O'Shea, DC, Tim

The Doctor Within: June 2010 Newsletter

In This Issue
Upcoming Seminars
New Collagen Product/Chapter
Peptide Globules

Proposed Changes in CE Requirements (again)
Many people read the chapters at the site, especially the Last Resort and the 60 Day Program and get new hope that their incurable conditions might not be quite as hopeless as they thought.  For those in California, the  in-office consult is available, in which a complete medical history and lifestyle analysis is coupled with a specifically detailed application of the 60 Day Program.
For those who can't make it in, they can do almost as well with the one hour phone consult.  Specializing in difficult, confusing, incurable and hopeless cases, these consults are for those who believe they've 'tried everything."  News flash: they haven't, because they're still sick. When your doctor tells you there's nothing more he can do for you, he's telling the truth.  Your misfortune is that he didn't tell you sooner.
See website for details of both types of consult.

Join Our Mailing List
Upcoming Seminars

15 May  Waterbury CT-  The Vaccine/Nutrition seminar
22 May  Palm Springs CA-  The Vaccine/Nutrition seminar
12 Jun LAX-  Nutrition seminar
16 Jun-  Dead Chiropractors Society Lecture Newport Beach CA

The Vaccine/Nutrition seminar is a survey course which covers important highlights from the full day seminars on each of the two subjects.

A few of the topics covered:
Swine flu
History of vaccines
Germ Theory
68 vaccines for children
2010 Mandated Schedule of vaccines
Ingredients of vaccines
Safety and efficacy science
Attenuated agents
Mercury, aluminum, formalin
Exemption laws in every state
Autism connection controversy
Discussion of individual vaccines
Future vaccines

The new GM foods global industry
Enzymes: natural foods vs processed
Xenobiotics: the need for detox
Mineral nutrition
Colon immunobiology
Arterial detox/ heart drugs
Oral chelation
The healthiest people on earth
Weston A Price
The 60 Day Program
Complete patient nutrition materials
Antioxidants and free radicals
Chiropractic and nutrition

Cost:  12 hours CE  $169
General public:  $99

To register please call 408 298 1800 mwf or email doc@thedoctorwithin.com
More details see    www.thedoctorwithin.com

Both seminars now available on DVD sets.  Updated versions.


New Collagen Chapter
This is a complete rewrite of the new chapter because we just upgraded to an even more bioavailable and effective new collagen.  It's only 10 pages.  Please read if you have any interest in your skin, hair, muscles, bones, or organs!

Click here to read new collagen chapter.


Peptide Globules
The new collagen may sometimes contain small clumps.  Some patients have called in thinking this was some kind of problem or they got a defective jar or something.  The clumps are simply peptide globules seen in the new product that are the result of 2 improvements:

  •   smaller particle size
  •   the 3 added amino acids

The clumping has no effect on solubility:  the instant you spoon the collagen into any liquid it all dissolves immediately.  That is one characteristic of high bioavailability of course: how fast it dissolves.

These peptide globules are one result from going to the new low molecular weight of 2000 daltons.  In addition the supplemental glycine, carnitine, and glucosamine you see on the label may attract the smaller particles of the collagen, sometimes resulting in small clumps throughout the sample. This  didn't happen in the earlier product because the extra aminos were about the same size as the larger particle collagen.

So relax and just  realize that the peptide globules are not the result of sloppy processing or damaged merchandise.  We know all about it and they are actually a good thing.

The new particle size represents an unprecedented advance in the global collagen industry.  Consequently, during the past few months the demand for the new low molecular weight blend has gone through the roof.  Manufacturers are struggling to meet the demands and have told us that there may be some delays in production during the summer. This may result in back-orders that may last a few weeks.  The good news however is that once the production problems are smoothed out, we will be able to obtain all we need and there will be no further delays in delivery.

We had a chance to buy some inferior collagen to tide us over during the interim, but have decided to wait until we can only provide the high end collagen.  Quality is always worth waiting for.  People must have confidence that anything they buy here will be the highest quality available anywhere.  No idle boast, as anyone can see from the testimonial section on the site.

Please click here to read the new re-write of the Collagen chapter.


