When I learned of this case of alleged identity theft in late 2011, I decided that I would not publish it. I learn a lot about Sam Cohen that remains buried in my files. However, I felt it necessary to bring this to light after the baseless accusations that Mr Cohen levelled at me during a CTTT Group Hearing on 5 March 2012. I was at CTTT Sydney, providing support to a former IHRB client who was alleging that he had been defrauded of $9,900. The former client has been ill for nine years. He asked me if I would represent him. Mr Cohen objected to my representation. Furthermore, in a letter to the Tribunal, Mr Cohen said that he did not even want me in the Hearing room — which goes against the established principles of open Hearings in Courts and Tribunals.

During the Group Hearing of 5 March 2012, for no reason at all, Mr Cohen decided to complain about me (merely to sling mud, because he has nothing else to put forward) by telling the Presiding Member that I was ‘instigating’ his clients. He said that even this particular case involving Mr Jxxx was brought about as a result of me instigating the complaint — as if to suggest that his clients were minding their own business, happy with the world, and had no complaint against Sam Cohen of IHRB, and that I stirred them to make a complaint about him — a complaint which they would not otherwise have contemplated. This accusation is completely false and unfound, as I shall explain later in this article. For now, let’s listen to what Mr Cohen told the member. Click on the grey arrow below to open the audio player and hear the extract from the Group Hearing room. The audio is transcribed below in green.

Mr Sam Cohen: And he instigates my customers.

Presiding Member, Ms Sancia De Jersey: Um, sorry what does he do with your customers?

Mr Sam Cohen: He instigates my customers to come and complain about me. He’s done that in the past, where two or three customers have complained too, to the Health Care Complaints Commission.

Presiding Member, Ms Sancia De Jersey: Okay.

Mr Sam Cohen: And so on. And even this gentleman Mr [Jxxx].

THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK

First of all, I have never instigated any complainant. This type of baseless accusation is typical of how Sam Cohen operates. In any case, the hypocrisy of this kind of accusation is remarkable. All the clients who had complained about him were victims who were upset by the way he mistreated them. Whereas, what he had done by assuming the identity of a client of Ashley & Martin, is typical of Mr Cohen’s disregard for fairness and decency.

One day, a satisfied Ashely & Martin client (let’s call him Bill), made an appointment to see Sam, simply because Bill had seen IHRB’s ads that make outrageous claims. Bill was naturally curious about the many bold claims they made — claims which the Complaints Resolution Panel has Sanctioned, asking IHRB to withdraw them and to publish retractions because the Panel determined that IHRB’s ads have been ‘unlawful, misleading, and verified’. Nonetheless, the wild claims were published in a wide range of publications, claiming that IHRB’s hair regrowth products are the best in the world. It’s no wonder Bill thought to investigate, per chance to discover something new, in view of Sam Cohen’s insistence that he had discovered ‘world leading… state of the art… exclusive secret natural extracts’. Bill figured that he had nothing to lose, and that it makes sense to check-out what’s available on the market.

During the sales meeting, Bill mentioned to Sam that he was a current client of Ashley & Martin. When Bill left Sam Cohen’s office, it is alleged that Sam Cohen lodged a formal complaint with the Health Care Complaints Commission — the very Commission that had thoroughly investigated his illegal practices and issued him, personally, and his company IHRB, with Permanent Prohibition Orders. It is alleged that Sam Cohen fabricated a complaint, using Bill’s identity, in order to lend credence to the fake complaint, to make it look like a real complaint. What was Sam Cohen hoping to achieve? Who knows how his mind ticks! One can only assume that he was tired of being scrutinised by so many Departments (each of whom found him guilty of breaches), that he wanted to deflect attention onto someone else. Maybe he thought that if he were to besmirch the name of his competitors, he might not look so bad, by comparison. Who knows? Anyway, his tactics backfired and no doubt had the opposite effect by further tarnishing his name and reputation with the Health Care Complaints Commission which had already given him a starring role in their Annual Report.

THE BALLY CHEEK

You can see why it was both funny and sad that Sam Cohen would accuse me of ‘instigating’ his clients, when his actions have hypocrisy stamped all over them.

Mr Cohen accused me of going in search of his clients and causing/inciting them to lodge a CTTT complaint; as if to say that I was causing him trouble by sourcing and provoking his clients to complain about him. There is absolutely no basis for this accusation. Mr Cohen makes all sorts of claims that are unfounded. He cannot point to a single case where I had ‘instigated’ the complaint. In each case, either the Applicant had already lodged the CTTT form and had a Hearing-date set, long before I had communicated with them, or the Applicant had made contact with me first. The Applicants had sought me out because they were aggrieved and were in search of justice. This is also true in relation to the current Applicant, Mr Jxxx. He contacted me first. His email to me was thus (typos and errors retained):

‘hi, how are you, im currently on sams mediciation which i have stoped today after discovering this website, ive been paying alot for a few years now, and even when i told him if their was any side effects to his mediciation, he denied all of them, whats my next step, please help, my story goes beyond this, thanks’

During the Group Hearing, after Mr Cohen accused me of ‘instigating’ the complaints against him, I pointed to a man in our Hearing Room whose name is Mr Txxx. He was wearing a cap because he was embarrassed due to being completely bald. I told Tribunal Member Ms De Jersey that the man in the cap was a stranger to me. He had attended as an observer because he also wishes to make a claim against IHRB. I had not instigated Mr Txxx. He had written to me, saying:

‘I spent about $ 10K over 3 years with no benefits. I need to discuss with you and need your help to sue this cheater and recover my money.’

Another former Applicant (Jack) had contacted me saying:

‘I Happened to find your website and was quite upset about alot of what I read. There is so much to read I couldnt get thru most of it. I have been on Ihrb’s treatement for about 9 months now and I am very concerned about the side effects. im not sure about how much hair actually grew but I think there is very little. What I am mostly upset is that if I could have gotten the same results for the price of minoxidl alone. I spent $4000. Is there a way I can get my money back. Thanks so much for being a champion for the people if only there were more people like you in the world we would have less scammers and less victims. Thanks’

I have a long list of similar emails from concerned IHRB victims who speak of being ‘scammed’ and ‘conned’, asking for information about IHRB. Many of them do not pursue Mr Cohen, out of fear or embarrassment.

