects to the female reproductive system, such as infertility, with exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, or EDCs.

The authors call these effects a significant concern for public health, as there has been growing evidence of EDCs with risk factors for decreased fertility.

Infertility “affects a substantial proportion of the world’s population with approximately one in six people affected,” the researchers note.

They continue:

“Over the last 70 years, global fertility has been constantly in decline due to behavioral and societal changes … emerging evidence has shown that infertility incidence is linked to exposure to environmental factors such as tobacco, alcohol, and a wide range of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) including pesticides (chlorpyrifos, glyphosate, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT] and methoxychlor), phthalates, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), dioxins, and bisphenols.”

In this review, over 100 studies are summarized to showcase the link between EDC exposure and reproductive effects in women, including infertility and related diseases such as endometriosis, premature ovarian insufficiency, or POI, and endocrine axis dysregulation.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/endocrine-disrupting-chemicals-infertility-women/

Posted on

The Man Who Planted Trees

The Man Who Planted Trees

I found “The Man Who Planted Trees” three days after the diagnosis. Terminal, they said. Six months, maybe less. I hurled books across my hospital room, cursing the universe for its cruelty, until a thin volume slipped from the pile, landing open-faced on the sterile floor. A nurse picked it up, glanced at the first page, and against protocol, left it on my bedside table instead of reshelving it.
“You might need this one,” she whispered.
She was right. But not for the reasons either of us could have imagined.
Let me tell you about resurrection.
Not the biblical kind—though what Jean Giono created in his slender 4,000-word masterpiece borders on the miraculous—but the kind that begins with dirt under fingernails and an obstinate refusal to accept desolation as the final word.
Most readers encounter “The Man Who Planted Trees” as ecological parable or gentle inspiration. They admire its message of environmental stewardship, nod appreciatively at its humanistic optimism, perhaps feel momentarily better about our species’ potential. Then they return it to the shelf and continue their lives fundamentally unchanged.
I couldn’t return it to the shelf. Because Elzéard Bouffier wouldn’t let me go.
The story’s premise is deceptively simple: In 1913, a young hiker traverses the barren, wind-scoured highlands of Provence, a landscape so bleak it drives inhabitants to madness or exodus. There he encounters a silent shepherd methodically planting oak trees—one hundred perfect acorns daily, year after year, asking nothing in return. The narrator returns after both world wars to discover this solitary man’s quiet, relentless labor has miraculously transformed thousands of acres of wasteland into a vibrant, water-rich forest ecosystem where communities once again thrive.
A simple summary that betrays nothing of the story’s devastating power.
I began reading in that antiseptic hospital room, my body already betraying me at thirty-six, the scan results still burning in my mind. By page three, something shifted. Giono’s sparse prose—devoid of sentimentality yet pulsing with life—bypassed my intellectual defenses and struck directly at something primal within me.
His description of that initial landscape—”everything was barren and colorless, a desert without even the drama of traditional deserts”—mirrored my interior state with such precision that I gasped audibly. The nurse looked up, concerned, but I waved her away, already descending deeper into Giono’s world.
When the narrator first meets Bouffier, the shepherd is described with haunting simplicity: “His beard was black, and his shoulders slightly hunched, but his figure was tall and straight, more suggestive of an athlete than an old man.” Something in this portrait of contained power, of vitality harnessed for purpose rather than display, seized me. I read the entire story without moving, the hospital machinery beeping in counterpoint to my racing heart.
That night, I dreamed of acorns—hundreds of them, cool and smooth in my palms.
What makes “The Man Who Planted Trees” truly dangerous isn’t its ecological message but its fundamental challenge to our understanding of time, purpose, and what constitutes a meaningful life.
Bouffier plants trees he will never sit beneath. He creates forests without recognition or reward. He persists through two world wars, through personal tragedy, through complete societal collapse and reconstruction, doing exactly one thing: planting perfectly selected seeds in precisely the right places, then letting nature and time do what they will.
This radical patience—this refusal of instant gratification, external validation, or even measurable short-term progress—represents a direct assault on everything our culture holds sacred. Bouffier’s calm, methodical labor exposes the poverty of our addictions to immediacy, recognition, and tangible results.
And yet, the miracle happens. The wasteland transforms. Life returns. Not through dramatic intervention or technological salvation, but through one man’s stubborn, daily choice to believe in a future he personally will barely glimpse.
By day three in the hospital, something unprecedented occurred. I found myself examining my own wasteland with different eyes. What if my diagnosis wasn’t an ending but a clarification? What if the time I had—whether six months or six years—could be measured not in duration but in seeds planted?
I began making calls. Family members I’d avoided for decades. Former colleagues I’d betrayed climbing corporate ladders. My estranged son, now eighteen, who’d stopped taking my calls five years earlier.
Many rejected my overtures. Some responded with suspicious caution. A few engaged more openly. I didn’t explain the diagnosis—this wasn’t about extracting forgiveness or pity. It was about planting whatever seeds I could in the time remaining.
