In the "it's about damn time" category, we have a retraction/apology from Woman's World Magazine for publishing their Kimkins article, conveniently posted on their otherwise unused website.
Below, the text in bold italics with my comments:
A statement from Woman's World Magazine
At least six months after you were informed of this fraud.
Please accept our apology
No.
We at Woman’s World pride ourselves on finding inspiring diet successes to share with our readers every week.
There's a WONDER DIET in every issue, is there not? A WONDER DIET which is inevitably revolutionary in concept, better than anything that has come before, right? A brand-new WONDER DIET capable of blasting off weight at light speed, no? Perhaps the onus of finding 52 such diets each and every year makes it impossible to do the kind of due diligence needed to verify the claims they make. Then again, it's probably easier to just let the hyperbole slide and hope no one notices the very slender evidence and specious statements by alleged "experts" present in these articles. We know Kimkins is a complete and total fraud, but what we don't know is how many other such wonder diets you've gushed about in the past -- or will gush about in the future -- are just as fradulent. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, jackasses.
That’s why we were so distressed to learn that Kim Drake, the founder of Kimkins.com, gave us inaccurate information about herself and her weight loss.
As previously mentioned, you've known about this for months. If your distress was genuine, I suspect you would have issued this apology/retraction long ere this. I also suspect your distress lays not so much in the possibility that your readership was duped and harmed by Heidi Diaz aka Kim Drake, but in the possibility that your magazine may incur some legal liability as a result. Call me a cynic, but your protracted silence on this issue, coupled with the fact that no print publication enjoys printing retractions unless absolutely necessary, makes me think that this apology springs not from the heart, but from an earnest (and understandable) desire not to be sued for publishing the article in the first place. Those lawsuits and structured settlements and whatnot are a bitch, aren't they?
This is how distressed you were back in July 2007 when the former business partner of Heidi Diaz (aka Kim Drake) wrote to you regarding this diet: You replied with a cease-and-desist letter demanding that her husband remove the image of the magazine cover featuring Kimkins from his site. Not a word about the potential fraud and issues she raised. Way to go!
Though the article appeared several months ago, in our June 12, 2007 issue, and nutritionists assure us the diet information we provided was accurate, we deeply regret having shared with you a story we can’t stand behind.
There is no way any nutritionist gave this diet a pass, even a low-carb friendly nutritionist. No ethical, licensed nutritionist would recommend this starvation diet, even the munged beyond recognition Kimkins plan you actually published, which though the higher end of Kimkins-friendly, is still nutritionally deficient. In fact, someone mentioned you've had trouble with these "expert opinions" in the past. I only skimmed the article while in the checkout line, but others have read it carefully and noticed that nearly all of these expert opinions lead back to the gaping maw of Heidi Diaz aka Kim Drake herself.
These "expert opinions" can be illusory anyway. You could, in theory, pay me to give an expert opinion on all these wonder diets, dear Woman's World Magazine. You could call me Dr. Elle and technically, you'd be right. I am a doctor. I hold a doctorate in Biochemistry. Of course, my area of expertise is in the realm of polymer-protein interactions, not medical biochemistry, but I suspect you'd probably refrain from mentioning that or even specify that I'm not a medical doctor.
But in reality, you couldn't actually pay me to endorse any of these wonder diets. I may owe ten gazillion dollars in student loans but I'd never be willing to compromise what few standards I have to earn a couple bucks towards paying them off by allowing you to misrepresent my credentials and cherry-pick bits and bobs from whatever I said about Wonder Diet X to make it fit the tone of your article. Unfortunately for your readership, not every person with initials in front and in back of their names feels the same way.
Your trust means everything to us, and we want to bring you the very best magazine we can, each and every week.
I think you meant, "Your money means everything to us, and we want you to buy our magazine, each and every week."
You're not actually apologizing to me, Woman's World Magazine, because I don't buy your rag. But I'm not accepting it anyway.
Elle
Below, the text in bold italics with my comments:
A statement from Woman's World Magazine
At least six months after you were informed of this fraud.
Please accept our apology
No.
We at Woman’s World pride ourselves on finding inspiring diet successes to share with our readers every week.