In speaking with Member De Jersey, Mr Cohen also made reference to the Complainants who made official statements to the Health Care Complaints Commission which served IHRB with Permanent Prohibition Orders. Mr Cohen was telling Ms De Jersey that I had sought-out the Complainants. The HCCC Complainants included:

A) Mr [50] who, long before I had made any contact with him, had engaged a prominent law firm to sue Mr Cohen for medical malpractice that nearly killed Mr [50]. Mr [50] had written to the Commissioner of NSW Fair Trading, long before I had any contact with him.

B) Mr [79] who had written to me saying:

‘…i had to return the bottles to Sam as the Minoxidil started to burn my scalp and at one stage i had to go to Sydney hospital next to where i work… and i had the doctors checking me… I want you to know that im happy to help in any way if i can to bring IHRB and Sam cohen to justice…’

Under no influence from me, Mr [79] decided to visit Mr Cohen and record the conversation using his camera phone. The footage shows that Mr Cohen had sold dangerous non-approved medications to Mr [79], without a doctor’s prescription (and even with a prescription, the sale would have been illegal). When HCCC Commissioner asked Mr Cohen about this transaction, for which the Commissioner had the medications and the credit-card receipt as proof, Mr Cohen lied to the Commissioner, saying that he never sold such products to Mr [79], and Mr Cohen accused Mr [79] of stealing the medications from his office. (Despite video evidence to the contrary!)

C) Philip had already commenced action against Mr Cohen long before I had made contact with him.

D) Other general complainants included Ron and Jack. They both contacted me — not the other way around.

This is a long story, and involves many victims. None were ‘instigated’ by me. I bring this up here to illustrate how Mr Cohen accuses me of somehow waging some vendetta, when each of my statements about him are accurate and supported by evidence, whereas each of his accusations have no foundation and no proof, and are false and misleading.

Indeed, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

By isolating Paragraph 6.20, and submitting it to unsuspecting clients and CTTT Members and CTTT’s Registrar, Mr Cohen had been misleading and deceiving people about the report and its meaning. The paragraph was ambiguous to those who had not read HCCC’s complete report in which the Commissioner had noted that Mr Cohen was ‘not a reliable witness’ and that Mr Cohen’s evidence was ‘self-serving and unreliable’. Whenever anyone asks Mr Cohen to prove the existence of his ‘Indian Curries’ and secret herbal extracts, Mr Cohen points to Paragraph 6.20 and says that HCCC had confirmed their existence. What that paragraph does say is that IF Mr Cohen had indeed added anything, as he claims, then he was doing it outside of the doctor’s prescription. His admission amounts to self-incrimination. That Paragraph was saying that Mr Cohen was tampering with medications by going beyond what the prescription had prescribed!

THE DEVASTATING BOMBSHELL

After bringing Mr Cohen’s deceptive conduct to the Commissioner’s notice, I received a letter signed by the Commissioner, Mr Kieran Pehm, dated 1 March 2012. The letter (extract below) says, ‘…I can confirm that during its investigation the Commission did not conduct tests of the solutions supplied by Mr Sam Cohen and IHRB.’

HOW THE FUSE WAS LIT

My lawyers had sent a letter to Mr Ian Thurgood, the Director of Complaints, at HCCC, asking for clarification about the Paragraph. Below you will see part of the first page of the letter:

Additional material was sent to HCCC, including a large folder containing evidence of how Mr Cohen was misleading and deceiving people and the Authorities about his useless extracts, by abusing and misrepresenting the HCCC Statement of Decision. In part, the letter to HCCC said:

This letter aims to persuade HCCC to answer vital questions about Paragraph 6.20 of the Statement of Decision regarding IHRB.

WHY ARE THE QUESTIONS IMPORTANT?

IHRB is abusing the HCCC Statement of Decision. Paragraph 6.20 of that Decision is turbo-boosting the alleged fraud. HCCC had performed admirably (despite Mr Cohen lying to your Investigators (we have electronic surveillance to prove it)). Sadly, all that excellent work is being tarnished because IHRB is now quoting Paragraph 6.20 in such a way, as to accelerate the alleged lies and to deceive the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT), thereby denying justice to aggrieved IHRB clients.

Paragraph 6.20 is IHRB’s prize. It is a priceless gift that invigorates the alleged scam.

By way of example, consider US stockbroker Mr Bernard Madoff who is now serving a 150-year prison sentence. The Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) investigated alleged fraud, yet failed to spot the irregularities. That incompetent investigation gave Mr Madoff a golden, priceless piece of paper that he showed to clients, saying that the SEC had found him to be compliant. That golden piece of paper turbo-boosted the fraud, which raised Madoff’s profile and attracted US$65 billion in investments. Victims said that they were convinced that Madoff was an honest man, because the SEC found him to be compliant.

In a similar way, Paragraph 6.20 is IHRB’s golden, priceless paragraph that turbo-boosts the alleged fraud…

Although HCCC is primarily concerned with health matters, and although fraud is a commercial (Fair Trading) matter, may I point to HCCC’s publication called, ‘Code of Conduct for unregistered health practitioners’ which points to certain requirements that are commercial in nature. IHRB disregards several Codes, which I have outlined in Appendix 6. Briefly, IHRB’s claims about its products cannot be substantiated. For this reason, IHRB is using Paragraph 6.20 to trick clients and CTTT. In fact, the Complaints Resolution Panel gave IHRB every opportunity to verify its claims, yet IHRB was unable to verify or substantiate a single claim. As a result, on 16 November 2011, the Panel found IHRB in breach of 12 Sections. The Panel found IHRB’s claims to be, ‘unlawful, misleading, and unverified’. So much so, that the Panel asked IHRB to publish retractions. Thus far, IHRB has refused to comply with the Sanctions. Similar Sanctions in 2008 were ignored by IHRB for 22 months.

HOW IHRB IS ABUSING PARAGRAPH 6.20

Paragraph 6.20 states (my emphasis added):

‘The pharmacist compounds the topical solution to the requirements of Mr Cohen which in the case of minoxidil is between 5% and 17% concentration depending on the order, with retin A added. These “Topical Solutions” are compounded according to IHRB specifications and the solution includes a number of other herb extracts which are added. These ingredients are over and above what has been written on the doctor’s prescription.’

