So Readers Digest & I Talked Very Briefly, Exchanged Emails, & They Commented On My Blog - SO NOT IMPRESSED

Following the crowd will not get you anything but a view of their backside. Anon

So it's Friday afternoon and I though: Hey, I'm done blogging for the week, TGIF.

Karen Reynolds, of Reader's Digest happened to call me yesterday and wanted my email address . She didn't really want to talk right then, but she told me that she would be sending me an explanatory email and was available to talk afterwards if I'd like. And I was like, GREAT.

But, I was at my contract job yesterday and I couldn't respond to her email right then.

Plus, I wanted to marinate on my answer a bit, so I responded back to her today at lunch. Then, I called her office an hour later and left her a voice mail saying that we really needed to talk.

I went out and did work/ life errands all afternoon and just came home and there was no call or email from Readers Digest. But low and behold, at 4:09 PM this afternoon, there was a comment on my blog from them, you can read it, HERE.

Or, just check it out below.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Just Got Off The Phone With The Director of Custom...": We know that you are concerned with the title of our publication Reverse Diabetes. This term, however, is widely used throughout the healthcare and health-journalism communities, not solely by Reader's Digest. Please be assured that we are committed to the same cause: to help the millions of Americans struggling with the disease. We, of course, respect your right to differ with our approach, but we know with complete certainty that we have helped hundreds of thousands of people improve their condition by using our magazines, books, and digital content. We respect your opinion, and wish you the greatest success in your work on behalf of all people with diabetes. – Reader’s Digest

REALLY? That's the best answer you can come up with??? I thought my response to your comment was much better!

Dearest Readers Digest - I don't care how many other publications use the term "Reverse Diabetes," IT'S WRONG. As I mentioned in my email exchange w/ your Publicity Curator, why not stop perpetuating diabetes myths & stereotypes & perpetuate diabetes realities! And with "complete certainty that the title of your Diabetes publication is all about selling copies and will do much harm in diabetes fundraising efforts and understanding of my diabetes in the public eye! Shame on Reader's Digest for going for the attention grabbing headlines!!! Kelly Kunik

In the Spirit of full disclosure, I'm going to share the email exchange that Karen Reynolds, Publicity Curator for RD, so I don't get any of our exchange wrong.

I'll let you guys "marinate" on it and come up with your own thoughts.

#######

Hi Kelly, It was nice speaking with you a few minutes ago. I want you to know that we understand your concerns and also want to provide you with some necessary background. Reader’s Digest has been serving the diabetes community faithfully for more than a decade. Books that include Stopping Diabetes in its Tracks, The Natural Solution to Diabetes, Eat to Beat Diabetes, Magic Foods for Better Blood Sugar, and Reverse Diabetes have together served millions of people in the U.S. and around the globe. Reverse Diabetes is targeted primarily to people with Type II diabetes. Lifestyle choices have been proven by scientific research to be a large part of the remedy. With Reverse Diabetes, we offer empowering, motivating, medically-substantiated ways for people to halt the progression of their condition and lead healthier lives. This includes lowering and stabilizing blood sugar levels, reducing heart-disease risk and increasing their overall sense of vitality. Based on strong customer satisfaction and demand for the tips, recipes, and motivation we provide, we have launched Reverse Diabetes as an ongoing publishing program. In addition to books, the Reverse Diabetes e-Newsletter is sent each week to nearly 200,000 loyal subscribers. The ad you are looking at is actually for the sixth newsstand magazine under the Reverse Diabetes name. We have received praise, almost exclusively, for our work, which is written by top medical writers and vetted by respected doctors. We completely understand that Type I Diabetes is a serious and challenging medical condition that requires nonstop monitoring and a lifelong commitment to insulin shots. There is no cure for a person who is unable to create his own insulin. I am certain we share the belief that no one should live the life of daily insulin shots and blood-sugar monitoring if it can be avoided. In that mindset, we’d urge you to support our efforts to show adults how to prevent Type II diabetes, or if diagnosed, how to live in a way that minimizes its impact on their lives. Thank you for taking the time to contact us for a response. Best Regards, Karen Reynolds Publicity Curator Reader's Digest Media 750 Third Avenue, 4th fl. New York, N.Y. 10017 646-293-6153 karen_reynolds@rd.com

My Response to Karen's email:

Hi Karen -

Thank you for calling me personally and reaching out via email.

As far as all types of diabetes are concerned, I am very much aware of ALL THE TYPES of diabetes that exist, including: Type 1. Type 1.5, Type 2 and Gestational Diabetes.

As a Diabetes Advocate, it is my business and my passion require that I be educated on my disease and all it's family branches. My disease is not only my biggest passion, it's my business.

I have to be honest, I (and many others in the diabetes community, both on line and off) have a real problem with your headline, and that of the book of which it's based on.

I still very much disagree with the title. While Type 2 diabetes can certainly be helped by diet and exercise, it CAN NOT BE REVERSED. No matter how much exercise or healthy a type 2 person participates in, or how much weight they lose or medications they dramatically lower their intake of. Once a person is diagnosed with type 11, they will ALWAYS BE TYPE 2. The minute they forget that fact, the damage gets done.

If your publication is aimed at primarily at the type 2 diabetes population, why not SAY THAT in the title?

Why not have it read: How To Be In Charge OF Your Type 2 Diabetes?

Are you aware that a title like :"Reverse Diabetes" can severely affect fundraising efforts for research for the cure for Type 1 Diabetes, The Artificial Pancreas Project, etc?

Are you aware that organizations such as The Diabetes Research Institute Foundation rely 100% on fundraising dollars to finance research for a diabetes cure?

Are you aware that hundreds of families recently stormed Capital Hill for The JDRF"S Government Day and spoke with hundreds of politicos about not cutting funding for diabetes research or programs?

Are you aware that the state of Arizona's Medicaid is currently considering measures that would charge people with type 2 a fee for "being unhealthy?"

Reader's Digest "Reverse Diabetes" Publication is promoting the diabetes myth & stereotype that diabetes is a lazy persons disease - and that is just NOT the case.

I don't separate between diabetes types, and as you're well aware, neither does the media.

So instead of attention grabbing headlines that continually promote diabetes myths & stereotypes, why not have titles that perpetuate diabetes Realities and empowerment?

Personally, I know thousands of people who will no longer be buying or renewing their Readers Digest subscriptions purely based on "Reversing Diabetes" egregious title. And that's not only a shame for RD, but it's a shame for those who could be helped by your guide.

I will be calling you in person to speak about my concerns, which are the very same concerns that thousands of others share!

Sincerely,

Kelly Kunik

-- Kelly Kunik http://diabetesaliciousness.blogspot.com/ Spreading Diabetes Validation through Humor,Ownership & Advocacy~

BIG THANKS to Kim over at Texting My Pancreas is responsible for getting the Readers Digest ball rolling with THIS post!