If you have received this email

                    UPCOMING SEMINARS:

The next few months will probably be your last opportunity to see these seminars in their present form:

               CHILDHOOD IMMUNOLOGY:
                 THE VACCINE SEMINAR
     12 hour seminar - includes technique

                            Tim O’Shea
            (author of The Sanctity of Human Blood)

                 SAN RAMON CA        18 Jul 09

LAX 11 Jul        Sacramento 29 Aug
                                           Orange County 12 Sep

This is the only full day seminar available anywhere today that offers a truly unbiased, documented view of vaccines. One of the most powerful influences on the establishment of the infant immune system is the physiological effect of vaccines, both short term and for the child’s future.

See the swine flu issue put into historical perspective. Ever wonder what happened to Avian flu, SARS, anthrax, and smallpox? This is one of the only seminars available today that offers a truly unbiased, scientific view of vaccines and their present agenda from sources who are not making a living selling vaccines. Will introduce the complete nutrition and detox chelation program as presented at www.thedoctorwithin.com

Have these nagging unanswered questions about the safety of vaccines? Ever get the feeling the media is a little too festive in the way vaccines are usually described, and you're not really getting the whole story? Come and learn once and for all what the controversy over vaccines is really about. The entire seminar will focus on information you can actually use -- no fluff, no rhetoric, no unreferenced claims.

* swine flu de-mythologized

* 2009 Mandated Schedule: 68 vaccines by age 18

* vaccination vs. immunization

* Robert F Kennedy Jr: the Bailey Banks case

* exemption laws, 50 states

* the new Prevnar, Rotateq, HPV

* vaccines in the infant's brain neurology

* chelation protocols

* mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde

* GMO foods; hydrogenation

; * the human genome

* autism detox protocol

“Every new mother and father should have the opportunity to read The Sanctity of Human Blood before subjecting their children to mandatory vaccinations.”   Kilmer McCully MD

"The most well documented analysis of the of the vaccination cult of modern medicine.. I highly recommend The Sanctity of Human Blood."    Wm Deagle, MD   GCN Syndicated radio

"In his book Dr O’Shea records the history of … the role played by vaccinations over the past 100 years… …the vaccine industry has not been honest with the public.” Abram Hoffer, MD

“The most comprehensive book I have read over the past 25 years on this subject.”    -Roy Kupsinel, MD

            Registration: 408 298 1800 or at     ;                   www.thedoctorwithin.com



    Audio CD/DVD of full day seminars now available                  New 2009 Vaccine textbook $25


   a l s o :

NUTRITIONAL TRANSPORT

IN CELLULAR IMMUNE RESPONSE AND TRANSCRIPTION: THE NEW HUMAN GENOME

                  (The nutrition/ detox seminar)

12 hour CE

                           Tim O’Shea

     SAN JOSE, CA   1Aug    LONG BEACH 15 Aug 09

Nutrition in practice
Monoculture: The end of biodiversity
Cell transport and DNA                     &nb sp;
The future of nutrition and GMO
Cancer in children: DNA error
Learning disability and hydrogenation
DNA transcription: creating the immune system
The only cure for reflux
Colon revitalization
Antioxidants, oral chelation
Complete patient nutrition program
Pasteurization
Nutrient minerals
Refined carbohydrates and Type II diabetes
Obesity: the programmed epidemic
Autism chelation program
Essential Fats: the hidden deficiency
Collagen: rebuilding joints
The heart meds mythology
Allergies: The Threshold of Reactivity
Detoxification from dental amalgams, thimerosal, aluminum, hydrogenated oils, vaccines

“Best CE seminar I’ve taken in 25 years.” Dr Martin, San Mateo
“Had to take 204 CE hours all in one year...your Nutrition Seminar was the best by far.” Dr MM
“Annihilated so many myths about nutrition… info I can really use in my practice”     Dr S., San Diego
“In 20 years, the best seminar I’ve ever seen….. should be mandatory of ALL doctors!” Dr AR
"O’Shea’s Nut rition seminar was the first time I’ve ever been glad the state board required CE.” Dr AC
“You are right about pure blood; that is the key.” Ted H. Spence , DDS

