Happy Thanksgiving

Kimkins Business Ethics

Or rather lack thereof. I was banned from Kimkins more than a year ago. Not for anything I posted on Heidi Diaz' site but for something I posted on another board. But as the post referred to as a reason for my banning took place a month after I had been banned, who knows what the real reason was. I would expect that Tippy knows, but she is not telling.

Anyway, a while back I started to receive emails from Kimmer to the email address I had used on Kimkins. I tried to unsubscribe several weeks back, but apparently that is not working.

I received an email today for "Kimkins Holiday Savings!" where she suggests that I get a "buddy" to sign up for Kimkins, and providing a discount code for 15% off off the $79.95 "lifetime" membership fee. Yeah, right. As if I would recommend this program to someone else. I already lost my money. Why would I want a "buddy" to do the same.

In addition, the email had my user name and password for Kimkins:

HERE'S YOUR KIMKINS USER NAME & PASSWORD:
user: sward001
pass: T58ZSOFV

Apart from it not being secure to send this type of information in a standard email, I can't figure out why Heidi did it in the first place. I am banned. Try it for yourself. You will just get this:


And, no. Waiting 1-2 hours will not change anything. I am permanently banned.

If this was an attempt by Heidi to collect my IP address, she will be disappointed. The constantly changing IP my broadband connection provides is not going to give out any information of use to her.

Kimkins Still Banning Members

Kimkins is subject to a Class Action Lawsuit for banning members without cause and without giving them a refund. While there are many other complaints about the Kimkins Diet, they are not as easily proven as the simple fact that you paid for a lifetime membership and did not receive what you paid for.

The latest banned member was asked to provide "before" and "after" photos for herself to be used in a Kimkins success story. Timing was imperative as Kimmer is gearing up for the weight loss boom that always take place after the holidays. The member did not promptly respond and found herself banned.

It is clear that Kimmer has no concern about banning lifetime members without cause. After all, they are of no use to her as the one time fee has been paid and they don't bring in new revenue for Heidi Diaz. That the member has formed friendships inside the Kimpound and is following the restrictive posting rules there is of no importance to her.

Only new members bring in money.

It's ironical that one of the selling points Heidi is using in her google ads and newsletters is the lifetime membership. "$79. Not another penny ever." It seems that her definition of "lifetime" is something else than for the rest of us. I think an honest ad should say "$79 to get access to a poorly defined diet plan. Receive advice from the diet's creator that never lost weight on it herself and that is not able to stick to her own diet. Join a dying community on a board where you have to watch what you say. Do not venture out on other, public, boards. Be prepared to lose access when the founder decides you are no longer of use to her, or if you annoy her. Being electronic media, the membership fee is non-refundable".

I doubt she would get any new members with such an ad. Hopefully she is not getting new members anyway. I hope they have the knowledge to google Kimkins before they shell out the money. The second google hit "Kimkins Survivors" should tell them something.

Anoretix

Anoretix is a weight loss pill. Who on earth came up with this name? Yes, I know that "anorexic" literally means "loss of appetite" but don't most of us associate it with anorexia nervosa?

Anorexia nervosa is a serious, often deadly, eating disorder. Medusa has written extensively about it. Eating disorder victims should not have any further encouragement to starve themselves.

I wonder if there was some marketing team behind this name. Or just an ignorant internet marketer. Very ignorant.

The Anoretix web site is a typical weight loss product sales page. The head line announces "I lost 12 pounds in 72 hours" next to a stock photo of a slim woman with tape measure. Some testimonials. Promise of a lifetime money back guarantee. Whose lifetime?

By the way; these testimonials? How many of you go back to a web site where you made a purchase just to submit a testimonial? And post progress updates? I have never done it. I don't even give feedback reviews on Amazon for a product I like.

Not that I believe for a minute that this product is any more helpful for weight loss than any other pill. Actually, it is a combination of some 9 other weight loss products that all are supported by some undisclosed studies and research. Just the usual "clinically proven" nonsense. And the "patented" or "patent pending" statement. As if a product needs to be proven effective to get a patent.

Many affiliates have jumped on the Anoretix train and it seems that very few of them have any knowledge about weight loss. A google search returns 40,000 hits. Blogs, ads, web sites. Hoping to cash in from desperate dieters. I hope they all fail.

