First of all, why would WW falsify her name? If the magazine or "Kimmer" did not want to use her real name, all they had to do was to say "a California mom" rather than a "California Mom" named Kim Drake." And even if they did falsify some of the info in their article, then why did the Kimkins website publish the great "news" about the WW article? It is obvious when you read the story that both of the women who were "success stories" cooperated with Women's World and "Kimmer" whatevertheheck her name is may have also been interviewed for the story.

Yes, I agree! I have no doubt that her old archived posts tell the real story. All I'm saying is that she *may have* presented her story to WW editors, who then made a few "edits" here and there .. which is why the details don't match. Just a thought.

With that being said, I'll admit that I haven't seen the WW article itself, only read the threads here and a few other bb's


Doreen

Pseudonyms aren't always to mislead - I have no issue with WW using a pseudonym of "Kim Drake" for whateverherrealnameis/Kimmer - if she's not unlisted in the phone book or online databases, it would be a major headache following a story in a major magazine. To me that's understandable and I do know it's used to "protect" people when they're going to be out there and suddenly "public" without any way to protect themselves from the barrage of weirdos who look them up.

That said, I think something stinks in all this.....

Oh the "big red flags" were before the WW article when somene (who shall remain nameless) gave me a head's up about what a "great" affiliate program "Kimmer" had and was I interested. I declined, but still did the due diligence to see who the heck she was/is and her numbers in her food journal and story at LCF just doesn't add up. This recent coverage just made me do a tad more digging than I did earlier...and now I'm just a bit more suspicious - can't prove anything, but I'll be darned if I say nothing at this point.



I think they tell the story she wants readers to believe....again, that's just me.

I suppose as long as she has not legally registered her business using a pseudonym then it is not illegal and yes maybe she did it to prevent people from finding out her phone number and address. That would be cheaper than going through all the security measures that "celebrities" use and even a lot of celebrities use pseudonymns without legally changing their names. My main gripe is that people are calling Kimkins a "miracle diet." I have discovered through a lot of trial and error and free advice from people on this and other low carb message boards that there is no magic bullet when it comes to weight loss.

Could the woman on the exercise machine be her also? I see that the nose and the mouth are similar.

Ahhh, yes. Now I see what you mean. Sorry, I misunderstood before. I agree with you that digging only leads to more questions!

I still think that Women's World magazine made more than a few edits to whatever story she gave to them, without her knowledge but with her permission due to signed contracts and waivers. She may have been dismayed and objected at first, but as popularity grew due to the success of the WW article and the rebound success of Kimkins .. hmmm .. well, 2+2 = a million

Who knows for sure? Not me!!!


Doreen

The bottom line about all of this is while we are wasting our time trying to ferret out info about "Kimmer," she is laughing all the way to the bank!

Looks somewhat photoshopped to me!

The picture was in this Kimkins website.
http://www.pr.com/press-release/29464

She was presenting a new program which includes cardio exercise. She has intentially eliminated the top part of the head in order to make the picture unrecognizable. I'm assuming that it could be her current picture. All other pictures were probably her's when she was young. Notice the name Heidi Diaz at the bottom of the website mentioned as her site's webmaster.

it's a stock photo... my art director thinks she's seen it before

HILARIOUS. This topic never goes away and never gets tiring for me. Kimmer uses stock photos a LOT. I've just never had the time and resources to track them down, but I've pointed out several model shots that she used to have on her success stories - notice, for those that remember my previous thread - those particular success stories are ALL gone! WHY? If they were so successful, why did she take them down? Could she have been afraid that the national coverage might filter down to the actual models or their agents?

I was really hoping that all of the new exposure might grace us with some new pics of Kimmer. I mean, everytime I lose 10 pounds, I'm pestering my daughter to take a new pic of me. Here she lost, what, 200 pounds, and only took 1-2 pics in all these years????? Two pics, btw, that look like different people to me.

Things that make you go hmmmmmm. Personally, I'm waiting for the lawsuits only because I salivate for the day this blows up in Kimmers face because I know personally that she's a Liar. The WW article may not have been a good idea because it just put more folks on her trail. Great find on the Classmates photo!!! So we have now 2-3 photos from 5 years????? Wow, that's amazing, lol.

I don't care about her using the stock photo for the pretend press release, I'd just be concerned about her using them for before and after.

I think the jury's still out though, a lot of people who lose weight look drastically different.

The only thing I really doubt is that she was more than 260-270.

There's drastically different, then there's this:


'Success story' here: http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.c...rch/label/Deane