                                      Registration: 408 298 1800      or doc@thedoctorwithin.com

******************************

PROPOSED NEW REGS WOULD BRING RADICAL CHANGES TO CHIROPRACTIC CONTINUING ED IN CALIFORNIA


A group of new proposed regulations now being considered by the California Board of Chiropractic make sweeping changes that would have a profound effect on the nature of postgrad education. Some of these proposals include:

- In every seminar, replacing the current 4 hour technique section with a choice between just 3 subjects: viscerosomatic reflex, exam findings, and physical exam. It would be possible to become relicensed with no technique at all. All other subjects would be excluded.

- Replacing the current 5 year apprenticeship program for new seminar Providers with a ‘designee’ system, whereby one appointee would have the absolute power to accept or deny any seminar based on personal inclination or feeling. This would be an unprecedente d concentration of power in the hands of just one undefined individual.

- Requiring every 12 hr seminar to be held on 2 separate days, No rationale is offered.

- Replacing the universal 50 minute academic hour with a 60 minute hour, effectively extending a 12 hour seminar to 14 actual hours

A number of other changes are proposed by the new document, which can be viewed on the Board’s site at: www.chiro.ca.gov/business/rulemaking.html

Several lists of signatures of DCs having issues with these new proposals are being presented to the upcoming board meetings. Anyone who has any opinion on the future of CE education may send a letter to the Board at this time.

Below are 2 letters which respond to the proposed new changes;

To view the proposed changes to your profession you might wish to look at:
http://www.chiro.ca.gov/pdf/business/PropReg_CE.pdf

Unopposed, the changes will likely pass. If you have something to say, send a note to:

Board of Chiropractic Attn: April Alameda, Brian Stiger
                                          2525 Natomas Pk Dr #260 Sacramento 95833

Office of Administrative Law 300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1250, Sacramento, California 95814-4339

If you are a CA DC, you might wish to review the following letter, for which we already have almost 1500 signatures. If you are disposed to sign
it kindly print the last page and fax it in to
916 482 5762.
Also recommended that you send your own letters of course, to the 2 addresses above.

To:

Board of Chiropractic Att n: April Alameda, Brian Stiger
       2525 Natomas Pk Dr #260
Sacramento 95833

Office of Administrative Law 300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1250, Sacramento,
California 95814-4339

The following comments reflect some of the misgivings and concerns of over 1200 undersigned DCs who disagree or have issues with some of the new
Proposed CE regulations. We feel that a number of the Proposed new regulations regarding chiropractic continuing education represent a radical and extreme departure from traditional regulations. In this first draft
form that appears on the Board's website it seems clear they are not quite ready to be voted into law, due to the following inconsistencies and
contradictions:

Comment #1:

In Section 356, CE Requirements subsection (a) MANDATORY, there seem to be
some obvious omissions. Replacing the traditional 4 hour technique requirement w ith this short list of 3 subjects seems far too restrictive and specialized to comprise 4 hours of every single CE seminar. The 3
topics suggested

1. VSC/Viscerosomatic reflex
2. physical exam
3. testing interpretation

are certainly valuable, but the list needs to be extended to include all chiropractic adjusting technique. What happened to technique? The new
proposals incomprehensibly would reduce the knowledge base offered in the traditional 4 hour technique section by 95%. Such extreme proposals
eliminate an entire list of valuable chiropractic techniques which have been a quintessential part of chiropractic CE in this state for almost 90 years.

Under these new proposals it is entirely possible to get all one's hours without any technique at all. Very difficult to understand how such a program would protect the people of California from harm if DCs are not even required to maintain their skills in adjust ing within the CE program.

We therefore propose that chiropractic technique continue to be a part of this 4 hour MANDATORY list. This will protect the citizens of CA by ensuring them that the chiropractor has the clinical competency to deliver the safest possible care.