I started volunteering at a youth center near my apartment, teaching chess to kids with life circumstances far more challenging than my privileged trajectory. I allocated my savings to establish a small foundation focused on reforesting a degraded watershed in my grandfather’s rural hometown.
The doctors were baffled by my sudden shift from rage to focused engagement. My oncologist suggested the medication might be affecting my cognition. I smiled and told her I’d simply found a better way to measure what remained of my life.
One acorn at a time.
The true power of Giono’s story isn’t its gentle hopefulness but its ruthless rejection of excuses. Bouffier begins his work as an old man, already sixty-five when the narrator first meets him. He has suffered devastating personal loss. The landscape itself actively resists regeneration. The broader society remains oblivious to his efforts for decades.
None of this matters to him. None of it interrupts the steady rhythm of his planting.
When I returned to the hospital for treatment six weeks after that first reading, I brought my own dog-eared copy of the book. As chemicals designed to kill rapidly dividing cells dripped into my veins, I read aloud to two other patients receiving treatment. One wept silently by the end. The other asked to borrow it when I finished.
We formed an unlikely book group in that chemo ward—discussing Bouffier’s methods, his solitude, his monastic patience. The oncology nurses began calling us “the forest people,” not understanding our private reference but sensing the strange energy our discussions generated amid the clinical despair.
Seven months later—already longer than my initial prognosis—a second scan showed something unexpected. Not remission, not yet, but a significant slowing of the disease’s progression. My oncologist called it “unusual but not unprecedented.” I had a different explanation.
I’d begun to dream regularly of Bouffier—not as Giono described him but as a presence beside me, teaching me to distinguish promising acorns from those that would never germinate. In these dreams, we worked together in comfortable silence, filling pockets with seeds, walking barren ridgelines, kneeling in dust and stone.
During my waking hours, I continued my own planting—reconciliations where possible, new connections where not, small contributions to strangers’ lives, seeds of possibility in whatever soil would receive them.
Inexplicably, improbably, I was still alive.
What “The Man Who Planted Trees” offers isn’t gentle inspiration but a radical alternative to despair. Giono doesn’t just tell a pretty story about environmentalism—he demonstrates that meaning exists precisely in the face of apparent futility, that purpose transcends outcome, that transformative power often lies in the humblest, most repetitive actions.
The story’s most devastating passage describes Bouffier’s work during World War I: “The war of 1914 had taken away all his sons, all three of them… He resumed his planting.” This breathtaking understatement contains volumes—both the immensity of Bouffier’s personal tragedy and the immensity of his refusal to surrender to it.
Three years after my diagnosis, against all medical predictions, I remain. The disease and I have reached a standoff of sorts—it advances more slowly than expected; I live more fully than I ever did in health. I’ve since learned that Giono wrote this story for an American magazine that requested “the most extraordinary character I’ve encountered.” He invented Bouffier entirely, later explaining: “My goal was to make trees likeable, or more specifically, to make planting trees likeable.”
But here’s what Giono himself may not have fully understood: he didn’t create a character; he created a template for living meaningfully in the face of apparent hopelessness. He didn’t make trees likeable; he made perseverance without guarantee of personal reward not just likeable but essential.
Last week, I visited the youth center where I still teach chess. One of my first students—now heading to college on scholarship—asked why I never seem afraid despite my illness. I showed him my worn copy of Giono’s book.
“The man in this story,” I explained, “plants trees knowing three things for certain: many will fail to grow, he won’t live to see most that do succeed, and he has no guarantee the world won’t destroy his work through war or greed or simple indifference.”
“Then why bother?” the young man asked.
“Because the planting itself matters,” I said. “Because transformation always begins in apparent futility. Because life, ultimately, is measured not in what we harvest but in what we plant.”
I don’t know if he understood. But later that day, I saw him reading the book in a corner, his expression intense with discovery.
Another acorn planted.
If you value comfort over transformation, avoid “The Man Who Planted Trees.” This isn’t inspirational literature; it’s a literary detonation device disguised as a simple tale. Once you truly absorb Bouffier’s example, you lose all excuses for inaction. You forfeit the luxury of despair. You find yourself, against all reason, planting seeds in whatever barren landscape you’ve been given—with no guarantee except that the planting itself may be the most profound expression of being fully alive.
And somewhere in your dreams, a forest is already rising.
Posted on

Stop Using Aluminum Foil

For a long time, aluminum foil has been a kitchen staple. Open up anyone’s utility drawer and you’re bound to find a roll of the silver thinly printed metal. Why? Because it is extremely useful and effective for many kitchen and household tasks.

Foil is often used to cover your casserole and other oven-ready dishes. But now research is showing that if you cook with aluminum foil, you could be exposing yourself to some pretty serious health risks.

In the article below, we will present you with the facts on cooking with aluminum foil. Learn what can happen and then make the decision to use it or not for yourself. But the research is pretty clear…

Simply put, if you cook with aluminum foil, you are playing with your health.