Paragraph 6.20 needs urgent clarification, as I shall outline later in this letter. First, please note that IHRB’s Managing Director Mr Sam Cohen, who is unable to verify a single claim, has been telling his clients and CTTT (to disadvantage his victims) that his secret extracts do exist, and he backs-up his claims by saying that HCCC has confirmed their existence. When asked about the ingredients (which he is required by law to list on his bottles), Mr Cohen says that he does not wish to divulge the ingredients, but says that HCCC has been furnished with the list of ingredients.

The following are examples of how Mr Cohen makes these claims, which disadvantage victims who allege that Mr Cohen has deceived them about the topical solution for which Mr Cohen charges more than ten-times the market-price (after the initial sign-on fee listed at $4,900). For example, a Minoxidil product that retails at under $20, is sold by IHRB at $220. Another Minoxidil product that retails at $70, is sold by IHRB at $900, claiming that the high prices relate to the inclusion of IHRB’s secret extracts. I assert that Mr Cohen is breaching Codes 10, 11, & 12 of the ‘Code of Conduct for unregistered health practitioners’.

Appendix 9 — In an email dated 1 November 2011, Mr Cohen said that his ingredients are known to HCCC, and that ‘The HCCC has a copy of the break up… and [HCCC] have acknowledged this in their “[Prohibition] order”.’

Appendix 10 — In a letter to the Registrar at CTTT, Mr Cohen disputes his client’s (Mr Rxxx) allegations that the extracts do not exist. Mr Cohen quotes Paragraph 6.20, using it as proof that HCCC has acknowledged the existence of the secret extracts.

Appendix 11 — In a letter from Mr Cohen to me, presumably written so that Mr Cohen can send a copy to a Dr Axxx, Mr Cohen defends the existence of his secret extracts by saying that, ‘Even the HCCC has stated this in their final order…’.

Appendix 12 — In an email dated 24 October 2011, Mr Cohen says that his Topical Solution contains his natural extracts which, ‘Even The HCCC acknowledged this…’ Mr Cohen then says, ‘extract attached’ which referred to a PDF attachment showing Paragraph 6.20 which Mr Cohen was furnishing as proof that HCCC has confirmed the existence of his secret extracts.

Appendix 13 — In an email of 31 Oct 2011 to Mr Jxxx, Mr Cohen refers to agreements (signed by his pharmacists Messrs Cxxx and Fxxx) which pertain to, ‘…adding my secret additives and acknowledged by the HCCC…’ One of those manufacturing agreements is included as Appendix 14. When the agreement was shown to the pharmacist Mr Cxxx, he responded saying that he regretfully signed that agreement prior to receiving or inspecting the secret extracts. When Mr Cxxx finally received the secret extracts, he said that he became suspicious and he never used them in any of his topical solutions. In response, Mr Cohen accused Mr Cxxx of lying. A similar response was received from Mr Fxxx, saying that he only ever added Vitamin-A and a grape-seed extract to Minoxidil for a period of only one month, saying that the two ingredients provided no therapeutic effect for hair growth, and that the grape-seek extract contained no active ingredients, and which caused the Minoxidil to crystallise and become useless. Mr Fxxx has confirmed that none of the ingredients was exclusive; saying they cost no more than one or two dollars.

Appendix 17 — After being shown proof that Messrs Cxxx and Fxxx claimed not to have used or been aware of the physical existence of any secret/exclusive extracts, Mr Cohen wrote, ‘They are lying if they deny the addition of my additives. I have it in writing and the HCCC has also acknowledged this.’

Appendix 18 — In a case against his client at CTTT, Mr Cohen submitted a letter to the Registrar, claiming that his topical solution is unique, and to which he adds his ‘secret formula or natural extracts…’ He then says, ‘To maintain its secrecy, I will show agreements from my past two chemists to the presiding member or judge. Even the HCCC’s.’ Yet, a year prior, when I summonsed IHRB to provide proof of the existence of the secret extracts for my CTTT case that extended to 383 days, Mr Cohen refused to return the summons.

It is important to clarify Paragraph 6.20 about natural extracts being added. Here are the kinds of questions that surface:

A) The Statement of Decision was written after the investigation, following a police raid. In relation to the bottles that were seized, were any of those bottles sent out for independent testing by an external Accredited laboratory? If independent tests were not conducted by HCCC, then on what basis does HCCC say that the extracts were added? Merely on the say-so of Mr Cohen? Or was the Investigator saying that he later learned that IHRB does have some topical solution which it claims to be exclusive and secret? Was the Investigator shown any scientific reports or clinical trials that prove that these extracts are owned by IHRB, and that they contain active ingredients that produce proven therapeutic results in terms of regrowing hair? (Clients who attest to successful hair regrowth would have used commercially-available medications such as Minoxidil, Finasteride, Loniten, and Retin-A (all found during the police raid)). Also, how would supposed secret extracts find their way inside the bottles given that no doctor ever listed them in a prescription? Earlier bottles from [the first] Pharmacy were tamper-proof, and Mr Cxxx said that he never added any extracts (Appendix 15), so how could anything have entered the bottles? Yet, Mr Cohen is telling CTTT that the ingredients were included, and he accuses the pharmacists of lying, and he backs-up his claims by saying that HCCC has confirmed the existence of these extracts inside his bottles. On what basis is HCCC confirming the existence of secret natural extracts inside the bottles that were seized? Keep in mind that certain old stocks still exists to test these claims in a court.

B) Pharmacist Mr Fxxx (Appendix 16) said that he only added the extracts (which he says had no therapeutic effect and no active ingredients, and which were not exclusive to Mr Cohen) for one month in March 2010. Yet the police raid took place 22 September 2010. It is likely that any bottles tested by HCCC would have been compounded after April 2010. The pharmacist is denying adding the (non-exclusive and useless) extracts beyond March 2010, so what could have been in those bottles? Even the third pharmacist (Elias Pharmacy) only points to useless Vitamins being added (Appendix 20). If indeed HCCC had verified the existence of herbal or natural extracts in any of the tested bottles, it is incumbent upon HCCC to please clarify what was found inside the bottles. This would be no secret, because labelling laws require a therapeutic product to list the ingredients. Mr Cohen has been breaking the law by not listing the ingredients. If HCCC’s independent laboratory tests revealed the inclusion of additional extracts, it would not be a breach of confidence for HCCC to outline the ingredients, given that IHRB is admitting to the extracts, and TGA laws require the labels on therapeutic products to include the ingredients. If HCCC is satisfied that the extracts were exclusive and effective, then perhaps it can now say so, even without divulging any corporate secrets. If HCCC does not specify the ingredients, IHRB will continue to deceive its clients because Mr Cohen and HCCC both refer to ‘herb extracts’ in a general nondescript sense, which, given how Mr Cohen has been advertising that they are the best in the world (Appendix 7), tends to attribute almost magical world-exclusive powers to these supposed herbs that are referenced alongside client testimonials and photos that were found to be deceptive, and found by the Complaints Resolution Panel to be unlawful, misleading, and unverified (despite a lengthy submission by IHRB via its lawyer to argue against the Sanctions (Appendix 8)).