Comment #2:

In the new section 356 (b) CATEGORY I, 10 hours, the list contains many important and vital topics. But again there are some glaring omissions, including but not limited to clinical nutrition, immunology, and even
practice management and insurance procedures. It is surprising that such newcomer techniques as MUA are now to be included in this CATEGORY I and
yet traditional subjects which have been CE accredited for years have been left out.

We propose the standard subjects that have appeared for years on the CE course application sheet should be returned to this CATEGORY I list,
including:

Principles of Practice, Exa mination Procedures, Physical Therapy,
Nutrition, and Diagnosis, Adjustive Technique.

The same can be said for CATEGORY II: again the proposed items listed are important and valuable topics, but it seems unreasonable to include
something like pharmacology and exclude traditionally accredited topics
such as clinical nutrition and immunology. Also there is no space for OTHER, as has always been included in the past.

Section 356.5 does not make it clear whether current providers will automatically retain their status. It should clearly state that the proposed amendments pertain to new applicants, not to current Providers.

In the verbose paragraphs of Section 356.5 (a) about appealing a denial for new provider application, where it goes on and on about hearings and rights
of appeal, etc. there appears to emerge some evidence of a brand new attitude about the scope of CE topics never before seen in our profession.
T he new proposal is another radical departure from the traditional range of acceptable topics primarily in that it would place the power to accept or
reject a seminar proposal in the hands of just one individual. Not only would such a new policy invite obvious abuses, favoritism and even quid pro
quo toward granting the agendas of certain organizations or providers, but worse could be the death knell to the type of academic freedom that has
traditionally been the strength of CE education in this state. If a seminar has no merit, if a provider has no teaching skill, the market will sort that out. DCs will vote with their feet. This suggestion of one
"designee" being able to qualify and evaluate according to these narrow new restrictions will certainly work to the academic detriment of us all in the long run.

The way it is written, Section 356.5(a) may well put the Board in harm's way from a legal aspect, exposing them to an enormous number of lawsuits.

We therefore propose that Section 356.5 should end after line 5 and the rest of subsection (a) be stricken and expunged.

Comment #3

Beginning now with subsection 356.5(b)

"Providers shall ...ensure that the instructors teaching the Mandatory and
Category I courses... have taught for the previous 5 consecutive years in
the subject matter being taught. "

This is a very poorly defined idea to be proposed as a part of a permanent new Regulation and as it is written, begs misunderstanding and argument
from the outset. Here they propose to replace the current system where the novice lecturer has always served a 5 year apprenticeship under a Provider.

The first obvious unanswered question that arises is - what happens if the Providers themselves wish to prepare a seminar in an area outside the one
they have been accredited for? For example, what if a Provider has been teaching a course about the neur ology of trauma for 20 years and then
prepares a very well researched seminar on nutrition? Does that Provider now have to get a job somewhere teaching nutrition for 5 years before being
able to get the new seminar approved? Maybe not, but the point is, such a provision is NOT CLEAR the way subsection b(2) is now written. The
proposal must state exactly to whom such a provision would apply.

An experienced Provider should be able to introduce any new subject that is well enough researched and documented to be valuable to the attendees.

That brings us to another dangerous departure here - the real key issue. This section 356.5 b(2) is throwing out the old mentor/apprentice system
that has worked so well for decades and replacing it with ... what? From what pool will our new seminar presenters now be drawn? The way it is
written here it seems as though one would have to teach a course in a chiropractic school for 5 years before being allowed to be considered as a
provider. So now the schools are going to take the place of the Provider / Mentor system? Let's think about what is being proposed here very
carefully. Is that really what we want? Let each of us here consider the overall quality of teachers in general during their school years. Do we really want to make that the new standard for a CE provider, a standard
which is to replace the tried and true mentor/apprentice system? Don't the
standards for postgraduate education have to be much higher than those for
school professors? These new proposals are locking us into the
introductory novice level of education we all got in school to be all we should expect out of postgrad CE. Is it reasonable to equate the educational level of a tenured school teacher who may teach one course for
20 years, with that of a Provider specialist who can only survive in the world of pos tgrad CE if the seminar material is good enough to keep attracting doctors to attend year after year? It is the marketplace that
will maintain the standards of CE education, not some group of 1 or 2 appointees. This is the way the system works in every other state, and has
worked in this state since the beginning of CE. High academic standards, academic freedom itself demand that the survival as an apprentice, or the
survival as a Provider, depends on one thing: the marketplace.