More Proposed Changes to Continuing Education for California DCs
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

For the 4th time in the past few years the Board has drafted a new version of proposed changes in continuing education. The main areas include changes in allowable course material, increasing to 24 hours annually, making a 12 hour seminar last 14 hours, and allowing immediate dismissal of any Provider for unspecified reasons.

You are encouraged to send in your comments, whatever they may be.  Supposedly all input will be reviewed.  My opinion is expressed in the letter below.  These sentiments are shared by a great number of educators and doctors within our profession.  If everyone is sleeping, these extreme changes may soon become law.  Once that happens it will be virtually impossible to change it back.
So read the letter below.  You can go on the Board's website and see the actual text of the proposed changes.  Then send your comments without delay to:

To:  Dixie Van Allen
2525 Natomas Pk Dr. #260
Sacramento, CA 95833

Doesn't have to be a long letter.  It just has to be like, in the next few days.

Here's my two cents:

To:  Dixie Van  Allen                                          2 May 10
2525 Natomas Pk Dr #260
Sacramento CA 95833
To:  Offce of Administrative Law
Attn:  April  Alameda
300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1250,
Sacramento, California 95814-4339
cc: Dynamic Chiropractic
   Governor's Office, Sacramento

Sent by email and certified mail

Response to proposed changes in CE regulations

The Trojan Horse?

Doctors responding to proposed CE changes now for the 4th time in the past 2
 years can marvel at how the profession has survived without any changes at 
all.  Few significant changes in CE regs have been made during the past 15
 or 20 years. The profession has muddled through somehow:  doctors attended
 CE classes, renewed their licenses, paid their fees, and acquired some
 modicum of useful information from the seminars.

The drafters of the new proposals seemed to have learned about the legal
 criteria for changing existing regs mainly from the comments received from
 us, the respondents to the past 2 or 3 versions of Proposed Changes.  While 
their previous versions were rough drafts that showed almost no familiarity
 with statutory requirements for changing regs, the current proposals now pay
 some lip service to those criteria.  But it’s still very superficial.
 So once again, let us look at yet another draft of Proposed Changes to CE 

On p. 1 The drafters cite the prime criterion for changes to existing regs from the original Chiropractic Initiative:

 '... the board may make changes,  the standard being   -...for the protection 
of the public.'

That’s the statutory bar that must be met for any change.

Then they proceed to forget that standard for the rest of the proposal.

P1   continues:
      'the purpose of these additions, changes and amendments is to increase the 
amount of CE hours while providing a broader range of courses available for credit, clarify CE 
requirements, establish application and renewal fees,  and establish an 
appeal Process for denial or withdrawal of CE providers.'

This statement of purpose already oversteps the Board's statutory limitations by not meeting the 
criterion that the changes they make must be for the protection of the public.  How is the public protected by the Board adding fees?  How is the public protected by replacing the current rules for
 denying a course with over-elaborate new procedures?   Clarifying CE requirements?  They were already clear.  What they are proposing here is an entire new system.

This will be a continuing theme in this response:  that none of the proposed
 new changes protects the public any better than with the current system,
which has been protecting the public just fine for the last 30 years.

Is there another agenda afoot, masqued by this burning desire to 'protect
 the public'?  Is there some Trojan Horse we should be watching for?

This allegation of 50% of board complaints being related to areas of proposed mandatory 
new CE courses is so general, so overbroad that it has no meaning.  That same standard could apply to virtually any area of practice.  Also it assumes facts that are not in evidence.  There’s no proof.  The unnamed authors simply state it.

First of all, the time period for the alleged complaints is very short: 6 months. 

Second of all---these are ALLEGED violations - including the famous 
‘anonymous tip’ cases.  In such a system, the accusee is guilty until proven 
innocent.   So this is quite a different statistic from actual violations.  The importance and number is obviously being exaggerated here.  Why?  What are they selling?

The solution to the imaginary problem makes little sense:  'the proposal will replace the three category system  with two categories - mandatory and approved   ... including work comp courses or courses from any other branch of healing arts.

What a non-sequitur.   I thought we were talking about protecting the public.  Weren’t they just talking about protecting the public?  How is re-categorizing CE courses into arbitrary and actually more
 restrictive categories going to protect the public one iota?  Quite a leap.