C) Furthermore, even if the ingredients were discovered by HCCC, it would need to inform the public about whether or not HCCC is acknowledging that the extracts are in fact the intellectual property of IHRB, because Paragraph 6.20 currently gives the impression that the added extracts do belong to IHRB.

D) Paragraph 6.20 also says, ‘The pharmacist compounds the topical solution to the requirements of Mr Cohen…’ Has this been verified? Mr Cxxx who served IHRB for approximately nine years, has denied ever doing anything outside of the doctor’s prescription. A 50-page report (available upon request) that accuses Mr Cxxx of malpractice was sent to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). AHPRA investigated Mr Cxxx and found that he had not breached any of the Codes. I then asked the CEO of AHPRA to take a second look at the report. The CEO asked his Special Counsel to investigate and found that despite the dozens of accusations and the 50-page report, Mr Cxxx was not in breach. Yet, for HCCC to stand by Paragraph 6.20, an average reader could presume that a pharmacist like Mr Cxxx was in fact compounding illegally. Has HCCC confirmed that Mr Cxxx had compounded illegally? This is significant because Mr Rxxx and Mr Jxxx and I (along with the other complainants) straddle the period when our bottles were supplied via Mr Cxxx. Mr Cohen already used Paragraph 6.20 against Mr Rxxx at CTTT. Mr Jxxx will lodge a complaint with CTTT in January 2012, and he would no doubt have to argue against Mr Cohen’s use of Paragraph 6.20 which I imagine would be seen as strong evidence in favour of Mr Cohen, because HCCC holds a certain amount of credibility in these matters.

E) Did HCCC verify that Mr Cxxx and/or Mr Fxxx were ignoring the doctor’s prescription and taking instructions from Sam Cohen, who was never licensed to direct any of the medications? Has HCCC confirmed that Mr Fxxx added the secret extracts for more than one month? Most of the products that contained the grape-seed extract had crystallised, rendering them useless and were returned by clients. So, on what basis can HCCC confirm that, in the entire nine-year period, IHRB had been adding the extracts? Mr Fxxx was only new on the scene. Without a statement from Mr Cxxx, how can HCCC make a sweeping statement which readers could assume related to all of IHRB’s business period? Mr Jxxx, the 23-year-old former IHRB client who is soon to lodge a CTTT complaint alleging being scammed out of $9,900, was a client during the days when IHRB was still using the services of Mr Cxxx. We note from evidence (available upon request) that Mr Jxxx had a prescription for ONE bottle of Minoxidil with Retin-A, yet Mr Jxxx walked out of Mr Cohen’s office carrying 12 bottles of Schedule-4 medication, and we discovered that six months later, the prescription was illegally altered by someone (presumably Mr Cohen), and 12 bottles were dispensed and sent to IHRB (presumably the patient labels were peeled and the bottles sold illegally to another unsuspecting client (in the same way I was illegally sold such bottles for $3,700 without a prescription). In presenting his case at CTTT, Mr Jxxx will no doubt need to argue against Paragraph 6.20 that, to an average reader, does not make it clear that HCCC is speaking about certain bottles from a narrow period of time. A sweeping statement by HCCC puts the victim at a disadvantage, and this could lead to injustice, as I have already seen take place during other hearings!

F) Also we read in Paragraph 6.20 that, ‘These ingredients are over and above what has been written on the doctor’s prescription.’ Is HCCC saying that the pharmacists broke the law and added active ingredients that were over-and-above the doctor’s requirements? Or is HCCC saying that IHRB broke the law and tampered with medications? Paragraph 6.20 is most unclear and is very problematic.

I suspect that Paragraph 6.20 was merely paraphrasing what Mr Cohen had told investigators. I do not believe that it was categorically describing what the investigators had confirmed to be true. I think that Mr Cohen was merely giving his version of events, and that the paragraph was simply outlining the scenario that Mr Cohen had provided amidst a complex investigation that uncovered wide-ranging irregularities.

In a recent email (Appendix 12) Mr Cohen adds another complication by telling his client that he was only using Activance (a product available from most hairdressers). The manufacturer of Activance is Mr Cxxx who told me that Activance is an unstable product (which does not re-grow hair, anyway), meaning that anything added to it would most probably cause more harm than good, because of the ways in which the chemicals react. Mr Cxxx told me that in the case of Minoxidil, anyone adding herbs and extracts could well be rendering the Minoxidil ineffective (as Mr Fxxx found out (Appendix 16) saying, ‘I had concerns about their effect on the solubility and stability [crystallisation] of the product.’). So Paragraph 6.20 is saying that herb extracts were added, without noting what this would have meant in chemical/pharmacological terms; and if such additions would have resulted in ineffective products. For these reasons, Paragraph 6.20, when presented to a lay-person such as a Tribunal Member, omits to highlight the many possible issues surrounding the chemical consequences of adding herb extracts to Minoxidil or Activance. (During the police raid, investigators might have noticed a box in IHRB’s storeroom which was labelled ‘Rhodanide’. The main ingredient of Activance is Rhodanide. Mr Cohen had told Mr Jxxx that his monthly fee of $220 was for Minoxidil. When Mr Jxxx queried how this was possible in view of the Prohibition Orders, Mr Cohen changed his story and claimed to have been selling Activance.)

WHAT ARE WE TOLD ABOUT THE SECRET EXTRACTS?

