A total of 12 Sections of the Act and Codes were breached. The Panel has placed three new Sanctions on IHRB: 1) Publication of retractions on-line and in all the print media where the representations were made; 2) Withdrawal of representations, and 3) Withdrawal of advertisement.

Above is the photo of the first 800-page folder that was sent to the Panel as part of the Complaint. Another 50-page summary was sent several months later. The Panel reviewed the evidence and independently assessed findings after Mr Samuel Cohen, via his lawyer, sent his lengthy counter-arguments. If you would like to read the Panel’s 16-page Determination, please click here to download the PDF

To read a copy of the Australian Government’s Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code, please click here to download the PDF

To keep an eye on how many days IHRB remains in breach, click here for the Breach Counter.

THE PUNCHLINE?

These Sanctions open new cans of worms. However, despite the lengthy submission, after Mr Sam Cohen sought a special extension from the CRP, and after engaging his lawyer, we arrive at the single punch line: that Mr Cohen and IHRB have not been able to verify any of the statements made in the ads. The ads and the claims make unlawful statements, misleading statements, and statements that have not been verified! When asked by the Panel to prove any of it, IHRB could prove NONE OF IT. Not only are the ads misleading and deceptive, and not only do I maintain that the IHRB contract is misleading and deceptive, and not only has the Health Care Complaints Commission found that Mr Cohen endangered the health and safety of his clients, we arrive at the biggest conclusion of all, that, as I have been alleging for over two years, IHRB is a fraud and a scam. If not a single claim could be proved by IHRB to the Panel, then what is IHRB selling? The ads are unlawful because I believe the whole business is unlawful. That’s one mighty punchline.

CODES THAT WERE BREACHED

BREACH 1 — UNVERIFIED STATEMENTS — CODE 4(1)(b) says: ‘An advertisement for therapeutic goods must contain correct and balanced statements only and claims which the sponsor has already verified.’

BREACH 2 — UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS — CODE 4(2)(a) says: ‘An advertisement for therapeutic goods must not be likely to arouse unwarranted and unrealistic expectations of product effectiveness.’

BREACH 3 — MISLEADING VIA OMISSION — CODE 4(2)(c) says: ‘An advertisement for therapeutic goods must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, directly or by implication or through emphasis, comparisons, contrasts or omissions.’

BREACH 4 — EXPLOITING CONSUMERS — CODE 4(2)(d) says: ‘An advertisement for therapeutic goods must not abuse the trust or exploit the lack of knowledge of consumers or contain language which could bring about fear or distress.’

BREACH 5 — MIRACULOUS CURE — CODE 4(2)(g) says: ‘An advertisement for therapeutic goods must not: contain any claim, statement or implication that it is infallible, unfailing, magical, miraculous, or that it is a certain, guaranteed or sure cure.’

BREACH 6 — EFFECTIVE IN ALL CASES — CODE 4(2)(h) says: ‘An advertisement for therapeutic goods must not contain any claim, statement or implication that it is effective in all cases of a condition.’

BREACH 7 — NO SIDE-EFFECTS — CODE 4(2)(i) says: ‘An advertisement for therapeutic goods must not contain any claim, statement or implication that the goods are safe or that their use cannot cause harm or that they have no side-effects.’

BREACH 8 — ACCURATE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION — CODE 4(4) says: ‘Any scientific information in an advertisement should be presented in a manner that is accurate, balanced and not misleading.’

BREACH 9 — COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING — CODE 4(5) says: ‘Comparative advertisements must be balanced and must not be misleading or likely to be misleading, either about the therapeutic goods advertised or the therapeutic goods, or classes of therapeutic goods, with which it is compared.’

BREACH 10 — TESTIMONIALS — CODE 4(7) says: ‘Testimonials must not breach the Code. They must be documented, genuine, not misleading and illustrate typical cases only.’

BREACH 11 — MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS — CODE 6(3) refers to labelling and listing of ingredients and special warnings.

BREACH 12 — ACT (SEC 42C) refers to it being an offence to publish advertisements for therapeutic goods in specific media that does not have approval.

IHRB WAS SANCTIONED ONCE BEFORE

Sadly, IHRB had misled consumers before. When I became a client, I was lured by an ad that should never have been published, because Sanctions had been in place for a long time, but Mr Sam Cohen had ignored those Sanctions for 12 months. The Panel then warned Mr Cohen a second time, and reported him to the Secretary for the Department of Health. You can read about the first set of Sanctions at this link and then you can read about how IHRB had failed to comply with those Sections at this link.

IHRB ORDERED TO PUBLISH RETRACTIONS

The Complaints Resolution Panel has directed IHRB and Mr Sam Cohen to publish retractions, saying, ‘An advertisement to appear in all publications where the print advertisements were published at the earliest booking opportunity.’ The Panel also specified that the ad must be early in the publication and on a right-hand page, in a size that is the same as the size of the ads. In this case, these retractions need to be full-page ads, because most IHRB ads have been full-page ads.

This is the exact retraction that IHRB has been ordered to publish as an advertisements in all newspapers and magazines where IHRB had unlawfully misled readers. The ad is to be the same size as regular IHRB ads, which means it must be a full-page retraction. The Panel requires that the heading is to be at least 20 points, red on white background, in bold. The text to be at least 12 point in red, black, and blue on a white background, bold. The whole text box is to be red on a white background.

THE WEBSITE RETRACTION

As for the IHRB website, the Complaints Resolution Panel has ordered IHRB to publish a retraction on the front page of IHRB’s website, so that it can be viewed without scrolling the page. The retraction must appear for 180 days and be no less than 500 pixels wide and 200 pixels high. The image below is exactly 500 x 200 pixels, for your reference:

THE FUNNY BITS THAT EMERGED

Before we take a deeper look into the Panel’s findings, here are a few important (albeit amusing and bemusing) points that have emerged:

1) Via his solicitor, Mr Sam Cohen told the Panel that I had, ‘maintained a vigorous campaign against [the advertiser] for some years’. Mr Cohen tells everyone that I have been on his case for years, as if I am a pest, or as if I am obsessed by his universe. He tries to turn this against me, when in fact, it points to Mr Sam Cohen breaking the law for years. I would not have pursued him, and I would have had nothing to pursue, if he had obeyed the law during all this time. The fact that each and every day of my life requires that I pursue Mr Cohen and his sham of a business, shows just how much there is to pursue. If it takes two years of my life, full time, along with assistance from my many helpers, administrators, researchers, and three lawyers, amounting to no less than eight hours every single day, seven days per week, shows just how much work there is to do, and how many lies I have to disprove, and how many victims I am supporting, and how many Codes and Sanctions and Orders and Acts that Mr Cohen is breaking. The vigorousness might point to my determination, but it more accurately points to the extent of Mr Cohen’s cheek, and total disregard for the law and for his clients, whose health and safety he has endangered, and whose money he has taken via what I alleged most earnestly is a scam. From my experience and from my findings and probings and having been a victim, I believe that IHRB is a complete total fraud. Mr Cohen says that I have something against him. Indeed, when I see such blatant abuse, what does he expect a citizen to do about it? Of course I am going to pursue him. Mind you, I have no powers. All I can do is report him to the authorities. They are stretched and busy, so their work takes time. I am patient. Yet in all this time, I have not seen Mr Cohen correct a single error. He just adds new lies and bold statements that are nothing more than a flagrant disregard for the law, and a hopeless disrespect for his victims and his clients.

2) The Panel’s report says in paragraph 18 that, ‘The advertiser stated that they had previously complied promptly and fully with a previous determination of the Panel’. A total lie told to the very people who know the facts. Mr Cohen snubbed the first set of Sanctions for over 12 months. The Panel then had to write to Mr Cohen and warn him that he is still in breach, and that the matter would be reported to the Secretary for the Department of Health. Even after that second warning, Mr Cohen ignored the Panel for another six months. That’s a total of 18 months, while people like me were reading misleading and unlawful ads, being lured by unverified statements that were not only deceptive but also had been Sanctioned and should not have been published. Eighteen months is not what I call ‘promptly and fully’. Besides, after 18 months, the retractions were not full. And the representations were still being made on the IHRB website, (and also in leaflets and brochures which the Panel has no powers over). So with the finest Cockney accent I can muster, let me say, ‘Do me a favour!’.

3) The Panel’s report says in Paragraph 19 that, ‘The advertiser stated that they did “not promise to regrow hair on bald heads” but rather “offer assistance in seeking to impact upon the conditions causing hair loss, the improvement of the scalp, and improvement of dying hair into better texture”.’ So now, for the first time ever, Mr Sam Cohen is saying that he does not regrow hair on bald heads. On which kinds of heads does he grow hair? If he is unable to regrow hair on bald heads, then what has he been advertising all his life? He is the one who says that no other formula in the world can do what his can do. He told me that he has never failed. All his ads mention that he has grown people’s hair to the utmost satisfaction, while showing photos of bald men who regrew hair. Now he is saying that his job is that of avoiding hair loss, yet all his ads promise to re-grow our own hair. While typing this article on the 17th of November 2011, I visited IHRB’s website where we read Mr Cohen claiming that he can reverse hair loss and re-grow most of the hair lost over the past 3 or 4 years. If someone has lost hair, and that hair has not been on their head for four years, I think we can say that the person is bald on that area of their head. No hair for four years means walking around bald. Yet Mr Cohen lies and lies and lies yet again, this time to the Complaints Resolution Panel, saying that he did ‘not promise to regrow hair on bald heads’. How does the English language cope with such slimy contradiction?

Via his lawyer, Sam Cohen admits that he does not grow hair on bald heads. If that’s the case, then how come the banner on his website shows an animation of a bald head that becomes a full head of hair? Below are the first and the last images from the animation. Is this false advertising, or what!

In Paragraph 19 we also learn, for the first time ever, that Mr Cohen’s treatment contains dyes, in order to dye hair — meaning that his formula contains dyes (to change the colour of the hair), so as to make the hair and scalp appear darker, which creates an illusion that the hair is better, thicker, richer. In his submission to the Panel he spoke of ‘dying hair into better texture‘. This aspect is so amazing, that I am dedicating a special article to explain the significance of Mr Cohen’s claim. So please refer to this link for more information on this sensational revelation.

4) Also in paragraph 19, the Panel received responses from Mr Cohen who said that IHRB does not manufacture products. If that is the case, then why does he say in his ads and to his clients that he has the only special secret formula? Why are his bottles labelled with the phrase, ‘Specially formulated according to IHRB’s specifications’? How can he have Indian herbs and curries and natural extracts that are exclusively his, when now he is saying that nothing is his! I do wish he would make up his mind. Mr Cohen told the Penal that the products are provided by his chemists according to a medical practitioner’s prescription. If a medical practitioner issues a prescription, and a chemist dispenses, why does the world need IHRB and Sam Cohen? No chemist is permitted to interfere with a prescription, so how do those phantom secret herbs and extracts get into each bottle? Mr Cohen is misleading the Panel with these slimy statements. I have copies of emails written by Mr Cohen wherein he specifically states that he is the one who makes-up some of the topical solutions. Therefore, this makes him the manufacturer. More lies. More deception. He just has no respect for anyone or any authority.

5) Paragraph 21 of the Panel’s Determination shows how Mr Cohen was asked about his natural extracts and herbal preparations. His own pharmacist told me and other victims, in writing, that the extracts contained no therapeutic effect. Instead of proving that they exist and that they are effective, Mr Cohen simply tells the Panel that he has ‘thousands of satisfied customers and at least 65 testimonials, including satisfactory and satisfied comments from doctors, a medical centre, a priest and numerous professional and non-professional people.’ His latest ads in ‘Oz Weekly‘ break the law on several fronts, including the fact that he advertises, on the front page (a full page) an ad that includes testimonials from doctors. This is illegal. He also has these on his website, which is also illegal. And as for medical centres, well, that is out-and-out fraud, and it is explained in this article which exposes the lie and the deception surrounding the testimonial from the medical centre. Incidentally, some clients whom Mr Cohen has used as models in his ads, offering glowing testimonials, are now bald, yet he still, to this day, uses them as success-stories which evidently they are not.