There's a WONDER DIET in every issue, is there not? A WONDER DIET which is inevitably revolutionary in concept, better than anything that has come before, right? A brand-new WONDER DIET capable of blasting off weight at light speed, no? Perhaps the onus of finding 52 such diets each and every year makes it impossible to do the kind of due diligence needed to verify the claims they make. Then again, it's probably easier to just let the hyperbole slide and hope no one notices the very slender evidence and specious statements by alleged "experts" present in these articles. We know Kimkins is a complete and total fraud, but what we don't know is how many other such wonder diets you've gushed about in the past -- or will gush about in the future -- are just as fradulent. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, jackasses.
That’s why we were so distressed to learn that Kim Drake, the founder of Kimkins.com, gave us inaccurate information about herself and her weight loss.
As previously mentioned, you've known about this for months. If your distress was genuine, I suspect you would have issued this apology/retraction long ere this. I also suspect your distress lays not so much in the possibility that your readership was duped and harmed by Heidi Diaz aka Kim Drake, but in the possibility that your magazine may incur some legal liability as a result. Call me a cynic, but your protracted silence on this issue, coupled with the fact that no print publication enjoys printing retractions unless absolutely necessary, makes me think that this apology springs not from the heart, but from an earnest (and understandable) desire not to be sued for publishing the article in the first place. Those lawsuits and structured settlements and whatnot are a bitch, aren't they?
This is how distressed you were back in July 2007 when the former business partner of Heidi Diaz (aka Kim Drake) wrote to you regarding this diet: You replied with a cease-and-desist letter demanding that her husband remove the image of the magazine cover featuring Kimkins from his site. Not a word about the potential fraud and issues she raised. Way to go!
Though the article appeared several months ago, in our June 12, 2007 issue, and nutritionists assure us the diet information we provided was accurate, we deeply regret having shared with you a story we can’t stand behind.
There is no way any nutritionist gave this diet a pass, even a low-carb friendly nutritionist. No ethical, licensed nutritionist would recommend this starvation diet, even the munged beyond recognition Kimkins plan you actually published, which though the higher end of Kimkins-friendly, is still nutritionally deficient. In fact, someone mentioned you've had trouble with these "expert opinions" in the past. I only skimmed the article while in the checkout line, but others have read it carefully and noticed that nearly all of these expert opinions lead back to the gaping maw of Heidi Diaz aka Kim Drake herself.
These "expert opinions" can be illusory anyway. You could, in theory, pay me to give an expert opinion on all these wonder diets, dear Woman's World Magazine. You could call me Dr. Elle and technically, you'd be right. I am a doctor. I hold a doctorate in Biochemistry. Of course, my area of expertise is in the realm of polymer-protein interactions, not medical biochemistry, but I suspect you'd probably refrain from mentioning that or even specify that I'm not a medical doctor.
But in reality, you couldn't actually pay me to endorse any of these wonder diets. I may owe ten gazillion dollars in student loans but I'd never be willing to compromise what few standards I have to earn a couple bucks towards paying them off by allowing you to misrepresent my credentials and cherry-pick bits and bobs from whatever I said about Wonder Diet X to make it fit the tone of your article. Unfortunately for your readership, not every person with initials in front and in back of their names feels the same way.
Your trust means everything to us, and we want to bring you the very best magazine we can, each and every week.
I think you meant, "Your money means everything to us, and we want you to buy our magazine, each and every week."
You're not actually apologizing to me, Woman's World Magazine, because I don't buy your rag. But I'm not accepting it anyway.
Elle
2 Kerfuffles:
don't you love the tricky way they worded that apology?
Though the article appeared several months ago, in our June 12, 2007 issue, and nutritionists assure us the diet information we provided was accurate, we deeply regret having shared with you a story we can’t stand behind.
Notice they did not say KIMKINS diet information just diet information and if you look they provided the newer kimkins diet and statemnets about Atkins higher fat diet and about net effective carbs nothing in the orginal story was about the nutrition of the actiual kimkins diet.
very sneaky way to cover their butt and apologize for not finding out Kimmer was still 300 pounds without ever saying and the diet she sold us is nutrtionally bankrupt too.
THANK YOU! I agree fully.
OYB
My blog: Kimorexia
Post a Comment