Appendix 19 — When Mr Jxxx advised Mr Cohen that he was suffering from chronic fatigue and he needed to know the ingredients for health reasons, Mr Cohen wrote, ‘As a special case I can inform you that the solution basically contains 5% Minoxidil + 0.025% Vitamin.A + 5% Vitamin B in a Propylene Glycol and Alcohol base.’ Vitamins A and B would not comprise intellectual property. They would hardly add two dollars to any bottle. These have not been known to re-grow hair. Here Mr Cohen is clearly outlining the ingredients and, by his own admission, they do not include anything that can be called a natural extract in the ways that he elsewhere advertises.

Appendix 20 — Mr Cohen has said different things at different times, alleging Vitamin E, along with ‘12 to 13’ additional herbal extracts. When a former IHRB client (Mr Lxxx) wrote to Mr Cohen’s current pharmacist (Elias Pharmacy) asking about the added extras, Mr Elias Juanas replied, ‘The formula also contains Vit B5 5% and Vit A 0.025%’. Using a (dubious) glowing client-testimonial dated 12 August 2011 (Appendix 21), which Mr Cohen sent to Mr Jxxx 31 October 2011, we see that Mr Cohen is keen for people to know that he has, ‘…secret 12 natural extracts…’. The inconsistencies cause many issues. A hair regrowth formula is a therapeutic product which must list the ingredients, yet Mr Cohen never lists them, because I assert that no effective ingredients exist.

DESIRED RESPONSE FROM HCCC

In view of how Mr Cohen and IHRB are abusing Paragraph 6.20, I plead with HCCC to please clarify its position, because a Mr Jxxx has been trying to raise his concerns with IHRB for six months, and he has been lied to. He is on a pension and can hardly afford the legal expenses thus far incurred. A CTTT hearing will be sought in January 2012. It is anticipated that at the hearing, Mr Cohen will reference Paragraph 6.20. Mr Cxxx has agreed to fly from Melbourne to act as a witness, stating that he never compounded any of Mr Cohen’s supposed natural extracts. We need to iron-out any contradictions before the hearing.

Mr Jxxx is 23 years old. He suffers from chronic fatigue. He says that Mr Cohen always told him that there are no side-effects to his topical solutions. Mr Jxxx alleges to have been scammed out of $9,900. Personally, I have spent two years monitoring Mr Cohen, and from my perspective, I believe that Mr Jxxx does have a valid claim. Having attended several CTTT hearings during which former clients argue helplessly against Mr Cohen’s brazen lies and fabricated evidence, I anticipate that Mr Cohen will lie, fabricate evidence, and point to Paragraph 6.20 while accusing the pharmacists of lying. With due respect, I have observed Tribunal Members somewhat unable to pierce through Mr Cohen’s barrage of lies, because they have not cottoned-on to his modus operandi, and each case is heard by a different Member, depriving the Applicant of serious probing.

THE QUESTIONS TO HCCC ARE SIMPLE

At the time that the Statement of Determination was published on 22 February 2011, had HCCC conducted independent laboratory tests to prove that the extracts do exist inside the bottles that were seized? Were herb extracts found inside those bottles at that time? If lab results had discovered the extracts, were they anything other than Vitamins A, B, or E and perhaps a hair dye or grape-seed extracts — all of which have never been proved to re-grow hair? Does HCCC confirm that the extracts, whatever they were, are clinically proven to regrow hair? Please confine your response to products tested within the timeframe from the date of the raid to the 22nd of February 2011. And please do not forget that we are NOT talking about the herbal Saw Palmetto tablets that were separate tablets (which Mr Cxxx and the ‘New England Journal of Medicine’ both acknowledge have been shown to be ineffective in terms of hair regrowth). HCCC must confine its response to the topical liquid solutions. Even so, there were two types of topical solutions. One that contained Minoxidil, and another non-medical version which I allege was used by IHRB as part of the scam to obfuscate the client-contract. That is another long story which I would be happy to explain. However, if herbs were found, were they in the non-medical version topical solution or in the Minoxidil version? This is a significant difference which I would be happy to explain upon request.

…

CONCLUSION

This letter is simply trying to clarify some issues that cause a lot of aggravation to victims with whom I speak almost on a daily basis. From my experience, IHRB is still abusing clients. Mr Cohen is still fabricating evidence and is denying his clients justice. I can put you in touch with recent victims if you require evidence of the currency and recency of these issues.

The average consumer has no power to compel Mr Cohen to answer questions. When matters go to CTTT, most Applicants (with whom I can put you in touch, if you wish to hear their sad stories) feel bamboozled and deceived. The forthcoming case involving 23-year-old Mr Jxxx has taken over six months of exhausting work because every email that Mr Jxxx sends to Mr Cohen, is returned with different stories and more lies which send us on wild chases. The current sets of lies (which I have not even alluded to in this document) are evident, stunning, and outrageous. I have spared you those stories so as to keep this letter as short as possible.

In pleading with you to clarify this situation, I am neither trying to harm Mr Cohen nor abuse your valuable time. I have no vendetta against Mr Cohen. This is a practical, urgent request that has arisen due to Mr Cohen unjustly and unfairly confusing Tribunal Members at CTTT, and denying his victims justice.

Mr Jxxx’s forthcoming case will hinge on the question of whether or not the secret extracts did exist, and if they were effective in regrowing hair.

…Given how IHRB is abusing Paragraph 6.20 and how I have seen Mr Cohen use that Paragraph to his advantage in hearings at CTTT, it falls on you to please consider that your great work a HCCC is being manipulated. HCCC has unintentionally handed Mr Cohen a golden opportunity to accelerate this alleged scam. (Interestingly, apart from the dollar amounts, there are striking similarities between the Madoff case and the IHRB case, in terms of the difficulties in trying to raise the alarm, and the psychology behind the manipulation, and the reasons why few victims care to come forward and admit to having been scammed. In the case of hair-loss, many victims who contact me are too embarrassed to reveal to their spouse or the public that they were seeking treatment. As a result, most dare not complain — making it difficult for the precious few who are brave enough to ring the alarm bells.)

I would be happy to speak with you at any time…

Yours faithfully

If you do not have the bandwidth to watch this video, here is the audio only.

The last words Sam Cohen uttered to camera were, ‘Wow, I think I’m famous now’. How sad. Mr Cohen’s print advertisements (that would number in the hundreds) contain headline text that bags his competitors by saying that his competitors’ unethical conduct has been ‘documented on Today Tonight, A Current Affair and in newspapers.’