6) Mr Cohen also tells the Panel that the testimonials were given freely and voluntarily by his clients. I have been told by some of his clients that Mr Cohen asked for the testimonials. So this is not the definition of ‘voluntarily’. And I have been told by IHRB’s clients that Mr Cohen offers free products and discounted products in exchange for testimonials. This is hardly the definition of ‘freely’. Bartering for testimonials, most of which are suspicious in their content, is illegal because this would make them paid testimonials. Besides, as the Panel discovered, none of the testimonials were ever documented and were not typical cases. And I know that some of the testimonials are from people who had used products that were not recommended by the TGA, and evidence is available to prove that some clients used products that were dangerous. Indeed, some client grew some hair, using bad non-approved dangerous products, which they could have purchased from any pharmacy, so why does he charge thousands of dollars for that? Here you can read about the outrageous testimonials. And here is a link to the suspicious testimonials.

7) In paragraph 22 Mr Cohen denies saying that he had treated people to the utmost satisfaction of every person he has treated. He said that those statements, although used by him to promote his products, were ‘not written by’ him but were ‘part of a commentary by another person’. Read this article and tell me if any of the alleged independent editorials could have ever been anything more than self-promoting advertorials written by IHRB, and never written by any journalist or reporter. Just take a peek and see what we have to contend with when it comes to handling Mr Cohen and his endless lies.

8) In paragraph 23 we read that Mr Sam Cohen tells the Panel that he assesses his clients before he sells them anything, to ensure that the treatment provided is appropriate. This was not true in my case, and in many cases reported to me. He just looked at my head, touched my hair for two seconds with his fingers, and sold me prescription-only medications without a prescription. This is dangerous and illegal, and does not constitute any form of an ‘assessment’.

9) In Paragraph 25 Mr Cohen admits that he uses Finasteride and Minoxidil to block the ‘balding gene’. No-one knows if there is a balding gene, but nonetheless, here is Mr Cohen admitting that he blocks DHT through Finasteride (which could cause permanent erectile disfunction) and Minoxidil. So there you have it. These products are readily available on the market. So why is Mr Cohen claiming to be the guru when these two products (along with the dangerous and non-approved Loniten found during the Police raid) are the products that are achieving the results for his clients. Why is he charging thousands of dollars for products available on the market for a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the astronomical unconscionable fees he is charging, while lying about his supposed secret herbs and curries which his pharmacists say do not exist — and of the liquid that did exist, one pharmacist only used it for only one month, and stopped using it, saying that it had no therapeutic effect and no active ingredient and caused problems.

10) Then in paragraph 27 Mr Cohen denied making statements about the safety of Minoxidil for pregnant women or those with a heart condition. Why then were there claims against him by women, one of whom extracted a refund from Mr Cohen after her lawyer-boyfriend got involved, and another took the matter to the CTTT (Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal)? Here is an IHRB sad story about a woman with a heart condition. Here is a story about an IHRB client who was told that it is ok for pregnant women to use IHRB’s products.

11) At last we hear what Mr Samuel Cohen of the Institute of Hair Regrowth & Beauty means by a ‘guarantee’. In paragraph 29, he tells the Panel that his guarantee should be interpreted as him saying, ‘I guarantee that if I am not successful I will give you your money back.’ Two problems. Mr Cohen has never, in my case and the many cases I know about, admitted that he was not successful. Despite photographic evidence to the contrary, Mr Cohen insisted that my hair had grown back. He just will never admit that he has failed. And when he knows that his treatment is not working (because Minoxidil does not work in all cases) he will ask his clients to get a prescription (and in some cases he does not even bother with a prescription) for Loniten and Finasteride to ‘boost’ the hair growth; disregarding the health implications and serious risks. Besides, if one’s hair is boosted and grows, why does he want thousands of dollars for that? Anyone can go to their GP and obtain those medications (although my GP was smart and sent me to a specialist who refused to have anything to do with Loniten, which is not approved and dangerous). The second problem with Mr Cohen’s definition of his guarantee is that it conflicts with his tricky and misleading contract, which says that his guarantee relates to the ‘client’ not being satisfied. So he sells it on the basis that ‘client satisfaction’ determines the guarantee, and now he is telling the panel that it is all about him failing. But Sam Cohen would not admit to having failed in my case, and in the case of many who went to CTTT and who made statements to the Health Care Complaints Commission about IHRB’s commercial and medical misconduct.

12) Mr Sam Cohen refuses to admit to the Panel that his ads make mention of anything ‘scientific’. In paragraph 32 we read that Mr Cohen had argued that words such as ‘state of the art‘, ‘innovated’, and ‘improved’ were ‘not scientific terms or the provision of scientific information’. IHRB’s ads (including the new versions now doing the rounds) talk about ‘after 40 years of research’ and ‘this is a world’s first’. And that no other formula in the world can do what his can do. He talks about having ‘innovated’ and ‘developed’. If the expression ’40 years of research’ in the context of claims of hair regrowth do not refer to anything scientific, then pigs can fly.

13) Mr Cohen again tells the Panel in Paragraph 35 that clients are only treated after they obtain a prescription from their doctor. Hogwash. I walked in, paid $3700 and walked out with Schedule 2 and Schedule 4 medications without a prescription. This was illegal and irresponsible and dangerous and pathetic, and others have made similar statements to the authorities, and here is Mr Samuel Faraj Cohen lying to the Panel.

THE FUNNIEST BIT OF ALL

14) Here is the best and the funniest of all: Paragraph 37 tells us that Mr Sam Cohen argued that, ‘unlike the topical solutions and items for which a prescription is required, items such as shampoos are not therapeutic goods.’ Ok, I need an anti-hypertensive to calm my nerves right here. So now Sam-the-Man has blurted out the truth. His shampoo is not a therapeutic good. Which means it has no effect on the hair, which means it has no effect on the scalp, which means it has no effect at all. So why is it part of his contract — the contract that forces people to buy his useless detergent shampoo at exorbitant prices where IHRB sells its shampoo at $20 when a similar product at Woolworths sells for $1.03? If we use one bottle per month, that’s $240 versus $12.36 each year just for his useless detergent that he calls organic shampoo, which is not even organic. This revelation is just as absurd as the Minoxidil products that Sam Cohen sells for $900 when a local compounding pharmacy can retail them at $70? Why the price hike? Because Mr Cohen lies about injecting his secret herbs and spices which his pharmacists say were never injected. So now we know that Mr Cohen has told the Panel that his shampoo is not a therapeutic product, which means it is useless, which is what I have been saying for two years and two months. Of course Mr Cohen could say that his shampoo is gentle on the hair and helps to maintain good hygiene. Of all the manufacturers in the world, why do we need the Institute of Hair Regrowth & Beauty to import detergent from India or China? Besides, now is a good time to snap out of the delusion that the ‘I’ in ‘IHRB’ really refers to a real ‘institute’. This aspect of the joke is explored if you click here.

FINDINGS OF THE PANEL

Let us now review what the Complaints Resolution Panel said (my emphasis added) about each of the 12 breaches in its Determination of 16 November 2011, showing that, despite being Sanctioned once before, IHRB still failed to obey the laws. The findings start on page 5 of the Determination. Below we read excerpts of the advertising claims that the Panel said were in breach of the relevant sections of the Act and Codes:

As a preliminary matter, the Panel considered the argument of the advertiser that some of the words in the advertisements had been written by others, such as words found in testimonials and words found in “editorials” that were reproduced in the advertisements. The Panel noted that the original authorship of the words was not significant; to the extent that the words were reproduced in the advertisements, they were elements of the advertisements in the same way as words written by the advertiser.

An advertisement for therapeutic goods is defined in the Act to include “any statement, pictorial representation or design, however made, that is intended, whether directly or indirectly, to promote the use or supply of the goods.”

The Panel was satisfied that the advertisements that were the subject of the complaint were advertisements that promoted the use or supply of certain goods. The Panel noted that the advertisements referred explicitly to goods such as “topical and oral pharmaceutical products, natural extracts, and herbal preparations”, and “prescribed and/or non prescribed herbal tablets/capsules, minerals, and vitamins”. The Panel was also satisfied, based on the material before it, that, though it did not refer to them explicitly by name, the advertisements were advertisements that promoted the use or supply of “Saw Palmetto Complex”, “Prozcar [sic - Proscar] tablets”, “Loniten tablets”, and “Prescribed Topical Hair Regrowth Formula”.

The Panel noted that it was not relevant whether the advertiser was a sponsor of advertised therapeutic goods, or whether they manufactured those goods. The Panel considered whether or not the advertisements promoted the use or supply of the goods.

Therapeutic goods are defined in the Act to include goods that are represented in any way to be for therapeutic use. Therapeutic use is defined to include use in or in connection with influencing, inhibiting, or modifying a physiological process in persons.

The Panel was satisfied that the goods that were promoted by the advertisements were therapeutic goods. It is clear that hair loss or baldness of the kind referred to in the advertisements are physiological processes in persons, and that the advertised goods were represented to be for use in influencing, inhibiting, or modifying those physiological processes.

The Panel was therefore satisfied that the advertisements were advertisements for therapeutic goods.

The Panel noted that the advertiser had stated that the advertised goods (or at least some of them) were prepared by compounding chemists. The Panel noted that while goods so prepared are exempt from certain provisions of the Act and Regulations – primarily those relating to inclusion on the Register and to manufacturing, they are not exempt from the advertising provisions. The Panel was satisfied that the therapeutic goods promoted in the advertisements were either designated therapeutic goods or other therapeutic goods, so that the advertisements fell within the scope of regulation 42ZCAB of the Regulations. On this basis, the Panel was satisfied that the advertisements were advertisements about which complaints could properly be made to the Panel.

Section 42C of the Act makes it an offence to publish certain advertisements for therapeutic goods in specified media that does not have an approval number, or to publish an advertisement without its approval number, and through reference to the Regulations, applies to “advertisements for designated therapeutic goods published or inserted, or intended to be published or inserted, for valuable consideration, in specified media.” The Panel was satisfied that the print advertisements, but not the internet advertisement, were subject to section 42C of the Act and ought to have been approved and to have carried an approval number. The Panel noted that at least some of the therapeutic goods promoted in the print advertisements were designated therapeutic goods.

The print advertisements had not been approved and did not have an approval number. This aspect of the complaint was therefore justified.

Section 4(1)(b) of the Code requires that advertisements for therapeutic goods “contain correct and balanced statements only and claims which the sponsor has already verified.”

The complainant alleged that “none of the claims about the benefits of Saw Palmetto have been verified”, and stated that “we know from his pharmacists that these [natural extracts and herbal preparations] contain no therapeutic effect and no active ingredients”. The complainant also argued that the words “I have helped thousands of men, women, and children with genetic baldness re-grow their own natural hair back” breached this section of the Code.

The Panel was satisfied that all of the advertisements conveyed that the saw palmetto, natural extract, and herbal preparation products had therapeutic effects or could help those “with genetic baldness re-grow their own natural hair back. The advertiser did not provide evidence to support these representations. The Panel was therefore satisfied that these representations had not been verified, and breached section 4(1)(b) of the Code. This aspect of the complaint was therefore justified.

The Panel did not consider whether or not the claim that Mr Cohen was “a hairloss and replacement specialist for 36 years” had been verified.

Section 4(2)(a) of the Code prohibits representations that are “likely to arouse unwarranted and unrealistic expectations of product effectiveness”.

The complainant alleged that the words “I have achieved unparalleled results in re-growth of hair to the utmost satisfaction of every person I have treated” (which were reproduced from material said to be “editorials from independent journals”) breached this section of the Code. The complainant argued that he himself had not been satisfied to the utmost level. The complainant also referred to a testimonial which included the words, “I have tried many ‘hair treatments’ over the last 3 years, including Minoxidil and Chinese herbal remedies. But none of these helped my hair loss”. The complainant argued that these words, found in the website advertisement, also aroused unwarranted expectations in breach of section 4(2)(a) of the Code, and reiterated the allegation that the advertised saw palmetto, natural extract, and herbal preparation products had no therapeutic effects. The complainant also noted other testimonial material that included words such as “amazed” and “bewildered”.

The Panel noted the argument of the advertiser that the words in the testimonials and “editorials” were “not written by” the advertiser but that were “part of a commentary by another person”, or were “provided… freely and voluntarily.” As noted above, this argument does not address the alleged breaches of section 4(2)(a) of the Code. The inclusion of the words in the advertisement is the responsibility of the advertiser, and regardless of their original authorship the words are part of the advertisements in which they appear.

