Examples of Our Website Being Copied:

1. October 5, 2019 

Our server was attacked tonight in an unrelenting series of failed log-ins, xmlprc attacks and other hacking attempts.  At the same time, specific information from this page was lifted and copied, and even done so in the same order! Let’s compare:

Ours:   “…Gravitt et al v. Mentor, passed preemption twice, first in January and then in June 2018.”
Theirs: “…Gravitt versus Mentor Case Number #1:2017cv05428 passed preemption twice in January 2018 and then again in June 2018.”

 

Ours:   “…BIA-ALCL commenced in 2018 and are continuing to be filed.”
Theirs: “…BIA-ALCL cases commenced and they are being filed on an ongoing basis.”

 

Ours:   “In January 2019, two Canadian law firms requested to file a potential class action lawsuit against three breast manufactures (Allergan, Mentor, and Ideal)…”
Theirs: “…in early 2019 two Canadian lawfirms requested to file class action lawsuits against three textured implant manufacturers selling implant in Canada Mentor, Allergan and Ideal…”

 

Ours:   “…another Canadian law firm has commenced a potential class action against Mentor MemoryGel Silicone Breast Implants.”
Theirs: “…another Canadian lawfirm filed a request for a potential class action against Mentor silicone for systemic symptoms caused by silicone breast implants.”

 

Ours:   “Allergan responded with a global recall of silicone and saline textured breast implants and tissue expanders. This comes after more cases of BIA-ALCL have been reported. Class actions are being filed worldwide against Allergan textured breast implants including in the US, Canada, and Korea.”
Theirs: “Lately since Allergan has pulled their textured implants from the U.S. market, ther [sic] class actions against Allergan textured implants are underway in U.S. and even Korea.”

 

Interestingly, the other website’s Lawsuit page had not even been updated once since February 3, 2019 until October 5, 2019. Additionally, the copycat page fails to include supporting research substantiating the information set forth.

Ours:

Theirs – this is a screenshot of what the copycat posted on October 5, 2019, just in case she changes it later after seeing this.

Their Sitemap, documented on September 27, 2019 shows their Lawsuits page had not been updated since February 3, 2019 (seven months prior):

Below are two examples of the 50+ attacks received today, October 5, 2019 (same day our Lawsuits introductory paragraph was similarly worded on their website):

 

2. November 15, 2018 

On our Lawsuit page, a section on Medical Device Safety Act H.R. 2164 was published on December 15, 2017. Almost a year later, on November 15, 2018, the copycat made a similar section on her Lawsuit page.  They reversed the order of the two paragraphs, but essentially put the same content (sentences/concepts following the same order and the same words incorporated). Parts underlined in red are what the copycat copied.

 

Our section on MDSA 2164, December 15, 2017:

 

 

Their section on MDSA 2164, November 15, 2018 (almost a year after ours):

 

 

Ours:   “Breast implants are categorized as Class III medical devices … and are very difficult to sue due to the 2008 Supreme Court case, Riegel v Medtronic which gave broad federal protection to manufacturers.”
Theirs: “…breast implants are Class III medical devices and are protected by preemption laws due to the 2008 Supreme Court case Riegel v Medtronic which gave broad federal protection to manufacturers”

 

Ours:   “citing that Class III medical devices are solely accountable to the regulations and surveillance of the FDA”
Theirs: “citing that Class III medical devices are only accountable to the regulations and surveillance of the FDA”

 

Ours:   “After Riegel, the only way to sue is to assert parallel state law claims where one must prove the manufacturer deviated from a guideline they were approved by (a violation of a federal requirement, such as a FDA guideline), the violation of an identical state law, and how that violation of that federal requirement caused injury.”
Theirs: “After Riegel, the only way to sue for a Class III medical device is to assert a parallel state law claim where one must prove the manufacturer deviated from a federal guideline or requirement the device was approved by, the violation of some same state law, and how that violation caused injury.”

 

Ours:   “Please take a short moment to sign and support the Medical Device Safety Act H.R. 2164, a bill introduced to restore an injured consumer’s rights to sue Class III medical devices that are currently being preempted by federal protection.”
Theirs: “Please sign and support the Medical Device Safety Act H.R. 2164, which restores an injured consumer’s rights to sue Class III medical devices such as breast implants and others that are currently being preempted by US federal protection.”

 

Note how they directly cut and pasted “Please sign and support the Medical Device Safety Act H.R. 2164“, shown by how it is bolded like ours, when nothing else on their page was bolded. They similarly reworded the second part of that sentence.

 

Their section on MDSA 2164, published on November 17, 2018 (two days after their initial copying; perhaps in attempt to make it look “different”). Note how they took out one of the lines they copied of “is to assert a parallel state law claim where one must prove the manufacturer deviated from a…guideline” and in its place put a quote from an official source as to make it appear as if the information they are providing is their original research:

 

3. January 2018 

On 1/19/18 at 01:46 +00:00 their website published an updated Florida Explant Surgeons list: copying 5/6 of our first six surgeons (Barnett, Rankin, Vibhakar, Van Vliet, Rosenstein) and copying the order of our the second and third surgeons (Rankin, Dev), making our first three surgeons listed appear the same.

1/19/18 Chinese attack on our website and attempts at malicious malware uploads

1/22/18 malicious upload attacks 2:32am-2:54am 61x to our website.

Our Florida Explant Surgeon list on 1/17/18 (left), theirs on 1/17/18 (middle), and theirs on 1/19/18 (right) are documented to show how theirs appeared before and after their changes:

 

     
       

First six Florida explant surgeons order:

Ours 1/17/18:    Barnett, Rankin, Vibhakar, Van Vliet, Fakhre, Burden

Theirs 1/17/18:  Barnett, Fee, Wallace, Butler, Moffitt, Gerzenshtein

 

Ours 1/18/18:   Barnett, Rankin, Vibhakar, Van Vliet, Pinsky, Rosenstein

Theirs 1/18/18: Barnett, Rankin, Vibhakar, Rosenstein, Van Vliet, Butler

Note how the second and third surgeons were placed in the same order as ours, making both lists have the same first three surgeons (Barnett, Rankin, Vibhakar) and therefore appear the “same.” Note how five out of the six are the same surgeons (Barnett, Rankin, Vibhakar, Van Vliet, Rosenstein).

A website’s Sitemap documents the date/time a website’s page was updated.

The Sitemap of our date/time and our website’s internal revision history/record both align, showing our changes were done at 2018-01-18 13:30 +00:00, meaning they were done before theirs on 1/18 (formally their Sitemap shows 2018-01-19 01:46 +00:00).

Their Sitemap confirms the date/time of their changes being on 2018-01-19 01:46 +00:00, which would mean they were done in the evening of the 1/18 in their PST time zone and after our changes.

By matching their changes to ours, doing so even in the same day as our changes, they then can say they were copied, when instead we were the original being falsely accused of copying.

4. Cloudfare

The competitor has attacked our website for using Cloudflare stating we “put it behind cloudflare who repeats illegal sites.” She has stated this more than once as part of a social media smear campaign to undermine and discredit us.

 

Ironically, despite creating a public negative connotation around Cloudflare with their social media attacks on us, they themselves have later quietly copied and put their website behind Cloudflare as well. It is viewable under ICANN, a website registration database.