Sam has been pointing the finger at others who have been exposed. And now he joins their infamous ranks. He, too, has been exposed, and as I have said before, every warning that Mr Cohen has made about others, really applies to him and IHRB. This investigative report by Channel 7 completes the shameful cycle of finger pointing. Now Sam Cohen HAS been featured on Today Tonight, in the same way that his underhanded competitors have been exposed. Now he is a bird of the same feather.

Anyway, this TV segment on ‘Today Tonight’ is but the tip of the iceberg. A better way to say it is, ‘We have not even scratched the surface’. There is more to come. The Channel 7 TV report focussed on the medical aspects. We will soon have to address the consumer-affairs aspect of the scam.

What baffles me is how a human can continue to spin the lies even after being shown that he has been rumbled. After all this exposure, the 66 articles of evidence on this site, and a police raid (more on that later after certain legal hurdles have been cleared) and on-going investigations (more on those later), Mr Sam Cohen cannot, for one microsecond, say ‘Yes I was wrong, yes I have lied, yes I have given out prescription medications without a prescription, yes I conned people, yes there are no Indian Curries…’ Why oh why can’t he just realise that we already know? I really am fascinated by this human condition. It is bemusing and gripping, psychologically and strategically. A liar can get away with it when no-one else knows. But we all know. The evidence is clear and simple. Additional lies just prove to us all why IHRB must be shut down! But the shutting-down will not be the end of it. It will be the beginning. Mr Cohen still has to make-good. He has to pay back the money he has scammed and the expenses he has cost me and others in chasing him to honour the absurd money-back guarantee that he plasters everywhere. Why offer a guarantee when he has never paid up. He abuses people and swears at them and in my case, threatened to smash my ‘effing face in.

I used to feel a little sorry for the man. But after attending hearings and seeing all the evidence and watching how he treats me and his clients during legal proceedings, I am appalled at his disregard for other people’s life, sanity, money, health, and justice. Not a scrap of scruples. Not a single shred of remorse. Anything that does not suit him can be covered-up with lies and fabricated documents.

There are other avenues. The engines are running. The alarm bells are ringing. My team and I shall not stop until Mr Cohen starts to tell the truth. The more he lies, the more we are determined.

P.S. Note that David Richardson, the investigative reporter, asked Mr Cohen, ‘Are you licensed to dispense pharmaceuticals?’ To which Mr Cohen replied, with cameras staring him in the face, knowing that he is going on public record, on national television, ‘I am authorised to.’ Sam Cohen has just said that he is authorised to dispense pharmaceuticals. I can bet London to a brick that he is not authorised in any shape or form. This is an example of how bold he is on national television. Imagine the other lines he spins to poor unsuspecting clients in the privacy of his office! I know it first hand.

TRANSCRIPT OF TODAY TONIGHT’S TV SEGMENT

Host: More than five million Australian men suffer hair loss and worry that they’re going bald and many spend thousands of dollars on remedies to stop or reverse the process but it leaves them a target for rip-off merchants. Here’s David Richardson with an exclusive investigation that led to police raids to shut one operated down.

David Richardson: Mr. Cohen, good morning. David Richardson Today Tonight, wondering if we can ask you a couple of questions please about your business.

Sam Cohen: Yes.

David Richardson: Are you licensed to dispense pharmaceuticals, sir?

Jonar Nader: I think he ought to be shut down. He’s a danger to society.

David Richardson: It will hit more than half the men in this country; more than five and a half million. In women, more than two million will have major problems. And the billion dollar industry that’s sprouted up promising miracle cures and restoring self-esteem is full of shonks.

You’re dispensing product …

Sam Cohen: No, I’m not.

David Richardson: You are. You’re dispensing products with other people’s names on them to different clients.

Sam Cohen: No, I’m not.

David Richardson: I have seen them, sir.

Sam Cohen: No, I’m not.

David Richardson: This man claims he’s offering the only legitimate treatment around.

Jonar Nader: It is smoke and mirrors, but it’s more than that. It’s actually dangerous medication entering your body that you don’t know about.

David Richardson: Jonar Nader should know. Like millions of others, he’s suffering male pattern baldness. He saw a full page ad promising hair regrowth or his money back guaranteed. The ad was placed by the Institute of Hair Regrowth and Beauty and its owner, Sam Cohen.

Jonar Nader: Well, he’s clever you see. He doesn’t say, “I cure baldness.” He says, “There is no cure for baldness.” He says, “However, my treatment works all the time.” I lost $3,700. I lost at least $12,000 plus rashes and scars.

David Richardson: A former computer company executive and paid public speaker, Jonar Nader, gave Sam Cohen a false name and address [JN: correction, I only gave him a false name. He had my real address and number, and he was paid in full.] when he visited his Inner City clinic. He was suspicious of the hair institute owner.

Jonar Nader: Well actually, I walked into Sam’s office and he gave me twelve bottles of these which I later realised he should never have touched.

David Richardson: The bottle was Minoxidil, a drug used around the world to stop hair loss and promote hair regrowth, but it doesn’t work in every one.

Jonar Nader: Minoxidil over the years has been known to help 33% of people to regrow hair, 33% of other people, it only stops hair loss, and 33% of people, it does nothing at all, it’s just like water.

David Richardson: Jonar claims he was also given someone else’s prescribed medication, something a lot stronger and potentially more dangerous.

Jonar Nader: He had labels on his products that have someone else’s name on them. So, if your name is David, this might say, John Smith, and it has someone else’s doctor on it.

David Richardson: And these were the side effects to some clients, angry rashes, itchy red scalps, sometimes open sores, because the hair regrowth chemicals had been mixed with Retin-A.

Jonar Nader: The initial ones he gave me, he said, “If you get a rash or if you get itchy scalp, let us know.” But it doesn’t say that you can get fluid retention. It doesn’t say that you can get heart failure. It doesn’t say that you can have hair loss.

David Richardson: These are the warnings people should have got. For finasteride or Proscar, impotence and decreased libido, breast tenderness and enlargement, and the risk of male breast cancer, even depression. For Loniten or its generic name, Minoxidil, possible heart problems, fluid retention, weight gain, and problems with making blood cells.

Did you ever receive a warning or were you ever told that any of these things may have side effects?

John Liodakis: No, no.

David Richardson: John Liodakis paid $3,400 for his treatment, again, lured by the promise of a money-back guaranty. Did you grow one follicle of hair?