In the absence of any evidence from the advertiser, the Panel was satisfied that the advertisements contained representations that were likely to arouse unwarranted and unrealistic expectations of the effectiveness of the advertised products. These included the representations that the advertised products could aid in the regrowth of natural hair for those experiencing hair loss, could help with hair loss, or could be effective in cases where other therapeutic goods such as Minoxidil had not been effective. This aspect of the complaint was therefore justified.

Section 4(2)(c) of the Code prohibits representations that “mislead directly or by implication or through emphasis, comparisons, contrasts or omissions”.

The complainant argued that the advertisements were misleading by omission because they did not disclose that key areas of the scalp where hair loss had occurred would not benefit from the use of the advertised product. The complainant argued that the advertisements implied that hair could be restored where “needed”, when this would not generally be the case.

The complainant also argued that words such as “do lasers, high frequency machines and massages block the balding gene (DHT)? No!” and “are lasers and high frequency machines medically approved as a DHT blocker?” were misleading because “no one said that they do block DHT”. The Panel took the complainant to be arguing that these words were misleading because, in referring irrelevantly to DHT blocking, they implied that lasers and high frequency machines could not aid with hair loss.

The complainant also argued that the advertisements were misleading because they implied that “treatment is not on-going, but does not mention that hair will fall out again if medications are stopped.”

The Panel was satisfied that the advertisements clearly conveyed a representation that consumers could expect hair regrowth in any part of the scalp where hair loss had occurred, and omitted the fact (acknowledged by the advertiser) that hair regrowth would not occur in areas where hair follicles had died.

The Panel was satisfied that words such as “do lasers, high frequency machines and massages block the balding gene (DHT)? No!” and “are lasers and high frequency machines medically approved as a DHT blocker?” were misleading because they were claims about the efficacy of those other treatments for which the advertiser provided no supporting evidence.

The Panel agreed with the complainant that the advertisements implied that “treatment is not on-going”, and that regrowth caused by the advertised products would be permanent or at least long-lasting. The Panel was satisfied, based on the submission of the advertiser, that such an implication was misleading.

The advertisements therefore breached section 4(2)(c) of the Code. This aspect of the complaint was justified.

Section 4(2)(d) of the Code prohibits advertisements which “abuse the trust or exploit the lack of knowledge of consumers or contain language which could bring about fear or distress.”

The complainant alleged that the advertisements breached this section of the Code because of references to “the balding gene”, “blocking the balding gene (DHT)”, and “blocking DHT”. The Panel noted that, to the extent that there could be a “balding gene”, it is clearly not DHT or dihydrotestosterone, since DHT is a hormone and not a gene.

The Panel was satisfied that in referring to “blocking the balding gene”, and equating the “balding gene” with DHT, the advertisement abused the trust and exploited the lack of knowledge of consumers. This aspect of the complaint was therefore justified.

Section 4(2)(g) of the Code prohibits representations that therapeutic goods are “infallible, unfailing, magical, miraculous”, or that they are “a certain, guaranteed or sure cure”. Section 4(2)(h) of the Code prohibits advertisements for therapeutic goods that “contain any claim, statement or implication that it is effective in all cases of a condition”.

The Panel noted that several testimonials in the advertisements explicitly alluded to “performing miracles”. Moreover, the Panel noted that the advertisements included words such as “all others say ‘try ours, it may help’. No ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ with us.” The Panel was of the view that such representations conveyed a clear implication that the advertised products would always be effective.

The Panel also noted that the website advertisement included words such as “he has since dealt with thousands of men, women, and children with every type of hair-loss problem”.

The Panel was satisfied that the advertisements overwhelmingly represented the advertised products to be unfailing and to be a certain, guaranteed, and sure cure for hair loss or baldness. The Panel was also satisfied that they represented the advertised products to be effective in all cases of hair loss. These aspects of the complaint were therefore justified.

Section 4(2)(i) of the Code prohibits representations that the goods advertised are completely safe, harmless, or free of side-effects. The Panel noted that the website advertisement included, as part of a testimonial, the words “all I did was use IHRB’s hygiene products and apply their prescribed ‘Topical Solution’ take their prescription and herb tablets and no side affects which is fantastic.” The Panel was satisfied that this advertisement therefore breached section 4(2)(i) of the Code. This aspect of the complaint was therefore justified.

Section 4(4) of the Code requires scientific information to be “presented in a manner that is accurate, balanced and not misleading”, and requires that publication of scientific research results should “identify the researcher and financial sponsor of the research.” The Panel was satisfied that representations in the advertisements about “blocking the balding gene (DHT)”, and similar representations, amounted to scientific information. As already noted, the Panel was satisfied that to the extent that there could be a “balding gene”, it is clearly not DHT or dihydrotestosterone, since DHT is a hormone and not a gene.

The Panel was satisfied that in referring to “blocking the balding gene”, and equating the “balding gene” with DHT, the advertisement presented scientific information in manner that was not accurate and was misleading. This aspect of the complaint was therefore justified.

Section 4(5) of the Code requires that comparisons made in advertisements must be balanced and must not be misleading or likely to be misleading, and prohibits the inclusion in advertisements of comparisons that “imply that the therapeutic goods, or classes of therapeutic goods, with which comparison is made, are harmful or ineffectual.” The Panel was satisfied that the advertisements made clear comparisons with other therapeutic goods or classes of therapeutic goods, and represented the advertised products to be capable of working in cases where all other therapeutic goods or classes of therapeutic goods had failed. The Panel was satisfied that the advertisements also represented other therapeutic goods to be ineffectual. The Panel therefore found this aspect of the complaint justified.

Section 4(7) of the Code requires that testimonials included in advertisements for therapeutic goods “must be documented, genuine, not misleading and illustrate typical cases only.” On the basis of the material before it, the Panel was satisfied that the advertisements contained testimonials that could not be considered typical, including testimonials showing dramatic results in very short periods of time. Moreover, the advertiser provided no evidence, that the testimonials in the advertisement were all documented, genuine, and illustrative typical cases only. This aspect of the complaint was therefore found to be justified.

The advertisements ought to have included the words “always read the label” (section 6(3)(c) of the Code), and the words “use only as directed” and “if symptoms persist see your doctor/healthcare professional” (section 6(3)(d) of the Code). The advertisements did not include an approval number or these mandatory statements. These aspects of the complaint were therefore justified.

DETAILS OF THE SANCTIONS

The Panel requests Institute of Hair Regrowth and Beauty Pty Ltd, in accordance with subregulation 42ZCAI(1) of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990:

a) to withdraw the advertisement from further publication;

b) to withdraw any representations, including representations that are implied because of a lack of qualifying information, that the advertised products are free of side effects, that they are effective in all cases of hair loss or for all sufferers of hair loss, that they can aid in hair regrowth on all parts of the scalp, that they can aid in the regrowth of natural hair for those experiencing hair loss, or could be effective in cases where other therapeutic goods such as Minoxidil had not been effective, together with any representations that DHT is “the balding gene” or that the advertised products block the balding gene;

c) to withdraw any representations that the advertised natural and herbal products can help people with genetic baldness regrow their own natural hair;

d) not to use the representations in (b) and (c) above in any other advertisement;

e) where the representation has been provided to other parties such as retailers or website publishers, and where there is a reasonable likelihood that the representation has been published or is intended to be published by such parties, to advise those parties that the representation(s) should be withdrawn;

f) to arrange for publication in all publications where the print advertisements were published of retractions in the form of, and in accordance with, the conditions set out in the attachment to this determination;

g) to arrange for publication on the website www.ihrb.com of a retraction in the form of, and in accordance with, the conditions set out in the attachment to this determination; and, within 14 days of being notified of this request, to provide evidence to the Panel of its compliance, including a response in writing that they will comply with the Panel’s sanctions, and where appropriate, supporting material such as copies of instructions to advertising agents or publishers, or correspondence with retailers and other third party advertisers.

Below we see an excerpt from a letter written by Mr Sam Cohen to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, wherein Mr Cohen says, ‘my topical solution is unique and one of it’s (sic) kind. Because, besides the Minoxidil and Retin.A, my secret formula of natural extracts are also added.’ Then Mr Cohen says that he can only show the proof to a presiding Member or Judge, in order to maintain secrecy.

WHY WHY WHY?

The big question is WHY? It is baffling that Mr Cohen did not furnish his proof when he was Summonsed to do so? Why did he engage a lawyer to help him resist the Summons that had asked him to prove that any such formula exists? Why is he now offering to show these secret files only to a presiding Tribunal Member or a Court judge, a year after resisting the first Summons?

My speculation is that Mr Cohen preferred to only show this to people whom he was hoping to mislead, and only as a last resort. I suspect that he felt that the letters were so good, that if they were inspected by a Member or Judge who is not fully familiar with the alleged scam, the letters would be convincing enough to get him across the line. Why did he not ever furnish them when Summonsed to prove his claims? Why did he not want me to see them? I suspect it’s because Mr Cohen knew that the moment I saw those documents, I would seek to have them verified. He knew that he had something to hide. The documents are fantastic. They are his lifeline… until they are verified — or rather, not verified, because they have since been debunked.

Indeed, I set out to check the authenticity of these letters. I discovered that the letters, though genuine, are in fact a sham. Mr Cohen never wanted me to see them, yet a year after my battle with him, and during another battle with another victim, he hinted at their existence to CTTT, to project a bold bravado amidst baby-faced innocence, while simulating confidence and a burst of conviction, via feigned indignation. Sadly, truth will out. When I obtained copies,  I contacted the pharmacists involved. Let’s explore what they had to say:

THE FIRST DOCUMENT

This first document was signed by IHRB’s first pharmacist who served IHRB for nearly nine years; until Mr Cohen’s misconduct and illegal practices came to the attention of that pharmacist who immediately cut all ties with IHRB and Sam Cohen.

This first letter was shown to the pharmacist who said that he had signed that letter without seeking legal advice, and regretted doing so. He then awaited the arrival of the secret natural extracts, and when they did arrive, they were unlabelled, and had no list of ingredients and no proof as to what they were or what they did. So the pharmacist said that he became concerned and suspicious, and advised Mr Cohen that as a professional pharmacist, he cannot just mix any unproven and untested formulation into serious medications. And rightly so. No pharmacist is permitted to tamper with a doctor’s prescription and take instructions from Sam Cohen — who boasted about his questionable years of experience and his Bachelor of Science degree that was later proved in court to have never existed.

The pharmacist said that he is willing to attend any Court or Tribunal to testify that he never used any of these natural extracts in neither the prescription topical solutions nor in the non-prescription topical solutions. This is diabolical. It points to Mr Cohen selling treatments to people, at astronomical prices, on the basis that his special Indian herbs / spices / extracts, as the supposed key secret ingredients that make his formulations the best in the world, when no such extracts were ever injected into any of the medications for nine long years. Furthermore, with no extracts ever being added (the bottles had tamperproof caps which meant that Mr Cohen could not have added them himself), it meant that any client who did enjoy hair regrowth, achieved such results purely from the Minoxidil and other medications that are readily available on the market, which would prove yet again that Mr Cohen cannot take the credit for the hair regrowth — so why was he charging thousands of dollars for a secret formula that, for nine years, according to the compounding pharmacist, was never used?

THE MYSTERIOUS COLOUR SOLUTION

When I read the 16-page Determination made by the Complaints Resolution Panel that found IHRB’s claims to be unlawful, misleading, and unverified, I was aghast to learn about a new aspect of the IHRB saga. We read in Paragraph 19 of that Determination that Mr Cohen’s treatment contains dyes in order to colour hair — meaning that his formula contains dyes that change the colour of the hair. His dyes are noted in the manufacturing agreement shown above, which Mr Cohen calls, ‘Special Natural Extracts Colour Solution’. Not that we would ever know, but I suspect that his alleged secret extracts were intended to do two things. The first is to give Mr Cohen a reason to mislead his clients about him having invented the only hair formula that he claims is the best in the world. Adding the extracts is not so much about adding anything. It’s about giving Mr Cohen a way of him claiming to have a secret formula so as to justify his ridiculous rip-off prices, and so that he can say that his clients must continue to buy products from him (even though it is illegal for him to sell medications or pharmacy-only poisons). Saying that he has a secret formula was his way of saying that his products can only be purchased from him. The formula is inconsequential. What matters most is the idea that a formula exists, even thought it does not. The second expectation from the formula is to put dyes on people’s hair so that he can say, ‘Oh look your textures are so much better’. He had used that line with me dozens of times. And he even noted it in writing while trying to con a victim out of his refund during a CTTT hearing in Sydney.