How is accrediting a course from a dentist or naturopath without even reviewing it or asking for a syllabus going to protect the public??? Please.

Already on the second page we are far afield from any logical progression of

With respect to the increase in fees, the question is the same:  how does 
that fall within the standard of protecting the public?  The board may only 
make changes in the long-standing time-honored initiative act - changes that 
further protect the public.  With the further criteria of Clarity,
Consistency, and Necessity.  Remember?

The argument that increasing CE hours will create new businesses and new 
jobs - even if it were true is pretty fatuous, not to mention utterly 
beyond the scope of a Board such as this.  Shocking they would even try to 
rationalize something so completely outside the original purview of the 
state board.  Using board powers to increase fees to create jobs --- such
 altruism is more than suspicious, even if they had the authority, assuming
 powers that are simply not provided in any existing regulatory code.   A 
slippery slope indeed, if this precedent gets established.  One shudders to 
imagine the platform for quid pro quo such a radical new power would invite 
between private ventures and the board members of the future.   Analogy: the
 well-documented sweetheart deals between the drug companies and the FDA 
Advisory Committee.   This idea should be kept in mind as we read fur ther 

Effect on small business?  Why is this subject even brought up at all in such a proposal?
 It’s bizarre enough that it’s mentioned, - why would the Board even concern 
itself with such matters, or imagine it has the power?

With respect to the specific proposals:

Article 6:
The new Sec. 360:    Provider application fees and biennial provider fee:

These fees are unnecessary new changes.  The only reason offered for them 
was to help new businesses, which is a nonsensical notion at best, utterly 
beyond the scope of a simple professional regulatory board.  So now the 
chiropractic Board feels it’s their job to jump-start the state’s economy?
 Imagine what would follow if every state board in any area adopted the same 
attitude.  What credentials in economics, let alone authority, does this
 Board pretend it has?

Obviously the $50 course application fee should remain as it has been for 
these many years.  No other change is necessary.

 New Sec 361 a   Course Content CE,   new version

Except for the few little changes below, this entire section should be
 expunged from the new proposals.

The proposal requires 2 hours mandatory from its paragraph 11, which 
includes truth in advertising, law, ethics, abuse issues, etc.  These areas 
are fine, but should be included in the ‘additional’ courses which may be 

The issue here is that this arbitrary list suddenly makes these special types of 
courses absolutely mandatory for every single re-licensing seminar.  While 
these subjects may have some redeeming academic value if they are taught 
well, they certainly do not necessarily reduce the number of would-be lawbreakers, and therefore certainly cannot guarantee to protect the public any better than the public is protected now,
considering the enormous regulatory load a DC is subject today.  The claimed improvement is an illusion.

The problem is that such courses being mandatory wastes course time that a very
 conscientious DC should be spending on other more valuable subjects, which 
should be the focus of CE, if there is to be only 12 hours of classroom time 

With new Sec. 361 (a) 6,

would someone please explain to me what chiropractic manipulation is, and
 why it is offered as a substitute for adjusting?  Speaking of protecting the 
public ...

Beyond that,  the 4 hour requirement for subheadings 3, 5, and 10 is fine
 because it actually expands the number of courses for that slot.

So once again, the 2 hours under subheading 11 should be included together
 with the other 6 hours,  which would make it a total of 8 hours drawn from 
all these areas.  This actually would be an expansion of the present system 
and would be a slight improvement.  Though to go to all this trouble writing 
up a new regulation just for these minor changes seems really unnecessary.

Section 361 (b) 2

I have an issue with the proposal to allow unmonitored, blanket approval of
 any course already accredited by any other ‘healing arts board or bureau’ without any 
scrutiny whatsoever.  During the past 10 years, my courses have been CE approved for
 nurses, naturopaths, acupuncturists, and dentists.  I can testify that none 
of these professions extends the same presumption of validity to us as this present new
 proposal would offer them.  Coming from a body already overwhelmingly
 restrictive in every area possible, such magnanimity seems suspect, and 
suggests some underlying agenda.  What new quid pro quo’s may fall into 
place if this proposal is whisked through?     At the very least, it’s a bad 

Under this proposal, we’re adding a huge amount of detailed new restrictions
 to a DC applying for course approval, but if a course in Swedish massage is 
approved by the board of massage for example, it is welcomed with open arms 
and automatically approved for chiropractic CE.  No scrutiny, no syllabus 
review, no cv check, nothing.  Anyone see what we’re doing here?