What we should propose instead is to delete the proposed 356.5 a(2) and
maintain the current Mentor /Apprentice system whereby a new applicant has to do a 5 year trial period sponsored by a Provider. Any applicant's
survival will depend on the ability of the seminar material to attract doctors to attend, and not merely on the temptation to hire one’s own
graduates for the best possible price. Anything less will be a giant step backwa rd in education standards, putting too much power in the hands of too
few persons. Once enacted such a radical new proposal would be a very difficult thing to correct.

Comment # 4

Section 356.5 b(6) about time spent in the bathroom should be deleted as quickly as possible and never brought up again. Attendees are not in grade
school. This is postgraduate relicensing of doctors. Such a regulation is unnecessary, demeaning, and degrading and also shows an utter disregard for
doctors who are handicapped or pregnant. No other state or profession has such an inappropriate rule.

Comment # 5

In regards 356.5 b(8) about selling, displaying, or advertising anything in a seminar, the new proposal is far too absolute to be reasonable. Many
providers are recognized experts in their fields and are authors of books or educational materials that are valuable educational resources, which
should be ma de available to attendees. Prepared by experts, a seminar is merely an introduction to an entire field of inquiry. Any legitimate
educational venue will provide an opportunity for doctors to derive the benefit of years of research.

The same concept holds true for professional equipment. As improved technology offers new equipment to enhance the quality and safety of
chiropractic care, again, the doctors should be allowed to learn such information. This is not to recommend that a CE seminar be turned into an
8 hour sales show, of course. As long as materials are not being sold during actual seminar hours, they should be allowed to be displayed
provided that they relate to course material.

The way the new section b(8) is now proposed it directly contradicts the previous part b(7) about making educational materials available at all.

This section b(8) should either be deleted or rewritten to clarify such advantages to the attendees.

Comment #6

The new proposed Section 357 (a) where it goes on and on about denials and
appeals for a seminar application again is a serious red flag indicating the probable consequences foreseen by the drafters of this radical new
proposal. The way 357 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 any new decisions, no matter how unreasonable.

The imprudent pathway upon which they would now have the profession embark is a radical detour in policy that would make CE course approval a very
subjective affair indeed, inviting a whole 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, where approval is basically an administrative clerical matte r: 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 a large 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? 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. And this decision 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 curren tly 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
out.

We propose instead that Section 357 (a) should end after the third line, and the balance of it be deleted.

Comment #7

With regard to Section 357 b(1) a new proposal never before seen in California in the past 60 years is introduced with a single line: to limit the number of hours to 8 in one day.

There are only a handful of states which hold to this 8 hour limitation. The vast majority of states hold 12 hour seminars.

We do not see where such a decision is even within the scope of the Board or any of its committees. It has been traditionally held that if attendees
are willing to stay the entire day for all 12 hours, this violates no law or statute. The vast majority of other states adhere to the same
interpretation. After all these decades, such a proposal would be change
for the sake of change, which idea is supported by the complete lack of discussion by the drafters. They suggest no reason whatsoever. Without a
reason, why make any change?

There are however several reasons for maintaining the 12 hour seminar. If doctors have to come back a second day to get the other 4 hours, it will
place an unnecessary burden on them in terms of time and effort. This will place especial hardship on the handicapped or pregnant doctors who will
attend. The added financial burdens are obvious:

1. to stay all night at the hotel< br> 2. the presenters will have to rent the seminar space an extra day, which
will double their costs, which will then have to be carried back onto the attendees
3. double the transportation costs in returning a second day

We should ask ourselves - is this really the time to further increase financial stress on our already beleaguered profession?