THE SECOND DOCUMENT

Below we read a letter that summarised a meeting between Mr Cohen and his second pharmacist, after the first pharmacist dumped IHRB for gross misconduct and illegal activities.

This second agreement mentions a PGX formula and adding vitamin-A Palmitate and a secret ‘Formula A’ (which sounds like something from the TV show ‘Get Smart’). The pharmacist who wrote this letter was contacted by me and another victim, and the pharmacist explained that he only ever used Mr Cohen’s liquid for one month because it started to cause problems with the main Minoxidil solution. The pharmacist said that he told Mr Cohen that he can no longer use the liquid. The pharmacist said that in his professional opinion, the formula contained no active ingredients and provided no therapeutic benefit for neither stopping hair-loss nor promoting hair-growth.

The compounding pharmacist explained that the PGX formula was, according to Mr Cohen, a chardonnay solution which Mr Cohen claimed contained his ‘curries’. The pharmacist said that he did not know what PGX stood for, but as far as he could determine, the solution did not contain any active ingredients.

The pharmacist said that the vitamin-A Palmitate was added to the non-prescription strength Minoxidil solutions, but he added that, in his opinion, it provided nutrient or cosmetic value only. ‘Formula A’ was a blend of vitamins Mr Cohen had asked the pharmacist to add to each bottle dispensed, but the pharmacist could only see them providing nutrient or cosmetic value, and were not therapeutically active ingredients.

The pharmacist also said, ‘The solutions were only added for a short period of time (approx. a month from March 2010) as I had concerns about their effect on the solubility and stability of the product. I do not believe they provided any therapeutic effects or active ingredients.’

He added that he clearly stated his concerns to Mr Cohen and told him that he would not continue to add the formulations until such time as he was happy with the formulation.

The pharmacist concluded his letter dated 14 November 2011 by saying, ‘In summary, the above answers should hopefully satisfy your questions. As stated, the PGX and Formula-A solutions were not added after approx. April 2010. The Vitamin A palmitate was still being added to the non prescription strengths of solutions. As stated, I believe that this provided nutrient or cosmetic value only. I do not believe that these ingredients make any therapeutic difference in terms of hair loss or hair re-growth when applied topically.’

THE THIRD PHARMACIST

After being dumped by two pharmacist, Mr Cohen went to a third pharmacist. When one of the victims needed information for his battles with Mr Cohen, the victim wrote to that third pharmacist, asking what the topical Minoxidil solution contains other than the basic Minoxidil. The third pharmacist responded in an email dated 24 February 2011, saying, ‘The formula also contains Vit B5 5% and Vit A 0.025%.’ That’s it. No special extracts. Vitamins A and B are useless in terms of hair-loss or hair-growth. I suspect that by this time, after all the publicity and the pressure placed upon Mr Cohen to prove that he does have some secret formula, he asked his third pharmacist to inject something — anything — just so that Mr Cohen can say that his formula is unique. Well, the addition of these two vitamins is useless in terms of Minoxidil and its efficacy, so now we have three pharmacists confirming that the Indian curries and secret extracts were never used in any of IHRB’s treatments, so we have all been dudded.

Tammy believed Sam’s assertions that IHRB was doomed, and that Sam was closing-shop. She had noted that he had stopped advertising, and thought that he might truly be closing down. She panicked at that prospect of having to chase a defunct company, so Tammy took what she could, skipping the opportunity to sue Sam at CTTT in the first place. Sam Cohen insisted that she sign a letter-of-release in which Tammy agreed that she had no further claim. Tammy said that $2,000 to her was a HUGE amount of money, being a sole-parent raising four children.

When Tammy later realised that Sam had lied to her about closing down, and tricked her out of her rights as a consumer who signed-up to a 100% money-back guarantee, she filed a claim at CTTT (Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal). A few days prior to the first hearing, Sam Cohen had responded to the CTTT in writing, showing documentation that Tammy says were fabricated. (Oh boy, I do know all about Sam Cohen’s fabricated evidence!) I have seen this slimy stunt from Sam many times, and he had done it to me and to other victims I know. He had the cheek to fabricate documents to suggest that Tammy was happy. In my case, he changed the facts in order to confuse the Tribunal. This is so illegal, so dirty, so underhanded, and so typical of Sam Cohen.

The Member was flummoxed at the scenario at hand, namely that Tammy had signed a letter (on 19 June 2011) stating that, by accepting the $2,000, she would have no further claim. Tammy was trying to say that she only agreed to this on the basis of a set of circumstances which Sam Cohen had misrepresented and about which he had lied. He was not shutting down. If what Tammy says was true, then Sam Cohen would have lied to her; deceived her; tricked her and hoodwinked her. Otherwise, it would not surprise me if Sam Cohen intentionally swindled Tammy (he had done it to me, big time, so I know it first-hand).

Sadly, the Tribunal Member dismissed the claim. Tammy went home distraught, frustrated, angry, and agog that Sam Cohen would: lie to her when she was a client; waste her time and money; sell her useless, harmful topical solutions that accelerated her hair loss; and now, inside the CTTT conciliation room, Sam Cohen denied ever saying that he was shutting down. He denied other things as well, but I shan’t complicate this article with the many other dastardly schemes that orbit around Sam Cohen.

Let’s delve into some of Sam Cohen’s back-stabbing tactics.

I DO NOT RECALL SAYING THAT

At CTTT, I heard Sam Cohen say something that I have never before heard him say. When asked if he had told Tammy that he was going broke and closing down, he replied, ‘I do not recall’. He added, ‘I see hundreds of clients, I would have told each of them that I am moving, that’s what I would have said. I am moving my office. She signed the release form, so that was the end of the matter.’

My goodness, Sam Cohen is learning so many innovative words. Someone must have drilled him in how to go about lying safely. It seems that there is a right way and a wrong way to lie. He knows how the scorpion can sting. He was stung a few months prior when he was charged in court for lying at CTTT. He knew that lying at CTTT is a risky business. He now sports a criminal conviction for lying at CTTT. Therefore, while Sam was under Oath, he did not refute Tammy’s allegations. He just said that he did not recall saying to Tammy that he was closing down. Yet, when Sam and Tammy were in the concilliation room, twice that day, he denied it point-blank. ‘I’m not going to argue’, he would say to Tammy.

Give me a break. How jolly convenient to pull that rabbit out of the hat while saying ‘I do not recall’. That’s a slimy trick. He was not being asked what he had for breakfast on the third Monday of August in 1972. He was asked if he had ever said to Tammy (or to anyone) that he was closing down. This is not the kind of statement that someone has to recall or not recall. You do not announce: ‘The Prince of Persia called me the other day and offered me millions to live on his farm and be his personal butler with a private jet and have ten wives,’ and then when asked if that kind of statement was made, you say, ‘I do not recall’. Excuse me! You either ventured down that story-line or you did not. You were either going broke or you were not. You were either shutting down or you were not.

The Tribunal Member said that the onus falls on Tammy to prove what he had said to her. How can any consumer prove what was said on any phone conversation? Tapping phones is not the done thing in this country, especially by normal law-abiding consumers who are dealing with a company which they presume to be operating ethically. Tammy did not realise that Sam Cohen has not a bone of ethics in his body.

Then the Member suggested that Tammy should have sought legal advice before agreeing to the $2,000 refund and before she had signed that release form. Well, in my opinion, it is not reasonable to expect this of a consumer. It would cost around $2,000 to seek proper legal advice about a $2,000 refund. Tammy did nothing wrong. Indeed, the release could have been worded better, but it was not wrong to sign it, if people assume that they are dealing with business people who are honest and fair. It was Sam who conned her, he scammed her, he tricked her (not to mention the lies about his trashy products, and no doubt the illegal sale of medications and all that other stuff surrounding the alleged scam that this website is exposing amidst unlawful advertising, illegal handling of medications, and the revelations that the curries and herbal extracts were never used by his pharmacists).

I AM NOT AT FAULT

Another new phrase that Sam Cohen must have been taught recently (perhaps his solicitor has been coaching him) was the phrase, ‘Although I am not at fault’. He added, ‘I don’t feel guilty’ (referring to his claim that he gave Tammy $2,000 while admitting no guilt whatsoever). My oh my, what a clear conscience grand-masters and con-artists seem to have. Why would Sam Cohen refund this money to someone if there was no reason for it? He is saying that he admits no responsibility for Tammy’s condition. Really? Then whose fault was it that her hair was falling out faster while using his useless topical solution? Sam said to the Member that indeed, he agreed to the $2,000 refund, but he was never at fault. He said that Tammy was unreasonable because she had used his products for so long and she had never complained. He said that Tammy only ever had ‘an itch here and there’. What an insult. What barefaced ballyhoo. Tammy told me that the solution would burn her scalp in an instant. Tammy was a client for 27 month, and during this time, Sam Cohen was raided by NSW Police and investigated by the Health Care Complaints Commission and found guilty! During this time, Tammy was not receiving any products. For five months, Sam Cohen was not delivering products because his pharmacists had dumped him (and he owes large amounts of money to BOTH former pharmacists because Sam just refused to pay them, because that is the kind of dirty businessman he is!). One pharmacist took him to court, while the other has not yet got around to chase him). Tammy said that IHRB’s products were so bad, that the moment she opened the blank, unlabelled bottles (which more than likely had arrived illegally due to Sam violating the HCCC Prohibition Orders) they would crystallise — so she could not use them and had to send them back and wait and wait and wait. His announcement about the ’27 months’ was misleading the Member, suggesting that Tammy was an unreasonable long-term client who had hitherto not complained, and who used and abused his angelic services and then she had the cheek to ask for a refund. Oh, how the true-story is always more amazing than Sam’s short fabricated misleading version of events. Not to mention the illegalities of Sam Cohen handling medications while under a Prohibition Order, but that’s another story for another time.

TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE

Then while under Oath (swearing to Almighty God, if you please) Sam Cohen said, ‘I don’t remember saying that we’re closing down. To the best of my knowledge, I never said I’m closing down, to the best of my knowledge.’ It seems that Sam Cohen is learning a lot of new devious words and phrases.

THE DAMNING EVIDENCE

The CTTT Tribunal Member (Ms J. Conley) said that Tammy needs to prove what Sam Cohen had said. Average citizens to not tap phones. They do not walk around with a Black-Box voice-recorder. How could Tammy (or any client) prove what Sam Cohen had told them? In the absence of a Black-Box voice-recorder, we have to look at the circumstances and the likelihood of who might be lying and who might be telling the truth. So let’s start:

1) Did Sam Cohen ever complain in person and in writing to officials at HCCC and to the CTTT that his business was suffering? Yes!

2) Did Sam Cohen ever lie at a Tribunal? Yes! He is a convicted criminal in this regard. He lied in an Affidavit sent to the Court, and he lied in his resume, and he lied in a Company Annual Report. Not to mention the countless lies he told me and others I know.

3) Was Sam Cohen and his IHRB office raided by the police and found to be illegally in possession of non-approved dangerous drugs? Yes!

4) Was Sam Cohen investigated by the Health Care Complaints Commission and found so guilty of endangering the lives of clients, that the HCCC slapped him with a Permanent Prohibition Order? Yes!

5) Did the Commissioner of the CTTT say that Sam Cohen was an unreliable witness? Yes!

6) Did the Complaints Resolution Panel (CRP) find IHRB had breached Therapeutic Goods Advertising Codes, and found that IHRB had misled the public in 2008? Yes!

7) Did Sam Cohen snub the CRP and refuse to withdraw the misleading and deceptive ads? Yes! He ignored their requests for 18 months despite a warning.

8) Did the CRP find him guilty in November 2011 on 12 counts, and ask him to withdraw the unlawful ads now for a third time? Yes!

9) Has Sam Cohen rectified his website as per the CRP requirements? No! His website is still in breach. Click here for the daily Breach Counter.

10) Did Sam Cohen’s Business-Partner wash his hands of this con-man and divest himself of IHRB’s shenanigans? Yes! The Partner ran. He did not want anything more to do with IHRB which was causing him embarrassment.

11) Did one of IHRB’s lawyers threaten that IHRB would sue me? Yes!

12) Did Sam Cohen feel the heat and the pain as a result of being found so guilty by so many Departments? Yes! And he said (on tape) he would sue my ‘arse off’.