John Liodakis: I did not. Absolutely not.

David Richardson: Nothing?

John Liodakis: Nothing.

David Richardson: But John can’t get back one cent.

John Liodakis: Now, I know he’s a liar and all his claims were false.

David Richardson: Does this man have a license to prescribe drugs?

Jonar Nader: No.

David Richardson: Does he have a license to distribute drugs?

Jonar Nader: Not at all, of any shape.

Sam Cohen: I don’t approve the finasteride. I send them to the doctor and I say, “If you find them fit, would you please make a prescription?” he brings the prescription to me. We order it from our chemist and we supply them.”

David Richardson: It’s a gray area but Sam Cohen admits he refers his patients with a letter requesting a doctor to write out a prescription for the various drugs. He then has it filled with his chemist and he hands it out.

Sam Cohen: I am doing this for forty years.

David Richardson: But are you licensed to dispense pharmaceuticals?

Sam Cohen: Yes, because I’m authorised to.

David Richardson: Within days of Today Tonight’s involvement in this story, police raided Sam Cohen’s Institute of Hair Regrowth and Beauty. They seized a large quantity of prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications brought out of the building in large evidence bags and loaded into the back of a waiting Paddy wagon.

If everything was kosher…

Sam Cohen: Yes.

David Richardson: …why did the police raid your property and take away boxes of drugs?

Sam Cohen: Because of him. He said that I’m giving people without prescription.

Jonar Nader: And he also spins lies and yet he’s so clever because he’s been getting away with for years, if not decades.

David Richardson: He’s not getting away with it anymore. The Health Department has now banned the institute from dispensing any prescription drugs and issued a national health warning. Health Complaints Investigators are now also involved. Sam Cohen says he will fight on.

Thank you

Sam Cohen: Wow, I think I’m famous now.

P.S. IHRB is the name of the Institute of Hair Regrowth and Beauty run by Sam Cohen of 105 Pitt Street Sydney. It is also written as Institute of Hair Regrowth & Beauty or Institute of Hair Re-growth & Beauty.

The Health Care Complaints Commission issued this statement on its website on the 23rd of February 2011.

You can learn more here.

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.

[UPDATE: The Panel was fed up with Sam Cohen's recalcitrance, that it escalated the breaches to the federal Secretary to the Department of Health in Canberra. Click here to read about this development.]

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.

On 23 February 2012, the Executive Officer of the Complaints Resolution Panel sent a letter to the Department of Health and Ageing in Canberra, asking the Federal Secretary of the Department to ‘order IHRB to comply with all the requests made in the determination’. The Panel sent a huge file to the Department, so that Mr Samuel Cohen can be handled at a Federal level, because it seems that he has no respect for any of the State bodies. The Executive Officer told Canberra that Mr Cohen was given 14 days to show evidence of compliance, and added, ‘A response to the determination has not been received.’ To keep an eye on how many days Mr Samuel Faraj Cohen and the Institute of Hair Regrowth & Beauty stays in breach of the Sanctions, click here for the daily counter.

Last week, on Wednesday 22 February 2012, Mr Cohen modified his website by uploading MORE lies which directly Breach the very Codes that the Determination highlighted. Instead of pulling his head in, he stuck his neck out. Instead of saying ‘Sorry I misled and decided everyone’ his actions amount to saying, ‘Stuff you mate, here’s even more of the same’. Also last week, he snubbed the Health Care Complaints Commission by removing any reference on his website that he is under a Permanent Prohibition Order. Click here to learn about that saga.

Also last week, two former IHRB clients contacted me. One said, ‘Hi, I’m concerned about losing my hair (female) and signed up for treatment from Sam… based on the 100% money back guarantee… what a great offer. What did I stand to lose??? Same old story… I found the products irritating, and the hygiene products had terrible results in my hair… so I returned them all. Sam offered a modified topical solution… without any positive results. I have requested a full refund… over the phone and in writing numerous times. Was intending to try again today… this has been ongoing for a longtime (18 months), when I found this website… to my horror! $3,900 is also a LOT of money to me… however it’s at the stage that I wonder if it’s best to give-up as the stress of fighting for a refund is not going to help my hair loss! What do you advise is my best way to proceed…? Thanks, good luck.’

After contacting me, this first victim phoned Sam Cohen who, according to the victim, said that he would be happy to meet with her. A week later, when she called to make an appointment, Sam Cohen said that his wife was ill and he had to take her to hospital. This surprised me because sources close to Sam Cohen have told me that he was estranged from his wife. So the victim suggested the following Monday, being 5 March 2012. The victim said that Sam said that he cannot meet with her then, because he is travelling to Melbourne. Now that does sound like a lie to me because Mr Cohen has been called to appear at the at the Consumer, Tenancy and Trader Tribunal (CTTT) on that very Monday in relation to a 21-year-old victim who alleges that Sam Cohen scammed him out of almost $10,000. So I do not know how Mr Cohen can be Melbourne. We shall see.

The second victim who contacted me last week, said, ‘I spent about $10,000 over 3 years with no benefits. I need to discuss this with you and need your help to sue this cheater and recover my money.’

Upon interviewing this second victim, I learned that if this victim’s story is correct, Sam Cohen would have been selling medications to this victim in a way that would prove that Sam Cohen has yet again committed a criminal offence by breaching the Health Care Complaints Commission’s serious Permanent Prohibition Orders. If Mr Cohen can somehow prove that he did not Breach the Orders, then he would be guilty of deceiving and lying to the victim when he led the victim to believe that he was selling medications for which the victim paid $10,000. The convoluted nature of this merry-go-round is explained here. This second victim sent an email to Mr Sam Cohen and IHRB, in which he said:

Dear Mr Cohen,

As you know I have been a client of yours since 2009. During this time, I have paid you over $11,500.00 for a hair regrowth program that you told me was exclusive to you, containing your special herbs and curries which you led me to believe were world-exclusive ‘Indian Curries’ that are supposed to be natural extracts, which you told me were the central secret ingredients, without which, your treatment and medications would not work. You said that people have taken Minoxidil for years, and they have seen no improvement, but with your special added secret extracts, we are guaranteed results.

