Big pharma (and big medicine) – warts and all – has saved my life on more than one occasion. It helped deliver my children safely, and continues to help members of my family to this day. I take vitamin D and on occasion have consulted naturopaths, but when surgery is required they are of no use to me. I’m no “sheeple” Tanner.

Interesting soundbite Tanner, but after reading this it looks like compassion for children with cancer is at play:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fda-defends-controversial-decision-to-approve-oxycontin-for-children/2015/09/07/3df2f538-5259-11e5-8c19-0b6825aa4a3a_story.html
Why the FDA approved OxyContin for kids as young as 11
After Lynn Brown’s daughter, Amanda, was diagnosed in 1999 with a childhood form of brain cancer, the 16-year-old endured multiple surgeries, weeks of radiation, months of chemotherapy and numerous blood transfusions — not to mention intense pain.
Doctors initially prescribed morphine, and when that became less effective over time, they switched to a relatively new drug: OxyContin.
“It made her treatments bearable,” said Brown, who lives in Miami. “I knew it was a powerful drug. . . . But you have to weigh the circumstances.
The FDA’s reasoning has done little to mollify such critics as Andrew Kolodny, a New York psychiatrist and director of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing.
Kolodny said the agency failed to sufficiently weigh the risk of addiction, which is greater in young brains that aren’t fully developed. And he says the new approval will lead to Purdue, the drug’s manufacturer, to market OxyContin more broadly.
“You’re talking about a privately held company where executives have faced criminal charges for the way they marketed OxyContin,” he said. “You’re giving a company with a very bad track record permission to market this drug for children. I think they’re going to take advantage of that.”
He said the agency should have convened a public advisory committee hearing to consider the issue, given the crisis involving the abuse of prescription painkillers. He said there are rare circumstances when giving opioids to children is warranted, but he said the FDA’s decision does nothing to expand access to those patients, given that doctors already are free to prescribe the drug in those situations.
Meanwhile, Purdue insists it has no plans to market the drug for a pediatric population. In a statement, the company said it “will not promote to pediatricians or other physicians the new pediatric safety and dosing information for OxyContin. This decision is based on our commitment to combatting the overuse, misuse and abuse of prescription opioids.”
In a separate letter to Manchin, Purdue’s chief medical officer, Gail Cawkwell, made a similar vow.
“We would like to assure you that Purdue will not promote to pediatricians or other physicians the new pediatric dosing and safety information for OxyContin,” Cawkwell wrote. “This company accepted responsibility for its past actions, and since that time Purdue has led our industry in the development of technologies and programs intended to combat the abuse and misuse of prescription drugs.”
Purdue and several of its executives in 2007 pleaded guilty to falsely marketing OxyContin in a way that played down the drug’s risk of addiction and potential for abuse. The company and the executives paid about $635 million to resolve criminal and civil charges related to the misbranding.
Sharon Hertz, director of the FDA’s division of anesthesia, analgesia and addiction products, said the agency is requiring Purdue to conduct follow-up studies on how OxyContin is being used in young patients.
Gary Walco, director of pain medicine at Seattle Children’s Hospital, said he doesn’t see the FDA’s decision on OxyContin for children as inherently good or bad. Pediatricians and patients, he said, benefit from research on when and how to prescribe medications. “I am a firm believer in relying on data to drive clinical practice,” he said.
At the same time, Walco said: “We have learned from the adult world that opioids are often prescribed inappropriately. . . . It is critical that anyone prescribing this medication to children and adolescents be intimately familiar with the limitations of the data and the nuances of prescribing.”
[D.C. couple keeps son’s memory alive through foundation to help kids with cancer]
District resident Peter Brown understands concerns that the FDA’s recent approval could worsen the epidemic of opioid abuse. But as a parent who saw his only child, Matthew, die at age 7 in 2009 after an excruciating bout with bone cancer, Brown also sees it as a necessary step. His son received OxyContin and several other painkillers after undergoing chemotherapy and a series of invasive surgeries to remove cancer from his limbs and his lungs.
“I understand the controversy,” said Brown, who along with his wife, Victoria, runs the locally based Mattie Miracle Cancer Foundation. “Regulation is needed, and public safety is very important. . . . [But] when your child is in pain . . . it’s sort of a no-brainer to have this available.”

I doubt the FDA the CDC and the NIH (or the CPS and AAP) are “big pharma” or “sunscreen companies”.
And if the FDA follows through, people will indeed be advised of risks associated with indoor tanning. Hopefully they will then apply this knowledge to their outdoor tanning habits:
“The FDA is issuing two proposed rules today. The first proposed rule would restrict use of sunlamp products to individuals 18 and older. In addition, before their first tanning session and every six months thereafter, adult users over age 18 would have to sign a risk acknowledgement certification that states that they have been informed of the risks to health that may result from use of sunlamp products. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an average of more than 3,000 emergency department room visits occur for injuries related to indoor tanning each year in the U.S. (based on 2003-2012 data).”
http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm477434.htm

From the same NIH fact sheet for health professionals (take careful note of the last sentence tanners, please):
“Despite the importance of the sun for vitamin D synthesis, it is prudent to limit exposure of skin to sunlight [19] and UV radiation from tanning beds [21]. UV radiation is a carcinogen responsible for most of the estimated 1.5 million skin cancers and the 8,000 deaths due to metastatic melanoma that occur annually in the United States [19]. Lifetime cumulative UV damage to skin is also largely responsible for some age-associated dryness and other cosmetic changes. The American Academy of Dermatology advises that photoprotective measures be taken, including the use of sunscreen, whenever one is exposed to the sun [22]. Assessment of vitamin D requirements cannot address the level of sun exposure because of these public health concerns about skin cancer, and there are no studies to determine whether UVB-induced synthesis of vitamin D can occur without increased risk of skin cancer [1].”
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/

Looks like the sunscare cult it at it again. Sunbeds save lives and the long term benefits of moderate use outweigh the risks. http://www.drwellnesstherapy.com/tanningbeds/article14.php

Tanning beds in a gym? How is that healthy?
“”Another problem with tanning beds that no one is talking about is where the radiation is going,” (Dr. Mitchell) Chasin added. Many people use tanning beds in the nude, he explained, exposing themselves to radiation in parts of their body their dermatologist might not regularly check.”
http://m.mic.com/articles/130952/tanning-beds-could-be-banned-for-minors-but-here-s-why-we-should-all-stop-using-them#.xh276mlqm