13) Did Sam Cohen say that he would sue Channel 7 for allegedly saying on TV that the Health Department had shut him down? Yes, and we have it on a secret recording which shall one day, hopefully, be played in court.

14) Did Sam Cohen tell HCCC that he can no longer afford to be in the city, due to the high rent and now low income due to the bad publicity? Yes!

15) Did Sam Cohen vacate his Pitt Street office and move to new premises in Leichhardt? Yes!

So here is a man who has clear motives to say to Tammy that he was shutting down and struggling so much that he is going broke. It was a scenario that was fresh in his mind, and a sob-story that he could spin to his advantage, in order to con her.

BUT WAIT! WHAT IF TAMMY WAS DREAMING?

Could IHRB’s client, Tammy, have imagined that Sam had said that he was going broke? Was it all in her imagination? Did she fabricate the story just to grab the rest of the money owed to her? Did she falsify her testimony (also under Oath) just to find a way to get out of the letter that had promised that she had no further claim on IHRB? Indeed, anything is possible. On the one hand, we have Tammy, who could be innocent, or could be lying. Then we have Sam Cohen, who could be innocent, or could be lying. What do we know about Sam Cohen’s modus operandi? What was his motive? How many other clients had he mistreated? How many people had he exasperated and conned and scammed and tricked?

Indeed, Tammy could have been making it all up, just to get her hands on the extra $1,900 that she alleged Sam had illegally denied her in the first place. But what if we have a witness!

ENTER THE STAR WITNESS!

The CTTT hearing was on Monday 28 November. The very next day, I happened to be helping another of Sam’s victims (MA), and lo and behold, the conversation swung around, surprisingly, to reveal that MA had also been told by Sam that he was shutting down. A star witness is born. Below is the transcript, along with the audio recording of my conversation with her. The victim (MA) is speaking with me (JN). I had her permission to record the conversation. I often record conversations with victims, with their permission, so that I have good solid evidence and so that I can listen carefully without having to take too many notes. In reading the transcript, observe how we stumble upon a gem — by a stroke of luck!

Click on the arrow to hear the phone conversation.

Here is the transcript. I underlined the radioactive section:

JN: But my question I wonder to you is why you haven’t asked for your money back?

MA: Oh no, I went to him, and then after, before the, the one year finishes, and then uh, I asked him it’s not, I told him it’s not working for me. And then he doesn’t like to give my money back. I said oh ok, can we just halve it? Can you just give me half of the money? Because I’ve used your products and nothing worked so just even just half of it just give it back to me, I was happy. So he give me half, so it’s ok for me.

JN: Did he make you sign a letter of release?

MA: Ah, I, yeh I think I signed something, yeh.

JN: Yeh, because you have a warranty, didn’t you have a warranty? Didn’t he have a 100% money-back warranty?

MA: Yeh I know, there there is a 100% money-back. But he doesn’t want to give this to me. He doesn’t want to give the money back. I’d been waiting, yeh, that’s why I said just give me the half, I’ll I’ll get out of this room, just give me the half, so he agreed to give me the half and then that’s it.

JN: Yeh, ok, unfortunately, yesterday I was at the CTTT helping another lady and, ah, he had done something similar to her, but he lied to her. He said look I can only give you $2,000 because I’m broke and I’m closing down and my business is shutting down, so she believed him. He shut down his Pitt Street office and the next day he opened in Leichhardt. And she felt like he misled her, so she took him to the tribunal yesterday and lost because she had that, she signed that release form, and she’s so angry and she’s so sad that he ripped her off.

MA: Oh, I thought he, like he stopped already, that’s why…

JN: No, what do you mean he stopped? No he moved from Pitt Street…

MA: He closed, completely closed.

JN: No no no, that’s what he wants: did he tell you that?

MA: He, that’s what he, he said that I’m gonna be closed soon because I have a bad reputation now or something like that, I have all these things coming to me, they came here the other day blah blah blah. So yeh, that’s what he told me. I said ok.

JN: Would you ever want to be involved as a witness? You see this lady yesterday, they, they called her; you know; they said sorry you, you have no proof he said that. And Sam denied it. He said, I didn’t, he said, no I don’t recall saying that to her.

MA: Oh yeh, because, yeh he he can deny as much as he can definitely because every thing, every conversation I had with him is not recorded anyway, so, and I signed a letter saying that I agreed that he he can just pay me back half of the money, so… that’s the problem.

JN: Ok so, do you think though, I, I, because I don’t know you, I’m trying to ask you, are you the kind of person who would get involved and act as a witness for this lady? She’s a single parent with four boys, or four children, rather, I don’t know if they’re all boys, and, uh, to her, it’s a lot of money. She’s trying to get another $1,900. She lost her case because she has no evidence. But if she had a witness, then we can prove that Sam had said this to people. Who can…

MA: So what do you need? So, what do you need?

THE STAR WITNESS SENDS AN EMAIL

Below is the email from MA, who wrote to assist Tammy and to help us all to understand what kind of man Sam Cohen really is:

Here is the text from that email above:

Dear Jonar

Thank you for speaking with me about Mr Sam Cohen and IHRB. I was a client for a period of one year, and none of his products or treatment worked for me. I had entered into a 100% money-back guarantee agreement with IHRB, but when it was clear that nothing had worked for me, Mr Cohen refused to return my money. He said to me that his business now has such a bad reputation due to the bad publicity, that he is closing down, and he can’t afford to give me a refund, and he is shutting the doors and going out of business because he is broke. So then I pleaded with him to give me something back, because his products were useless and my hair did not improve at all, so it was a waste of time and money.

After pleading with Mr Cohen, he agreed to give me half my money back. I really should have received a full refund like he promised. But in view of him telling me that he is shutting down and going broke, I felt that I had no choice but to accept the 50% refund. He made me sign a piece of paper that I had no further claim. I am now surprised to hear that he is still in business.

Now I found out that on Monday 28 November 2011, an IHRB client (Ms TS) had taken Mr Cohen to CTTT, claiming that he had said and done a similar thing to her. She claimed that Mr Cohen had told her that he was shutting down.

I wish to note it here in writing that Mr Cohen had told me that he was shutting down and going broke, and that is why I allowed him to get away with refusing me a full refund like the contract said I should receive.

Yours Sincerely
MA

*Tammy is not the client’s real name. It is changed here to offer her some privacy during this ordeal. Her initials are TS and the CTTT file number was GEN 11/54244.

The latest advertisement features the new model, Ms Maree Azzopardi. What’s fascinating is that Mr Sam Cohen added the line, ‘Subject to HCCC’s Permanent Prohibition Order’. But why was that line in English, when he is trying to reach the Thai community via a Thai language magazine? Doesn’t seem right. (If you would like high-resolution copies of these Thai ads, please click here to download the 14 Mb PDF.)

Below is the masthead for ‘VR Thai Magazine’.

Below is one of several Thai ads that featured my name, wherein Sam Cohen was telling the world that I was lying. Of course, I responded to his desperate allegations in this separate article.

Below is yet another version of the same set of unlawful and misleading ads that have been officially found to contain claims that are unverified, and which are guilty of 12 breaches!

Here is yet another version in Thai.

It has taken two years to unravel the mystery, and to conclude that Mr Arthur Chan had nothing to do with Mr Cohen’s misconduct. Why did it take so long to work this out and to clear Mr Chan of any wrongdoing? Because from my experience, after two years of intense, daily probing, I know that Mr Sam Cohen of IHRB is a first-class liar. I say this with disgust, with warped admiration, and with bafflement. If awards were given for such manipulation, Mr Cohen would be a gold medallist, standing alongside Bernard Madoff in terms of brazen audacity.

This website had been unduly critical of Mr Chan because of the unfortunate red-herrings and the misleading information that Mr Sam Cohen of IHRB had supplied.

Mr Arthur Chan was just doing his job. He is a compounding pharmacist who was receiving legitimate prescriptions that were written by legitimate doctors. That’s what pharmacists do. Mr Chan had no idea that Mr Cohen was falsifying the prescriptions. Mr Chan could not have known that Mr Cohen was peeling the labels off the medications and on-selling them to clients like me. In fact, Mr Chan did not know, and could not have known, that I was a user of his products, simply because Mr Cohen acquired medications using one-person’s prescription, and sold them to other clients who did not have a prescription. That messy story is better told by the Health Care Complaints Commission which found so many irregularities in Mr Cohen’s operation, that they served Mr Cohen and IHRB with a Permanent Prohibition Order.

How was Mr Chan to know what Mr Cohen was telling his clients about IHRB’s supposed secret herbs and spices? Indeed, Mr Cohen did ask Mr Chan to inject some secret ingredients into the Minoxidil topical solution. Mr Chan agreed to do this in principle, in general terms, and awaited the delivery of the said secret extracts. When they arrived at his North Melbourne pharmacy, Mr Chan was suspicious and uncomfortable with what he received, so he refused to use it. And he never used it! But Mr Cohen did not seem to care. Mr Cohen just kept telling clients, as he told me, that the medications contained his secret curries and herbal extracts in order to justify his exorbitant rip-off prices (charging $900 for a product that anyone could have purchased at $70).

MR CHAN INVESTIGATED & CLEARED BY AHPRA

Knowing that I had no powers to delve as deeply as was necessary to arrive at this conclusion, I filed a 50-page report with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). They conducted a thorough investigation into Mr Chan. The matter was also escalated to AHPRA’s CEO and to APHRA’s Special Counsel. I wanted to be sure that Mr Chan’s business dealings with IHRB were completely investigated so that I could state, with certainty, that Mr Chan was on the level; and I am relieved to confirm that he is an upright business operator.

After months of work, AHPRA concluded that Mr Chan was innocent of any wrongdoing. So now I can officially tell you that in my opinion, plus in the opinion of the investigating authority (AHPRA), Mr Chan did not do anything wrong. He was an innocent bystander, caught in the crossfire of this unfortunate saga.

The only sad thing about all of this is the fact that Mr Chan’s name was dragged through the mud, for no reason at all, other than he had associated himself with Mr Sam Cohen. What an unfortunate business relationship that turned out to be.

The moment that Mr Arthur Chan had learned about Mr Cohen’s practices (after I wrote to him about how I was treated by IHRB), Mr Chan cut off all ties with IHRB. Mr Chan was so concerned about the allegations, that he severed all ties because the news came as a shock to him. He did not want anything more to do with Mr Sam Cohen or IHRB.

ABOUT MR ARTHUR CHAN

Since launching my investigation into IHRB, I have learned a bit more about Mr Chan, and here is what I discovered:

For over 30 years, Mr Chan has been a practising pharmacist. Since 1985 he has specialised in providing clients with innovative solutions for skin and hair care. Mr Chan developed and compounded hair-care products for people suffering from hair-loss in Australia, well before any of the common topical hair solutions were readily available to the Australian consumer.

Mr Chan has been at the forefront of the research and development of the effect of minoxidil products on hair growth and he was one of the first pharmacists to compound topical minoxidil solutions for hair and scalp treatment in Australia. Many of the topical hair-care solutions contain propylene glycol, a commonly used solvent in medicine which often causes allergy problems. Mr Chan was responsible for developing a hypoallergenic topical minoxidil hair-care solution which was propylene glycol free.

The respect for Mr Chan in the hair-care industry led to him being approached by various hair-loss clinics throughout Australia to compound topical hair-care solutions for their clients. Mr Chan also continues to develop hair care products to assist people suffering from hair loss, and he has numerous long term clients.

Mr Chan has worked tirelessly for many years as a pharmacist and has enjoyed a strong reputation as a professional, diligent, honest and ethical practitioner. He has a genuine interest in developing products that will assist people suffering from hair loss and he is well respected in the hair-care industry in Australia.

His only mistake was to trust Mr Cohen of IHRB. I have come to understand how con-artists work. They generally like to work with innocent people like Mr Chan, because innocent people do not have a devious mind. They do not think of the worst-case scenario. They just do their job and presume that others are also ethical in their dealings. Sadly, Mr Chan was dealing with a liar, and he had no idea. That’s not a criticism of Mr Chan. How was he to know? The moment he found out, he stopped dealing with IHRB.

People who know me, have wondered how I allowed myself to be scammed by Mr Cohen in the first place. You see, like Mr Chan, I walked into IHRB thinking that I was dealing with a fair-minded operator. I took Mr Cohen’s words at face-value. When I started to understand how this alleged scam works, I was tripped-up many times because Mr Cohen is a master liar. He conned me as easily as he tricked Mr Chan.