New section 362  Provider Approval Duties, Responsibilities

Now we get to the heart of the matter.

Comparing the old crossed out paragraph # 356.5 (a)
 our prime contention here is that what has been crossed out was working fine, for decades.
It should remain unchanged.

Beginning with the first new paragraph, the new agenda begins to emerge.
The obsessively complex description of an extravagant new denial and appeal
 process is very disturbing at face value. 

First off, it blithely assumes that the time-tested version of how providers are accepted or denied was not working, or is no longer good enough.  What would make that so?  What is the 
unspoken plan here?

What unwritten policy change would necessitate a written change?

In (a)  why is it necessary to spell out in painstaking, meticulous detail
 an applicant’s recourses for appealing a denied seminar?  Why all this ink? 
If the seminar’s subject matter does not fall into the 
specified categories, reject it.  If it does, approve it.  Just like 
always.  If some violation is committed, pull the seminar.  Just like
 always. What is this elaborate prolixity about?  What is the plan?  It
 broadcasts like a mad scrambling to cover all the bases in preparation for a 
rash of appeals to seminars about to be denied.  If that seems paranoid,
then the new proposals are that much less necessary.

The proposed new Sec 362 c    ---biannual renewal for all Providers

It is not the proposed $50 biannual renewal fee for Providers that is problematic, but 
rather the idea of an unprecedented new policy suddenly requiring Providers 
to renew at all, just pronounced out of the blue, without the slightest attempt 
at offering any rationale for its necessity.

WHY IT IS NOT NECESSARY:  First of all, renewing all the hundreds of 
Providers every 2 years would create a mountain of applications, responses, and corrections, etc.
and open a whole Pandora's box of administrative and clerical issues that would further 
tax the limited time resources of an already overstressed board staff.  There is no way the
 new fees taken in would make up for all that new paperwork, which would perpetuate itself, every 2 years. It would be a net financial loss.

No necessity for changing the current system has been shown.  This is a frivolous and whimsical 
notion.  Why would someone who has been an instructor for 10 years need to file a new 
application? For what?  Not only is it insulting to those who have made 
careers out of being providers, it also devalues the Board’s own original efforts at qualifying the Provider in the first place.

Secondly, this new proposal is NOT CONSISTENT with the long-established 5 year mentor/apprentice program which has worked so well these past decades.

The new proposal would do away with that time-tested system.  Having personally gone through the 5 year apprenticeship, I can say it was invaluable to me. It has proven itself an excellent system for introducing a new instructor into the complexities of CE regs.

By the time someone has been a seminar Provider for say 10 years that
 Provider has learned the system extremely well.  Why on earth would someone 
like that need to re-apply every year? No new training is involved.  The 
idea is ill-conceived, and certainly doesn't merit serious consideration as 
a permanent change to state law. The only hidden agenda suggested is that it 
would give some future irresponsible  Board more power to deny Providership 
for vague, arbitrary, personal, or frivolous reasons.

We should leave the current 5 year apprenticeship in place.  Replacing this
 valuable time-proven system with the litany of specific threats contained in 
the new sec 362 (f) is unreasonable, cumbersome, impractical, and
 practically begs for a smothering amount of burdensome litigation
 which would drag on for years unresolved, and waste the state’s resources 
in prosecuting its case.

Leaving the current system intact generates no new body of unnecessary
 paperwork and expense to maintain.

The new Sec. 362 e

# 1-6

are repetitive and already in place now.  Essentially the same as existing 
regs.  No necessity for change.