We propose that Section 357 b(1) simply be deleted. There is no reason for it.

Comment #8

Section 357 b(2) regarding the 10 minute break is equally unprecedented and
without merit. This proposal is written simply as a regal pronouncement, a fiat change 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. The 50 minute academic hour has been the standard not only within our profession since the time of BJ Palmer, but in every univer sity 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 law.

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.

Comment #9

Section 357 b (4) a bout practice management is unclear for one thing and also needs discussion whether or not it proposes an unnecessary and
excessively restrictive departure from past policies regarding practice management. How is the profession to survive without new graduates receiving business advice? Another pronouncement with no discussion
offered.

Comment # 10

Section 357 b(6) should be closely scrutinized. This proposal gives the Board's "designee" absolute power to invalidate any seminar without cause
or due process, merely on a whim. Such a proposal is unworthy of the nature and spirit of these new regulations and should clearly be deleted.
Such absolute power should never be placed in the hands of one individual.

This particular suggestion would subordinate the entire system of seminar approval to the subjective whims and feelings of one select "designee," in
the absence of any system of oversight, or checks and balan ces. Nowhere are the qualifications or credentials of this "designee" spelled out.

What is to prevent some future Board from employing this unnamed, unidentifiable, and apparently unanswerable 'designee' in the role of
Hatchet Man, emissary of whatever agenda occurs to them? It's a very dangerous notion indeed, and an egregious departure from anything any Board
committee has ever suggested before in the history of this state.

This new "designee" idea is not wrong because it is not well defined-- it’s wrong in essence because it REPLACES the entire apprenticeship system all
current Providers went through.

The solution is to delete the entire idea of the designee from the new proposals.

This in turn raises a very serious question about whether or not we are ready at all to even vote on the entire package of new proposals. As it
stands now, much of it is patently contrary to the US Co nstitution and would never stand up if challenged in any court of law. If passed, the new
proposals may well expose the Board to barrages of adverse litigation and damage claims.

Much more significantly, this last proposal does indicate that a major
re-thinking and re-writing of these entire proposed new regulations is in order. It seems clear that what we are looking at here with the entire new
program is merely a rough draft of profound new changes that will require months or even years of more thorough discussion and evaluation before a
supportable version is hammered out. Even from these few comments above it is very obvious that these proposals are certainly not ready to be
permanently drafted in to the body of state law that governs our profession, let alone being voted upon at this time.

The other obvious legal question is: do the present statutes even permit any committee or Board to so drastically alter and extend the traditional
laws on CE by merely drafting up a hasty list of proposals and then voting
them in?

In granting such sweeping new powers to any Board, committee, or designee,
we are admonished to look carefully at what we are handing down to the state Boards of the future.   With regulations like these proposed in
place, such a group could irrevocably harm the nature and character of the profession in this state for years to come.

There is nothing wrong with the current system of CE regulations. It has served the profession very well for years and years and is a credit to the
Boards who have overseen it. Radical sweeping fundamental changes like these new proposals should only be introduced in the event some overriding
need is demonstrated and proven. No such urgent needs have been shown in
this case. It seems prudent to be vigilant of some other agenda afoot, like change for its own sake, or the concentration of broad new powers in the
hands of a very few individuals.

We therefore suggest that it is in the best interests of the Board and the profession as a whole, as well as the people of California, that these new
proposals should be shelved for the present, perhaps re-worked and discussed during the next year, addressing clearly all the issues cited
hereinabove in an open and unrestricted forum, with a plan to incorporate a more defensible and legally supportable version of them only when any such
changes have been clearly demonstrated to be absolutely necessary.

Complete list of signers will be presented directly.

I wish my signature be added to the list of signers of the above comments
on the new proposed CE regulations.

____________    ____________________________
___________________________
; lic#                signature                print name