The good news is that Mr Chan has continued to develop his products, and to help people who are suffering hair-loss.

One might argue that the images are merely representative of the results that one could expect. This has nothing to do with any argument. There can be no argument, because we have laws in place. Mr Cohen is promoting medical products and therapeutic products, and he is making strong, bold, insistent, confident, therapeutic claims. So it does not matter what he or I think about this. The laws require therapeutic products to be promoted in certain ways, and to not make certain claims. Showing results like these, that were obtained via PhotoShop, is misleading. It is downright deceptive. For those interested, click here to read the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code.

WHY IS THIS AD MEGA-MISLEADING?

Even if this ad were to make it clear to the reader that the images were merely representative, and even if the ad had made it known that the images were PhotoShopped, there would still remain the mega-misleading nature of the ad because an IHRB client who does have a head/scalp that is balding like the man shown in the photo, Sam would take photos of that client’s head and then Sam would pull out a rubber stamp, and stamp the photos with a statement that tells the client that he is not to expect hair to grow in the areas where the man is bald or balding. The stamp says something like, ‘Do not expect hair to regrow here’. Then Sam asks the client to sign next to the stamp to agree that the client does not expect hair to grow there. This tactic makes this ad 100% false and misleading and totally unrepresentative of what it is promoting. The photos are suggesting that Sam Cohen and IHRB can help you to go achieve something like the before-and-after shots/illustrations shown in the ad. However, IHRB makes people sign that they cannot be helped in this fashion. In November 2011, Mr Cohen, via his lawyer, responded to the Complaints Resolution Panel, and in their submission, they stated that IHRB never claims to grow hair.

Here is a para from the article:

The Panel’s report says in Paragraph 19 that, ‘The advertiser stated that they did “not promise to regrow hair on bald heads” but rather offer assistance in seeking to impact upon the conditions causing hair loss, the improvement of the scalp, and improvement of dying hair into better texture”.’ So now, for the first time ever, Mr Sam Cohen is saying that he does not regrow hair on bald heads. On which kinds of heads does he grow hair?

So although the image is photoshopped, the misleading aspect is that Sam Cohen never promises people with similar balding patterns any success. The IHRB contract does not cater to people with this kind of scalp, so how can he advertise something that he does not offer? And his products (curries and herbal extracts) have never been shown to grow hair on such heads. Therefore, in my considered opinion, this ad is 100% fraudulent and misleading.

The fraud is not the PhotoShop. Rather, it is the fact that any client who has a head like this, is told not to expect hair to grow there. Do you see the Catch-22 here?

THE FINGERPRINTS

Let’s take a look at the ‘fingerprints’ of these two shots below. They are in fact one shot. The only difference is that the second one was doctored, using a computer. How can we tell that they are the same single shot? I have placed arrows that point to the fingerprints (the tell-tale signs) that provide the evidence to show that they are the same photo. No two photos taken weeks or months apart can have a model/client sitting in front of the camera to the second shot that just so happens to capture every strand of hair in identically the same spot.

Now take a good look at the front side. Same deceptive technique. It’s easy to see that it’s the same photo, with some PhotoShop airbrushing.

Here is what the full ad looks like:

I have no idea what is meant by ’25% off all treatments’. This is so ambiguous. It’s unclear because IHRB’s price when I was a client was $4,900, but few paid this amount to start with. As part of the high-pressure sales pitch, a thousand dollars was cut on the spot ‘if you sign NOW’. I hesitated, so Mr Sam Cohen dropped it some more, to $3,700, and then he added extra bottles of useless shampoo. And the final sweetener was, ‘You’ve got nothing to lose, because this comes with a “written” 100% money back guarrantee’ which a year later I realised was a 100% lie. No doubt Mr Cohen is still telling people that I came in and used a different name (as if my name determines how fast my hair grows) and that I did not use his standard product (he has to say that so as not to incriminate himself by admitting that he illegally sold me Scheduled medications) and that I never returned with a doctor’s prescription (which he conveniently forgets he never asked me to go and get until six months into the program after rashes and accelerated baldness) and he insists that I could not get a prescription because I had used a different name (as if my doctors don’t know who I am, and he will not understand that my GP and the more expensive Specialist both refused to give me a prescription because Mr Cohen wanted me to obtain non-approved dangerous medications).

I won’t analyse this ad right now, because I am sure you can do it yourself. Everything about this ad is bad, misleading, dubious, untested, unverified, and shonky. The medical claims are intergalactic. And the silly offers like ‘Free consultation’ are jaw-droppingly ticklish. Free consultation? He is not a consultant. He has no qualifications. Mr Cohen breaks every rule in the commercial and medical books, so much so that the Health Care Complaints Commission slapped IHRB (Institute of Hair Regrowth & Beauty) and Mr Samuel Faraj Cohen with a Permanent Prohibition Order, saying that he endangered the health and safety of his clients. Free consulting? He means a free long sales pitch that in my case (and in the cases of the many former clients who contact me with their sad stories) was two hours of lies. Nothing he told me during his sales pitch was true. 100% lies. Not 98% and not 99% but a big chubby 100%. But of course, he has accused me of lying, so we run around in circles.

His problem is that I can prove every statement I make. He can’t prove anything. If he will tell you that I am lying, ask him to give me and others permission to release the audio tapes that reveal all. Ask him to prove to you that his special herbs and natural extracts exist and that they are scientifically tested. He can’t. He won’t. So what’s he rabbiting on about? We don’t want to see pieces of paper that are nothing more than paper. We want to see the extracts and the scientific proof that they exist and that they justify the prices whereby he sells bottles at $200 which contain (who knows) Minoxidil or other lotions that one could purchase at $15 and $20. How does $20 become $200? How does $70 become $900 (fair dinkum). Because of the secret herbal extracts? Just prove it. Not by pointing to paragraph 6.20 of the HCCC report. That report was merely quoting him, so now he is quoting them quoting him!

Mr Cohen might show you letters from his pharmacists that state that they will inject his ingredients. The pharmacists did sign those letters, eager to do business with him, until they saw the supposed secret extracts and refused to have anything to do with them. You can read about it here.

Mr Cohen will say that the secret extracts are secret, just like KFC has 11 secret herbs and spices for their fried chicken. Nice analogy, but useless. Chicken does not fall under the Therapeutic Goods Act. His claims pertain to therapeutic goods. The law requires that he reveal his ingredients. It’s got nothing to do with me. It’s the law mate.

Never mind all this, because Mr Sam Cohen will show you testimonials from people who did have great results. Indeed. What medications were those people taking? What medical risks did they take? How much did they pay? Whatever they bought from him, they could have bought from anyone else. Any good results were thanks to products already available on the market at a tenth the price. If anyone grew their hair, it was thanks to Minoxidil which they can purchase or have compounded at any compounding pharmacy. It was thanks to Retin-A that is not approved by the TGA (and for very good reason). Thanks to Loniten that is not approved for hair by the TGA (and for very good reason). Thanks to finasteride (that has serious side effects, but still, who needs IHRB to buy finasteride?). But Mr Cohen will say that none of these products work without his special secret Indian curries/herbs/extracts. Great, then prove it. Every other company on the market has to prove its claims. So why is Sam Cohen exempt?

P.S. The ad was again re-posted on Sunday 13 November 2011.

By the way, in the November 2011 Parramatta issue of ‘Negotiator’ magazine, we see an ad very similar to this one.

In Parramatta ‘Negotiator’ issue #60, we see the following ad on page 15 where we see a new testimonial from a client called Maree Azzopardi:

We again see Ms Maree Azzopardi’s testimonial in an ad printed 11 November 2011 in the Spectator publication called ‘Eastern Suburbs Leader’:

Sam Cohen claimed that he was finding it difficult to afford his Pitt Street rent, so he moved to new offices in Leichhardt. This notion of ‘being poor’ was one side of the sob-story that he told Officials. The other side of the story, which he told his clients, was that he moved 7 km away to better premises where parking is better (but not really). The letter he sent-out is reproduced at the bottom of this Article.

THE SECOND RAID

Then on Friday 4 November 2011, being just over one year since the first raid, Health Officials conducted an un-announced visit, descending on 9 Renwick Street in Leichhardt to check if Sam Cohen was breaching the Prohibition Order. It’s great to know that HCCC is doing its best to protect the public. Officers conducted a thorough inspection. Did they find any medications on the premises? No. If they had, Sam Cohen could have landed himself in court on serious criminal charges. However, while this second raid on his new office seems to paint a picture of good news, I dare say that it opens up a whole new can of worms. The ‘good news’ for Sam Cohen is really the beginning of ‘very bad news’.

IHRB's new office is at 9 Renwick Street, Leichhardt. It was formerly occupied by Alexia Romana, a Photo & Video store that specialised in wedding photography. Before that, it was a florist shop called 'With Passion'. This is a 30 sqm shop with two bedrooms, a kitchen, and bathroom. Its rental asking price was $530 per week. By the way, the new glass frontage shows IHRB's logo and the words, 'More hair or your money back ... Guaranteed'.

WHY IS GOOD NEWS, VERY BAD NEWS?

We now enter a new phase, comprising serious problems in relation to IHRB. Before I explain it, here is an analogy: Imagine if you had been purchasing diamonds from your local jeweller. You paid ten-times what any diamond is worth, because you believe that they are the rarest of all the diamonds in the world. One day, the jewellery store was raided and police found nothing but glass. The rare diamonds were nowhere to be seen. The jeweller was over the moon. The police raid was a non-event. No charges were laid. No crime was committed. No rare diamonds were discovered. Great news. The jeweller does not have to go to jail. However, this ‘good news for the jeweller’ is ‘devastating news for the clients’ who have been forking-out heaps of money for diamonds, and now they realise that they have been buying glass. This is an example of ‘good news for the seller’, being ‘very bad news for the buyer’. The buyers have been duped. They have been conned.

This analogy serves to explain that, while Sam Cohen was spared heaps of legal trouble when Officials could not find medications on the premises (which is not to say that he was not in breach prior to the raid, and not to say that he does not have a stash of medications tucked away elsewhere), he now enters a new twilight zone where distant boulders of trouble can be seen hurtling towards Leichhardt, because Sam Cohen must now explain to his clients what he has been sending to them. All along, his clients have been ordering Minoxidil topical solutions. In emails to a client in October and November 2011, Sam Cohen admitted that he has not been sending Minoxidil. If Sam Cohen is lying, and if he was selling Minoxidil, he would have been committing a criminal offence. If he is telling the truth and he has not been shipping Minoxidil, then he is still in hot water because this would be like selling glass while charging for diamonds. This is more than a Catch-22. This is like a three-dimentional Catch-44. If you can really grasp the severity of this situation, you will see that it is much more than double-jeaopardy.

It’s a case of damned if he did, and damned if he did not.

DOUBLE BLUFF

Allow me to complicate the case. What Sam Cohen said to his client (about not selling Minoxidil) might not be true. Mr Cohen said that he has not been shipping the Minoxidil. But that’s just Mr Cohen’s word, which to me means diddly-squat. We will soon receive lab test-results. It could well be that Sam Cohen’s denial is nothing more than a double bluff. (Keep in mind that this story does not yet touch on whether or not any of his bottles contain his secret natural extracts.)

This photo shows that IHRB has been selling products in these white, unlabelled bottles. This is illegal, irrespective of whether or not the bottles contain Minoxidil or only the phantom natural extracts because therapeutic goods must comply with a range of Codes, including how bottles are labelled. If the bottles were Minoxidil, he is in trouble with the Health Department and could face jail. If the lab tests show that they do not contain Minoxidil, he is in trouble with the Law in relation to fraud, because his client (and many more, I should imagine) were of the understanding that they were paying top-dollar for Minoxidil. Now he is saying he has not shipped Minoxidil for twelve months (since October 2010).

Of course, Mr Cohen might say that some clients have been receiving Minoxidil via his pharmacist in Fairfield, called Elias Pharmacy. Let’s now explore this additional dilemma.

THE MYSTERIOUS ELIAS PHARMACY

In the case of the current client (let’s call him Victor) who is having problems with Sam Cohen, Elias Pharmacy was contacted, and the response was that the Pharmacy does not know of this client. The pharmacy says that it has no record of this client. Elias Pharmacy is the third pharmacy in the chain. Victor contacted the second pharmacist, who also stated that Victor was never in his system. As for the first pharmacist, we learn of so many irregularities that I will post a new article about that in due course, after the legal case, because it points to big-time fraud by IHRB and someone tampering with the doctor’s prescription.