New Section 362  (f) - withdrawing approval of CE courses

The new proposed Section 362 (f) where it goes on and on about denials and
 appeals for a seminar application is a serious red flag indicating
 the probable consequences foreseen by the drafters of this radical new 
proposal.  The way it is written, it's as though they're expecting a whole 
flood of appeals from a large number of applications they are preparing to 
reject, and the drafters seem to want to have these statutory safeguards in
 place to protect their new decisions, no matter how unreasonable.  The
 imprudent pathway upon which they would now have the State embark is a 
radical detour in policy that would make CE course approval a very 
subjective affair indeed, inviting a brave new world of prejudicial 
decisions based on the whims and values of a very few people.  It is a 
fundamental shift from the current traditional approval policy, whereby 
approval is basically an administrative clerical matter:  as long as the 
course work falls within general parameters of common sense and academic 
value to the attendees, it meets the requirements.

This simple policy has served the profession well for decades in providing 
doctors with a wide range of course material from which to choose.  Courses that are badly 
presented or ill-researched are soon eliminated very naturally, by the vote 
of the number of DCs who either deem the subject material valuable or 
not.  They either show up or they do not, and a seminar rises or falls based 
on that attendance.

What change do we see here?  Under the new proposals, the suggestion is made 
that a couple of people  should now have that power to choose exactly what courses will ever see the light of day.

It  should not escape the reader’s notice that those making such a decision 
are not necessarily themselves educators or Providers, nor do they need to
 have any credentials whatsoever.  Yet they would have total power to reject
 a seminar prepared by an academic career professional,  that had been 
successfully attended for years by the DCs who chose it.

Such a decision for acceptance or rejection is going to be made by a 5
 minute review of a course syllabus in which one or two sentences summarizes
 an hour of material?  With the wide range of course material that is
 currently approved, much of it very technical and detailed 
and meticulously researched by years of study, are we really going to 
pretend that one individual of unspecified credentials has the intelligence 
and wisdom to make yes or no decisions in all these fields, without ever 
actually attending the seminar itself to learn what it was truly about?

This is precisely what we are being asked to buy here.  And again, once this 
new provision is passed into law, it will be almost impossible to root it 
out. We must consider these implications very carefully before passing it 
into law.

Clarity is a prime criterion in considering making changes to laws already
 on the books, because of the possibility of misinterpretation by some future

The language itself in (f) seems almost deliberately unclear, and is a 
walking target for litigation:
   “The Executive Officer may withdraw approval of any CE provider for good cause..”

What precisely is good cause?  According to whom?  We see what it may include, but it’s an undefined, open notion, in this context.  It invites subjective interpretation, even personal vendetta, and flagrant abuse.

What are the criteria for the Officer to make this unilateral, sudden, and 
abrupt decision? Under precisely what circumstances?  Anonymous letters?  Signed letters kept
 secret?  All this intrigue is possible the way this proposal is written.

And then the time limit is absurd:  180 days!   Suspended for no proven reason, the seminar would be immediately suspended for a year until it is

What if the charge proves to be groundless?  What if some future Executive Officer makes something
 up because of a personal dislike of a Provider who is following all the regs?  All this and more is possible if this ill-contrived proposal is passed.  These strange specifics seem to indicate a plan, an intention to protect some unprecedented agenda about to unfold.
What could that possibly be? --

In short, this section (f) is extravagant, dangerous and almost begs for
 future abuse.  In itself it is no improvement to the present system and by
 no stretch of the imagination could it be said to protect the public better 
than the existing law.

The way it is written, Section 362 (f) may well put the Board itself in harm's way 
from a legal aspect, exposing them to an enormous number of lawsuits.
We therefore propose that Section 362 (f) should be stricken and expunged
 from this proposal.

New section 363 (b)

Here again is the reiteration of the exact same ideas as in 362 (f)
immediately above.  Why the repetition? What is it the author wants to make
 certain gets protected?  If this is just bad typing, it is insulting to the 
reader who has just been made to read the exact same paragraph.

New section 363 (c) 2:

We saw this in the previous rough drafts - this bizarre idea about the 50 minute academic hour.

As before, Section 363 (c) 2 regarding the 10 minute break is unprecedented and without 
merit.  This proposal is a radical, extreme departure in long-standing
 policy with absolutely no reason or foundation even offered.