The first thing you need to know is that aluminum is bad for your brain. It is a neurotoxic heavy metal that has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease for years.

Exposing yourself to this metal can lead to mental decline. Prepare to suffer in terms of coordination, bodily control, memory, and balance. Sadly, many who suffer from poisoning with this neurotoxin, the damage is permanent. You could experience gaps in memory that can create a divide between you and your loved ones if this chemical does the worst it can.

Besides damaging your brain, cooking with aluminum foil can also negatively affect your bones. This metal can build-up inside your bones. This is bad because it competes with calcium for space inside your bones and often wins out over the essential mineral. Although an aluminum skeletal frame sounds like something from science fiction, are bodies are made for fact – not fiction. So, it simply won’t work well for us. You need calcium to prevent your bones from breaking in a fall.

From here on out, the risk of cooking with aluminum continues to grow. It is also bad for your lungs. Breathing in aluminum particles has been proven to lead to respiratory problems, like pulmonary fibrosis. Even if you grill with aluminum foil, you could be breathing in these particles and slowly destroying your lungs.

Aluminum cans have long been hailed as being risky. But for some reason, tin foil was overlooked for years. No longer…

If you accidentally ingest aluminum flakes, you risk these problems. While you’re not eating a ball of rolled up foil, when you cook with aluminum at high temperatures, parts of the metal are going into your food. High temperatures can create cracks in the metal causes particles to break off into your food.
Even if the minuscule pieces don’t break off, chemical leeching of aluminum can happen if you cook with certain spices or use lemons.

Dr Essam Zubaidy, a chemical engineering researcher at the American University of Sharjah, discovered that just one meal cooked with tin foil can leach 400 mg of aluminum.

“The higher the temperature, the more the leaching. Foil is not suitable for cooking and is not suitable for using with vegetables like tomatoes, citrus juice or spices.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) of 2 mg/kg body weight for aluminium. This PTWI applies to all aluminium compounds in food, including food additives. The recommendation is based on a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) of 30 mg/kg body weight per day, with the application of a safety factor of 100.

For adults, the estimated mean dietary exposure to aluminium-containing food additives from cereals and cereal-based products can reach up to the PTWI. However, for children, estimates of dietary exposure to aluminium-containing food additives, including high dietary exposures (e.g., 90th or 95th percentile), can exceed the PTWI by up to 2-fold.

The takeaway: If you cook with aluminum, you’re risking your health.

Posted on

Make A Difference

Peyton Manning

Peyton Manning was waiting for his coffee — when he heard a teen boy being bullied at the next table… and silenced it with one sentence.

It was a quiet afternoon in a small-town café just outside Louisville.

Nothing fancy.

Locals. Regulars. A bit of small talk, the smell of cinnamon rolls.

Peyton Manning had stopped in during a road trip — hoodie on, sunglasses tucked into his shirt collar.

He ordered coffee and sat by the window, alone.

At the next table, a group of high school boys were laughing loudly.

One of them — Daniel — wasn’t laughing.

He was sitting small, hunched, shoulders tight.

He had a stutter.

And every time he tried to speak, one of the other boys interrupted, mimicked him, laughed.

“S-s-s-so what do you think, D-D-Daniel?”

“He’s buffering again! Somebody reboot him!”

More laughter.

Daniel went silent.

His eyes dropped.

His hand slowly moved to tear the paper sleeve off his cup. Over and over.

Peyton watched.

Didn’t say a word.

Until the loudest boy leaned over and said:
“You should just shut up if you can’t even finish a sentence.”

That’s when Peyton stood up.

Walked over.

And with calm, measured clarity, looked right at the group and said:

“I’d pick Daniel for my team every time.

And not one of you would make the bench.”

Silence.

The boys froze.

One stammered something. Another looked away.

Daniel just blinked.

Then… smiled.

Peyton turned to him.

Held out his hand.

“You’ve got more courage than they’ll understand for a long, long time.

And by the way… I stuttered when I was a kid too.”

Then he sat with Daniel.

Drank his coffee.

Talked football. Family. Life.

Before leaving, Peyton scribbled something on a napkin and handed it to him.

“For when you forget who you are.”

It said:
*“You don’t need to speak perfectly.
You just need to speak honestly.
And people who matter will always wait for the end of your sentence.
Proud to know you. — Peyton.”*

Years later, Daniel still keeps that napkin.

Framed.

Above his desk.

He’s now a youth counselor — helping kids find their voices.

Peyton Manning didn’t just shut down a group of bullies.
He lifted one boy up — and gave him the kind of voice no one could laugh away again.

(I had to look up who Peyton Williams Manning was – an American former professional football quarterback who played in the National Football League (NFL) for 18 seasons. Nicknamed “the Sheriff”, he spent 14 seasons with the Indianapolis Colts and four with the Denver Broncos. Manning is considered one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time.)