Then we have the mysterious postal bags. Using Yellow Express bags from Australia Post, products were being sent to Victor and to other clients who have contacted me with more evidence. The bags show the sender as: ‘Roberto (Sam) 02 9221 5300, 37-41 Ware St F/Field NSW 2165′. The phone number is the old IHRB phone number which is being re-directed to the Leichhardt office. So we have an IHRB phone number, but an address in Fairfield which is the Elias Pharmacy address. The sender’s name is shown as Roberto. We know that Elias Pharmacy does employ a pharmacist by the name of Roberto Gustavo Mamblona who was first registered on the 9th of January 2008. Inside these bags, Victor has been receiving bottles that are totally unlabelled. Other clients have received similar bags with unlabelled bottles. Elias Pharmacy denies sending them. So why was anyone from IHRB sending these bags, while suggesting that the sender was Roberto from Fairfield? I believe that Mr Cohen knew that it was illegal for him to send medications to clients. He wanted everyone to believe that his pharmacist was sending the medications. Mr Cohen did not want anyone to think that he was breaching the Orders by handling medications.

When questioned about this, Mr Cohen said that the bottles do not contain medications. He says they only contain Activance mixed with his secret herbal extracts. Activance is a hair-care product that is sold at most hairdressers. So now Mr Cohen is saying that he is buying Activance and adulterating the formula by adding his own extracts, while his customers think they are buying and paying for Minoxidil. The manufacturer of Activance is none other than his first pharmacist, to whom he still owes a lot of money. The first pharmacist is the very pharmacist who dumped Sam Cohen after almost a nine-year business relationship, after the pharmacist found out that Sam Cohen was acting illegally. The very pharmacist who told me that he is not supplying Activance to IHRB. So it would seem that Sam Cohen is buying Activance from his local hairdressers or is asking someone to procure them on his behalf.

Now we have to work out if the bottles illegally contain Minoxidil, or if they contain Activance, or if they just contain water and some herbal extracts, or if they just contain water with some food colouring. Either way, we will find out after the lab-test results are finalised. We are holding-off on announcing all of these discoveries for strategic and legal reason. All in good time.

Incidentally, using this Activance ‘Hair Stimulant with Rhodanide’ opens yet another avenue of complication because when the Police first raided IHRB’s Pitt Street office, there was a box inside IHRB’s storeroom on which the word ‘Rhodanide’ was written. So now we have to wonder for how long Sam Cohen has been substituting Minoxidil for Activance (two completely different products) — either in order to save money, or to supply something (anything) to clients who suffered reactions/rashes due to Minoxidil. IHRB’s deceptive contract says that a client who cannot take the medicated (Minoxidil) formula, cannot claim a refund until they first try the non-medicated version. This was Sam Cohen’s way of clutching clients and exhausting them. This is also such a long story that it needs its own article in due course. For now, if we find that Sam Cohen has been selling a topical solution that contains Activance, he would need to provide scientific evidence that he has been adding his secret herbal extracts. He must also prove that his formulation does work (and I mean hard-core scientific proof from independent laboratories that would have conducted independent scientific/clinical trials).

$252 vs $12,319

If his formulation is nothing more than Activance with some vitamins (instead of the non-existent secret extracts), he would have to justify his prices. Vitamins would add no more than $2 to the overall costs. Activance is available at most hairdressers. It retails online from Activance.com.au for $55 for this 200 ml bottle. In the past, IHRB had used 100 ml bottles. Now, IHRB’s new white bottles are 80 ml, which Sam Cohen sells at $225, all the way up to $900 per bottle. Activance only requires 2.5 ml per day, whereas Sam Cohen advises clients to use 3 ml per day. So on a per-millilitre basis, over a period of one year, you can purchase Activance from the retailer at $252. Or you can get ripped-off by Sam Cohen and pay $3,080 per year. This means that Activance will cost you 69 cents per day, or IHRB can charge you $8.44 per day. That’s not counting the high-end bottle on IHRB’s price list that sells at $900 per 80 ml bottle which would come to $12,319 per year instead of $252 (that’s after you would have paid him his starting fee of $4,900 (I paid $3,700) just for the privilege of shaking his hand and walking out with detergent which he calls Organic Shampoo and perhaps non-approved medications without a prescription (as happened in my case and in other reported cases). By the way, with or without a prescription, it would still have been illegal for Sam Cohen to sell those medications. That’s why he was found guilty by the Health Care Complaints Commission.

It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World

How did all this information surface? What was the spark that ignited this convoluted investigation? I had a Poirot-moment. Poirot is Agatha Christie’s private detective who uses his ‘little grey cells’ to solve crime. For Poirot, there is usually one ‘ah-ha’ moment that exposes one tiny detail. It’s usually something insignificant and almost invisible. Yet, the seemingly imperceptible clue becomes the linchpin that closes the case. Three elements came together in my mind. When they collided, I experienced a spectacular Poirot-moment.

The first element was embedded in my mind around 1977 when I was watching the film, ‘It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World’. It’s a film about a thief who has an accident while running away from the police. Just before he dies, he tells a group of strangers who stopped to help him, that he had hidden the stolen fortune under a ‘Big W’. The strangers race each other to the specified Park, hundreds of kilometres away, each trying to decipher what was meant by the ‘Big W’. Eventually, it dawns upon them that the palm trees in the park form the shape of a big W. For quirky reasons that perhaps only psychoanalysts could tell us, anytime I hear a phrase concerning the letter ‘W’, I visualise the scene in the film when some of the bounty-hunters, in their New York accent, say, ‘It’s the Big Double-Ya’. That was the first building block that sparked the Poirot moment.

The second piece of the puzzle was this sign, posted on the door of IHRB’s vacated Pitt Street office. It reads, ‘We are relocating to 9 Renwick St Leichhardt. Please forward all correspondence to address above. Contact phone no 9221 5300.’ There was another number that had been rubbed out. The office was completely empty. It was the end of an era at Suite 1, Level 5, 105 Pitt Street, Sydney.

The third element was the Australia Post ‘Yellow Express Bag’ that was sent to Victor. It took three months of looking and wondering and thinking and probing and scrutinising. Something was not adding up. Who was sending these bags? Why was the sender ‘Elias Pharmacy’ while the phone number was that of IHRB? How could Elias Pharmacy say that it had never heard of Victor? Many such baffling questions remained unanswered. After feeling pestered by similar intense and annoying queries, the three elements collided, being: 1) The Big W; 2) The relocation sign; and 3) The handwriting on the post bag. It was mental combustion. Poirot would have been proud. When I stopped thinking about Sam and the bottles and the pharmacist, I started to observe the evidence ‘artistically’ and ‘graphically’. It happened one afternoon when I was just staring at the post bag. I was not thinking. I was just looking. And it occurred to me that the ‘W’ seemed familiar to me. I thought, ‘Why does the Big-Double-Ya on this Post Bag beckon me? What is it about this Big-Double-Ya that is suspicious? Where had I seen this handwriting before?’ I could smell a rat. I could not work it out, but I knew I must try. I froze. My phone was ringing, but I ignored it. I did not move a muscle. I realised that something was amiss. If only I knew what I was aching to know. What was it about that Big-Double-Ya on that Yellow bag?

All this time, I was under the misapprehension that the bags were sent by Elias Pharmacy. It’s bad form to labour under misapprehensions. It’s better to dismiss all assumptions. The handwriting hadn’t meant much to me, because I just assumed that it was written by Roberto or one of his staff. At no time did I think that Sam Cohen could be so stupid as to handle medications, considering that he could face a jail sentence if caught! It’s like going to Singapore and not being searched at the airport. Singapore runs one of the most frightening airports, yet it is the fastest to process its passengers. It’s virtually non-stop off the plane and out the door into the city. People importing drugs into Singapore face the death penalty. So why do the Security Guards just let so many people out the door without searching them? I think it’s because the Security Guards do not have to wonder which passenger has smuggled drugs. Rather, they look at each passenger and process a different thought along the lines of, ‘Does this passenger look stupid enough to be prepared to risk the death penalty?’ This is an entirely different way of assessing people. Does this look like a stupid passenger? That’s where I had failed. I thought that Sam Cohen would not be so stupid as to handle/sell/post the medications. Erroneously, I had given Sam Cohen more credit than he deserves. I had released him from my sights, and thus, he was off the radar… until that Big-Double-Ya teased me. Where had I seen that ‘W’ before? I recall seeing that handwriting somewhere… recently… not sure where… search all my paper files… search all my computer files… check the scanned images… inspect the photo files… not sure what I was looking for, but I just knew that I had seen that handwriting very recently on something else. Eureka! It was the relocation sign.

The 'W' written on the relocation sign was in the same handwriting as that on the Yellow Express bags used by IHRB to send out the topical solutions. Note how the middle-point of the W is off-center, nudged to the left. That makes the handwriting unique. After this discovery, I assessed all the other characteristics, and engaged a handwriting expert, and sure enough, same handwriting, now believed to be that of IHRB's receptionist/office manager who I think is the woman who happens to be Sam Cohen's daughter or step-daughter or relative of sorts. I would hazard a guess that her name is Cristy. If indeed it is who I think it is, and if it turns out that any of the bottles sent to Victor (or to any other client) after the Prohibition Orders were in place, then I suspect that Cristy would need urgent independent legal advice, because it would seem to me that Sam Cohen would have implicated her in possible criminal activities, about which she could hardly plead ignorance -- considering her involvement in his affairs, starting from day-one when she called the police after Sam Cohen put his fist to my face.

Victor received this bag, containing a topical solution. This is Sam Cohen's handwriting. The bag no longer hints at a Fairfield address. In broad daylight, Sam Cohen is shipping topical solutions, featuring his new Renwick Street address, with his new phone number.

While I was scooting down a new burrow, wondering about the multitude of irregularities, a new bag arrived for Victor, and this time, it had Sam Cohen’s own handwriting. Oh dear, what more proof did we need than this? The bottles were coming out of IHRB’s office. If they were medications, it would be a criminal offence (and we are soon to receive the lab results). What do those bottles contain? When asked, Sam Cohen said that the bottles do not contain Minoxidil. He alleged they contained Activance with his own secret herbal extracts added by him, personally. We shall find out. They are easy to test in a laboratory. We are just paving the way for the correct legal protocols. I think we are about to see some sparks fly.

The new bags even carry Sam Cohen’s distinctive signature. So how can he deny sending these out? In fact, in an email to Victor, he did not deny it. He admitted it. He merely denied the contents of the bottles. By saying that he was sending Activance with his own unverified secret extracts (while admitting that this was what he had been shipping for over one year), he is saying that he has been conning Victor (and perhaps all his clients) for over one year, charging $225 and $200 for bottles that did not contain what Victor had ordered. What a headache. Either way, it lands Sam Cohen in boiling hot water. Like I said, this is a perfect example of how good news is really very bad news.

NOTICE SENT TO IHRB CLIENTS

Below we see the relocation notices in which Sam Cohen says that he moved due to complaints about parking in the city. Note that he mentions me by name, yet again. Apparently all his woes are my fault.

By the way, notice that the Shampoo listed in the newsletter below is no longer called ‘Organic’ Shampoo. After I exposed his shampoo as being nothing more than detergent, he has dropped the misleading term ‘Organic’ from his sales pitch, although he is still charging way too much, considering it costs him approximately $1.25 per bottle, and you can buy a similar product at the supermarket at 82 cents. You can read more about Sam Cohen’s exorbitant prices here.

BREACHING CTTT ORDERS

The flyer above constitutes ‘direct mail advertising’, and as such breaches the Orders stipulated by the Health Care Complaints Commission which require IHRB to detail the terms of the Orders in all advertising. This flyer is clearly trying to sell therapeutic goods. It does not inform the reader (as it must) that Sam Cohen and IHRB are under Permanent Prohibition Orders. That is yet another breach — not even counting the misleading claims that are being made, such as the alleged 40 years of research. The average person could presume that IHRB is some ‘Institute’ whose employees are in white lab coats, dedicating 40 years of their life ‘researching’. Sam Cohen has never conducted any research, and his products do not exist. He sell nothing. He is a middle man who has invented nothing more than a grand delusion. If he disputes this, just ask him to show you the independent clinical trials. If anyone can show me these independent clinical trials (the real scientific ones conducted by an independent lab), then I will donate $3700 to the Red Cross or the Salvation Army. The challenge is explained in an article which you can read by clicking here.