One of the sites I looked up actually provided some interesting info; inadvertently, I'm sure. They said: "Most diet pills have about a 1,000% markup meaning that if it costs $3 to manufacture — companies sell it for $30. Which means we consumers are getting ripped off."

You can say that again. We consumers get ripped off!

Kimkins Sues

It is not that easy (for me, at least) to understand who is being sued for what. In addition to the named defendants, there are 100 Roes being sued, and just one of these have been named. It is assumed that these Roes are anti-kimkins bloggers and if the suit is not being thrown out, we surely will be seeing more of us being named as the time goes on.

The Kimkins Counter Suit claims:

Interference with contract
"By contacting Kimkins members and encouraging them to terminate their memberships, By contacting and harassing affiliates and agents and demanding and threatening them to stop working for or with Kimkins and further threatening members and affiliates with criminal persecution of civil suit."
I assume this refers to our "weed pulling". I don't see how informing people of fraud can be seen as "threatening" and "demanding". Everybody contacted had the option of making an informed decision of what action they wanted to take. If Kimmer hadn't committed fraud in the first place, there would have been nothing to inform them about.

Interference with economic advantage
The suit claims that we "disrupted the relationship between Heidi Diaz and the Kimkins members and affiliates telling each that Heidi Diaz was unsafe, unreliable and often failed to meet its contractual obligations and was continuing to defraud it members at their expense. Cross defendants made these statements and allegations at a time when they knew the statements to be untrue."
Economic advantage? As gained by fraud? And in my opinion, Kimkins was "unsafe" with its recommended 500 cals. They also did "fail to meet their contractual allegations" as I was banned without a refund.

Slander/libel
"publishing malicious and false posts regarding Heidi Diaz ". And, "the entirety of each message was and is false as it pertains to Heidi Diaz because said statements were made solely in an effort to humiliate, defame, infuriate and injure Heidi Diaz. The statement is slanderous per se in that it imputes to Heidi Diaz a dishonest and bad reputation in the business and Internet community."
Huh? Heidi wasn't dishonest? When she posted false pictures and claimed non-existent weight loss? Starting on LCF years ago? Stating the TRUTH is not slander or libel. Furthermore, it's up to the plaintiff to prove that the statements are false. How is Heidi Diaz going to do that? She will produce REAL pictures of herself from June 2007 showing that she actually was 118 lbs? I don't think so.

Invasion of privacy
Heidi is a public figure. She submitted her picture to a wide spread magazine (yes, the "after" picture was not her, but the BEFORE picture was). And a person can become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. This made Kimmer a public figure even long before she started Kimkins.con. She can not deny to willingly generate "publicity" with all her posts on Lowcarbfriends forum.
However, the counter suit seems to refer to a to me unknown issue of her ex husband disclosing some private information from a Family Law matter. It's not clear to me why this was bundled with the suit of the 1 - 100 Roes.

Civil conspiracy
"conspired to slander and defame Heidi Diaz" and "each of them acted despicably, willfully, wantonly, oppressively, fraudulently"
Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to accomplish a criminal act or a legal act through criminal means. I'm not aware of any "agreement" between the Ducks. I am an individual blogger and I don't take orders for what to blog about. If there is a "Duck in charge" he/she is unknown to me.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress
I'm sure it's stressful to being found out as a liar, especially when the lies have been told for years and the lies were the foundation of her business. I don't see how that can be blamed on the defendants.

Kimkins Email

My email boxes have been flooded by Kimkins newsletters, 10 reasons, and other messages from Kimkins lately. Even the email addresses where I have opted out from receiving them. Seems to be difficult to get out of her database.

It's sort of fun to read them though. To see what Kimmer consider selling points for the Kimkins Diet. Like this one:


"Hey there!

You know when you've tried other diets in the past and you didn't quite understand something or wanted more details? What did you do? Ask a friend or try to figure it out yourself, right?

Don't you wish you could ask the diet creator directly? With Kimkins you can! Our members have direct access to "Kimmer", the founder of Kimkins, by asking questions in the Kimkins Cafe forum or an easy email."

Wish to ask the diet creator? The one that can't do her own diet?