 Every doctor in this state received a license and an undergraduate degree based on the 50
 minute academic hour.  None of us had to stay after school to make up for 
the 10 minute breaks throughout the day, did we?  The 50 minute academic 
hour has been the standard not only within our profession since the time of 
BJ Palmer, but in every university and center of higher learning both in the US and abroad since the time of Chaucer. The way this proposal is written would effectively extend a 12 hour seminar to 14 hours!

It is difficult to grasp the intent of such a new idea being introduced as 

This section should be deleted and never mentioned again.  It is an
 embarrassment to our profession that it was even suggested and it shows how
 far afield these proposed policies are separated from the academic 
regulations of any other legitimate profession, healing or otherwise,
throughout all of Western civilization.

In a professional gathering such as a CE seminar, the topic of break times
 is not a subject requiring the drafting of any legislation, but rather one 
of common sense.  Our profession has got along well for the past century
 without addressing it; it seems reasonable to continue with the present 
traditions regarding it.

New section 363 (e) is unnecessary self evident and should be deleted.

Here we see in 363 (f)  the same exact paragraph regarding cancelling and
 denying courses that has already appeared twice before!  What is the meaning of this?
All 3 of them should be deleted.

New Section 363.1  The matter of distance learning.

Though well established throughout the majority of colleges in the US today,
it is clear this drafters of the new proposals have little experience with
 distance learning.  My coursework has been accredited for distance learning in many 
states for some years.  It does not involve mailing DVDs and other materials 
to the student.  How could any security be maintained in that situation?

The companies with online courses that have been CE accredited for DCs in 35
 states for years follow standard accepted protocols for security and 
completion.  Aligning oneself with these established organizations will be a far higher
 standard that the Board’s uninformed reinvent-the-wheel suggestions here.

All that needs to be stated is that distance learning is now approved for 12 
hours from any accredited online source.  Period.

New section 366

The very last paragraph in this section regarding the Board enlisting
 attendees of a seminar as spies in order  get information about the course is certainly unworthy of
 this type of proposal, and not something that needs to be written into state 
law.  The Board is free to call anyone it wishes at the present time, so why
 waste time writing a law that lets them do what they can already do now?
The proposal has a kind of KGB feel to it and is another embarrassing part
 of the new proposals.

New proposal 372.  As it is written it is doubletalk, completely
 self-cancelling and redundant.  It certainly is not necessary as a new 

On behalf of the profession, I for one would like to apologize to anyone who
 has had to wade through this morass of repetitive, arbitrary, generally 
unnecessary proposals for the past 2 years to change a perfectly good code 
of regulations.  It seems reckless and intemperate to ignore a track record 
of success evidenced by the current set of rules, which has served so well
 these many decades, and to replace it with trendy, ill-considered whims 
which will certainly not stand the test of time.

Earlier drafts of these proposals during the last 2 years have exposed us 
Responders to some exotic suggestions by this same Board.  It is clear our suggestions had 
some effect, saving the profession from some truly baroque interpretations of CE 
course requirements, as well as of the Board’s imagined scope.  Although 
some of the current suggestions are at least now within reason, with the 
above exceptions, there is no compelling evidence whatsoever that the 
current Category topics for CE need any revision.  At all.

Aside from these repeated proposals for change, the current Board has done a 
fine job, which is all the legacy any Board needs.  This imagined imperative
 to leave its mark - any mark at any cost - will certainly have the opposite 
effect than the one wished for, if this problem-riddled final draft is 
indeed  the heritage they will leave.

The current regulations have set a high standard for chiropractic CE in this
 state for decades, and should continue to do.  No need for change has been 
shown.   After reading the long-winded new proposals carefully, no 
reasonable person could defend that the essential requirements for Clarity,
Consistency, and Necessity for any changes have been satisfied.

At present our beleaguered profession certainly has more pressing issues to 
attend to than these mysterious amendments.    To persist in draft after
 draft of these short-sighted, confused proposals being submitted would be a 
continued waste of time for all involved, in my opinion.  Let’s put it to
 rest right here.

Respectfully submitted,

Tim O'Shea DC

What a strange profession we have – look what we spend our time on, while the world is in desperate need of chiropractic care.


Dr. Tim O'Shea
This message was sent to scu23@btinternet.com by doc@thedoctorwithin.com

60 N 13 St, San Jose, California, 95112