This ad was published 5 November 2011 in ‘Oz Weekly’ which boasts a circulation of 24,000 nationally. Published every Friday, it is distributed for free at 350 selected outlets as well as inserted into the Saturday edition of the ‘Daily Chinese Herald’ as a supplement. This IHRB ad breaks so many rules, that it points to the real character of the man running this alleged scam. This ad DOES NOT mention, as is required by law, the fact that IHRB and Sam Cohen are BOTH under a Permanent Prohibition Order. Part of the conditions of the Prohibition Order is that he tells people about it when he advertises and when he meets them. He is doing neither. This ad does not reference it. And when he does mention it to anyone in emails or letters, he says something slimy like the HCCC has imposed those rules upon all operators in the hair regrowth industry. Rubbish. Indeed, the law applies to all people. Every person in this country is not permitted to kill anyone. I am not permitted to kill anyone. Yet, I do not have a special letter from the Queen, saying that I am not permitted to kill anyone. Similarly, no one is permitted to break the law, as Sam Cohen did, in relation to the handling of non-approved and scheduled medications. Sam Cohen was found guilty. So he was served with a Prohibition Order. He (not the industry) was served with the Order. He was breaking the law and endangering people’s lives. He was lying to his clients, as he lied to me. So now that he has been issued with an Order, he makes out that everyone in the industry has somehow been roped in. No, everyone in the industry was not raided and found in possession of scheduled medications. He was! For Mr Cohen to suggest that the rest of the industry has to operate in this way, is like me killing ten people, receiving a letter from the Queen prohibiting me from killing anyone, and me making light of the letter by saying, ‘That letter does not mean much really, and should not affect you in any way, and I am as honest as they come, because that silly letter really applies to all people, so it is nothing special, you can ignore it because everyone in this country is not allowed to kill anyone, so why are they sending me such silly letters from Buckingham Palace? The only reason I got that letter was due to some silly man called Jonar who came to me, determined to ruin my business.’

Not only does this Chinese ad deviously and illegally omit the terms of the HCCC Prohibition Order, it includes testimonials from four doctors. This is not permitted. It’s against the law. Full stop. Sam Cohen knows this. But he does not care. He will continue to lie and cheat, because money is lovely — and the authorities just keep on giving him more rope.

The fourth testimonials in Chinese is the misleading one that I had already noted in this separate article. Read and weep.

No respect for anything or anyone. True to form. He will keep on breaking every rule. When the authorities catch him, he will blame the Chinese interpreters or translators or the publishers or the advertising rep or Jonar or Bill Clinton or Ossama Bin Ladin or the computer or the Internet. Each time, he gets away with it, while poor clients are scammed out of thousands and thousands of dollars, so that he can earn money for nothing at all. Money for nothing at all. Wow, that must be so satisfying to make a living selling nothing at all. Nothing at all.

We read, ‘Dear Sir… I would like to congratulate your apparent successful methods for treatment of hair loss. Dr R… Medical Centre.’

Why is this deceptive and misleading and bad and rude and abusive? How is Sam Cohen deliberately trying to deceive the public? As with anything to do with Samuel Faraj Cohen and IHRB, you have to dig deeper and ask questions. When you do this, you will find that everything he has told you is not what you presumed it to be.

That line was carefully edited and placed on the IHRB website under the section called ‘testimonials’, under a heading that reads, ‘Here are just a FEW Success Stories of the hundreds of testimonials I’ve received….’

What would the average person think when reading that line?

1) The comment was feedback from a current or former client. WRONG

2) The comment was from a doctor of a current or former client. WRONG

3) That Dr R has met with (or dealt with) Mr Cohen or IHRB. WRONG

4) That Dr R is saying that Sam Cohen’s methods are successful. WRONG

5) That Dr R has reviewed or tested or examined or understood the IHRB treatment. WRONG

6) Ultimately, that Dr R endorses and approves of Sam Cohen’s treatment for hair loss. WRONG

Sam Cohen is trying to tell us that a doctor from a medical centre endorses the IHRB treatment. This is how Sam Cohen works. He has no regard for the truth.

WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

Let’s examine the source of that note. It was part of a letter that was sent from Dr Rad Naidu of Surry Hills Medical Centre on the 8th of June 2004. That’s over seven years ago. The letter (which you can read below) was an unsolicited sales letter from a doctor who was merely reacting to a misleading advertisement by IHRB, placed in ‘The Daily Telegraph’. The doctor was trying to make contact with Mr Cohen, saying, ‘Our Hair Transplant Clinic has been very successful and surgery is encouraged as a last resort where all other methods have failed. I would like to meet with you so that we could discuss cross-referring patients. I am sure that we would both benefit from this. Your response is appreciated…’

The doctor had never met Mr Cohen. He had never examined any of Mr Cohen’s clients. He had no idea what the IHRB treatment is. He had no idea that the ad was misleading and was later banned by the TGA. The doctor had no idea that Mr Cohen operated unethically and illegally, as was discovered by the Health Care Complaints Commission. The doctor had absolutely no way of knowing anything about IHRB. He was canvassing. He was trying to grow his network. He was trying to grow his business. He took it upon himself to network — to make contact with people in the hair growth industry. He saw the ad in the paper and wrote to ask if the two ought to meet with a view to cross-referring clients.

The opening sentence that says, ‘I would like to congratulate you on your apparent successful methods…’ was a polite, simple, innocent way of starting a letter after seeing the bold lies and deceptive statements made in the newspaper ad. The doctor was just breaking the ice with a compliment, influenced by an ad that was later deemed to be misleading and deceptive, and which was Sanctioned by the Complaints Resolution Panel.

The doctor presumed that IHRB was an ethical business, so he wrote to make contact. Now, over seven years later, Sam Cohen publishes that first sentence on his website, deliberately and blatantly and ruthlessly trying to mislead the public into thinking that a doctor from a medical centre approves of, or recommends or endorses, the IHRB method.

Dear reader, as you can see, this is pure, unadulterated deception.

BREAKING THE CODES

This article reviewed just one of the many testimonials. The rest are dubious too. Here is a brief explanation as to why you cannot believe or trust a single testimonial:

1) The Therapeutic Goods Act (1989) and the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code (2007) clearly state that Therapeutic Goods cannot be endorsed by health professionals. So the implication that doctors are giving IHRB endorsements is illegal. The website constitutes a medium for advertising. It is illegal to use health professionals as those endorsing therapeutic products.

2) I had written to many former clients and I recognise their testimonials and I know who wrote many of them. Some of the people with whom I have spoken told me that they have experienced testicular pain, erectile disfunction, shortness of breath, etc. So to put their name up, and to suggest that they are endorsing IHRB, is misleading because next to their name we need to see their symptoms.

3) Some of the people on the website are now bald. IHRB ought to show us independent reviews of clients and their current condition.

4) None of the testimonials tell us what medications the clients took to achieve any of the hair regrowth. We might find that they took medications that are specifically not approved for hair growth. If IHRB wants to publish an endorsement, let’s see how much each client paid, and what they took, and we will find, as the Health Care Complaints Commission found, that clients were risking their health and wellbeing taking non-approved, dangerous medications — some given non-approved prescription-only medications without any doctor’s prescription.

5) Even if everything else were fine and dandy, and assuming that some of those clients are really happy, we need to ask: how happy would they be when they find out that they have been scammed? If their hair grew as a result of certain non-approved dangerous medications, and those clients were happy to take those risks which include heart failure, what would the clients say when they learn that they were ripped off, paying $900 for a bottle that any pharmacy would have sold to them at $70. Or how would those clients react when they learn that their great results could have been achieved by using those medications bought from any pharmacy at a fraction of the price, not to mention the $4900 starting fee charged by IHRB for nothing at all. How would those endorsements read when clients really understand that IHRB never had any special Indian Curries or exclusive herbs and spices? That was a lie. IHRB had no such curries, which meant that if Minoxidil etc did work for those clients, it worked because they are some of the lucky people for whom Minoxidil does work, and as such, what they were taking could have been ordered from any pharmacist, at a fraction of the price. The supposed natural extracts from IHRB never existed. What would clients say about that? To thank Sam Cohen is to presume that he had done something. He had done nothing. He has no special herbs and no special curries. So he was just a middle man who lied and scammed and operated illegally because he was never permitted to handle or sell medications. The treatment might have worked, but that would have worked thanks to the Minoxidil (available anywhere) and Retin-A (not approved) and Finasteride (could cause permanent erectile disfunction) and Loniten (could cause heart failure), but thanks to the medications, and no thanks to Sam Cohen, so why is he pretending that he has a treatment? He has no treatment. He is forbidden to handle medications or to supply medications, so why is he still in business? The Permanent Prohibition Order placed upon him and his business means that he can’t have anything at all to do with medications. So why is he still selling medications? That is illegal!

6) There are strict Codes about how therapeutic goods can be promoted. Those testimonials break the codes. So why is Sam Cohen still disregarding the law?

SUSPICIOUS TESTIMONIALS

Here is a link about IHRB’s Suspicious Testimonials. Here is a link about the Outrageous Testimonials.

In addition, we now find that after months of investigation, the Complaints Resolution Panel found (in November 2011) that IHRB’s ads are unlawful, misleading, and unverified. Sam Cohen and IHRB, despite the help of their lawyer, were unable to verify a single claim. The Panel noted that the testimonials do not comply with the definition under the Act. You can read the Panel’s Determinations here.

Sam Cohen is now placing ads that say, ‘After 40 years of research…’. What nonsense! Sam Cohen has never spent a single cent on research. If any reputable company says this, we would imagine millions, if not billions, of dollars being spent by dozens of scientists in white lab-coats. Neither Apple nor Google can boast about having spent 40 years of research. Sam Cohen and IHRB have conducted no research, apart from surfing the net and working out which dangerous non-approve medications have been known to cause hair growth as an undesirable by-product of their use. He worked out that very dangerous products like Loniten, which have nothing to do with the treatment of hair, causes most of the heart-patients to experience ghastly and unwanted hair-growth on any part of their body. Sam Cohen was selling Loniten to clients who never had a prescription. Hence the Police raid and the Permanent Prohibition Order. Besides, with or without a prescription, it was illegal for him to sell any medications. And with or without a prescription, Loniten is specifically not approved for hair growth. Besides, it is only a few dollars to buy, so why does he charge thousands of dollars and pretends that his treatment is some super secret that contains his phantom Indian Curries and non-existent herbal extracts? In my opinion, it’s all one con-job with verbal smoke-and-mirrors that would be award-winning if awards were ever given to scam-artists who really dazzle with endless lies that scatter the logic. Sam Cohen’s irreverent (and irrelevant) logic looks to me like someone throwing a bucket-full of glass marbles downhill. The marbles (as in his potentially award-winning slimy brilliant clever horrible logic) scatter all over the place, that we are never able to finish one sentence before another marble come whizzing past to change the subject again and again until no question is ever answered, and all questions are smothered with a thick gooey layer of indignation and a protest made in self-pity as if the world is against Sam Cohen — the innocent scientist who claims to have done us all a favour by dedicated 40 years of his life to research. A friend of mine likened the marble-analogy to herding cats. I did laugh!

Below we see the ads in Vietnamese. There are ads out there in many exotic languages, and each and every single one of them is unlawful, misleading, and unverified, and breaches the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code. You can read about the Complaints Resolution Panel’s Determination that found that the ads are guilty of a neat dozen breaches. Pity any reader. I was one of the readers who was tricked and misled by one of the ads that was Sanctioned in 2008. And now we have fresh new sanctions as at 16 November 2011. (If you would like high-resolution copies of these Vietnamese ads, please click here to download the 14 Mb PDF.)

In this ad above which was featured on the back-page of the magazine, and in the ad below, which was on the inside front-cover, we note that Mr Sam Cohen was telling everyone about me. He mentioned me by name in all his ads, including in ‘The Daily Telegraph’, ‘Nine to Five Magazine’, ‘Negotiator Magazine’, and other foreign-language newspapers such as Chinese and Thai. I responded to his allegations in a special article which you can read about here.

Below is yet another version, showing how desperately Mr Cohen was trying to explain what he does at the Institute of Hair Regrowth & Beauty.