I now learn that your secret extracts do not exist. And anything that you do claim to have injected into your formula was useless. I also know that [pharmacist] Mr Cxxx had made a statement that he never used your formula in the bottles you sold to me. And [pharmacist] Mr Fxxx said that he only used your grape-seed extract and vitamins for one month, and that these were useless, had no active ingredients, and no therapeutic effect for hair growth. So all this time I believe you have been lying to me. I believe that I have been scammed. Your price list shows bottles at $600 and later $900 for which you were charging me around $500 at a supposed discount. But even these bottles were easily obtained from the market at $15 to $70 depending on the strength. And all this time, you were never licensed to sell these medications anyway. And you only ever had one prescription from me, yet you continued to sell me medications for approximately three years. No prescription lasts three years.

I also now realise that you have been selling me medications throughout the periods when you were under serious Prohibition Orders, which makes your transactions a criminal offence. You might now allege that after October 2010 you had sold me only non medical products, in which case it is still a fraud because that is not what I had been paying $500-odd dollars for, for each bottle. To now say that you were selling me non-medical product at around $500 per bottle I allege is still a scam, and not what I was ordering from you.

Anything you wish to claim now about the ingredients will be tested in a laboratory with the solutions I have left.

The smoothest and simplest thing is for you to acknowledge your wrongdoing and refund me my money in full so that we do not make a big issue out of this.

If you do not wish to refund my money, I will take the matter further, to seek legal action to put my case forward. I believe I have strong evidence that proves my allegations that you have scammed me.

I would appreciate a response or a refund within 7 days.

Sincerely.

This gentleman then reported to me that upon phoning IHRB about this matter, Mr Cohen ‘denied all wrongdoing’ and refused to give this victim a refund. This could well escalate into another sad story that might play out at yet another CTTT hearing. I shall keep you posted.

If the State bodies cannot contain the unruly Mr Cohen and IHRB, let’s see what the Feds can do with incessant disregard to the law.

The Health Care Complaints Commission issued this statement on its website on the 23rd of February 2011. It said:

On 22 February 2011 the Health Care Complaints Commission concluded its investigation into Mr Samuel Cohen and the Institute of Hair Regrowth and Beauty (IHRB).

Under section 41A(2) of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, the Commission has made a prohibition order and has decided to issue the following public statement:

The Health Care Complaints Commission (the Commission) conducted an investigation into Mr Samuel Cohen and the Institute of Hair Regrowth and Beauty (IHRB).

The investigation found that Mr Cohen has been supplying and selling prescription and non prescription pharmacy-only medication directly to his clients and has been supplying clients with medication obtained from other clients’ prescriptions. He has also been selling medication to clients without their prescriptions having been dispensed.

The medication provided by Mr Cohen had not been dispensed appropriately labelled with client and prescribing doctor’s details and has not provided clients with important medicine warning information sheets as to the side effects of the medication. Mr Cohen has recommended the drug loniten to his clients as an approved medication in Australia for hair regrowth. Loniten is not approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the use of loniten tablets, in any formulation to promote hair growth, is not an approved indication.

Mr Cohen recommends to his clients topical solutions for application to the scalp which are a combination of minoxidil and topical retinoids such as retin A. Such a combination is not recommended by the TGA due to the possibility of enhanced minoxidil absorption and consequently increased potential for adverse reactions.

Mr Cohen has breached the code of conduct for unregistered health practitioners in that he has failed to provide health services in a safe and ethical manner and his provision of health services is a risk to public health and safety.

The Commission made a prohibition order under section 41A(2)(a)(ii) placing the following conditions on Mr Cohen’s practice:

– Mr Cohen must not be in possession of any client prescriptions.

– Mr Cohen must not obtain, supply or sell any medications requiring a prescription by a medical practitioner or required to be sold only by a pharmacist

– Mr Cohen must inform his clients that loniten is not approved in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Administration when advising clients about hair regrowth prescription medication.

The conditions in the prohibition order will be permanent.

Mr Cohen claims that the practice of directly supplying medication to clients is common throughout the hair regrowth industry. It is also evident that a number of General Practitioners have been prescribing loniten and minoxidil mixed with topical retinoids without being aware of relevant guidelines.

Given the complexity of the matter and the apparent public interest in the full circumstances being disclosed, the Commission’s Statement of Decision will also be made public.

The 22-page report can be downloaded if you click here. If you cannot open PDF, you can read the full report in text format at the bottom of this article.

In due course, I will provide my commentary about the findings. For now, we can congratulate the Commissioner and his capable team for swinging into action and conducting a thorough and what seemed like an exhausting investigation into Sam Cohen and his bad conduct.

WHY I THINK IT’S A SCAM

Note that the HCCC focusses on health and safety. This means that the matter of the alleged scam is yet to be addressed by other authorities. For now, we can settle a long-standing argument, namely that I have been asserting that Mr Cohen is a danger to society, and that he has been operating illegally, while on the other hand, Mr Cohen has called me a liar. The Commission’s findings and decision to issue a Permanent Prohibition Order, after a large investigation that comprised two search warrants, many interviews, and detailed probing, ought to settle Phase One of this argument. Phase Two will address the question of Fair Trading and my assertion that Mr Cohen is conning people with what I think is a sophisticated scam. No doubt he will now either shut down IHRB and retire, or open a new business under a new unsullied name, or continue to ignore the law, as he has been doing for ages, or find another way to make it appear as if he is obeying the Order. I feel that I know him so well, that I can already visualise his tactics, partly because they were put into practice last week, when he sent an email filled with lies to a former client of his called Ron. Samuel Faraj Cohen took $3800 from Ron, and in return, gave him a bottle that Ron could have purchased for $12.95 from a local pharmacy. How did Mr Cohen of IHRB justify this diabolical ripoff? He told Ron that the bottle contained other special herbs and extracts, which I say do not exist and have never existed. In view of the HCCC’s new Permanent Prohibition Order, I suspect that another tactic could involve Sam Cohen saying to clients that they can go and obtain their $12.95 product, but pay $4900 for his special herbs that now come in a separate bottle or in a useless pill. Then he will say that his shampoo and Saw Palmetto products contain the secret Indian curries and herbs. We shall wait and see. After 40 years, the ice is getting thinner for Mr Cohen of the Institute of Hair Regrowth & Beauty.

CRIMINAL OFFENCE

The evidence gathered from the pharmacist in Pitt Street was sufficient albeit limited because that pharmacist had only been supplying IHRB for a few months after Mr Chan ceased to have anything to do with Sam Cohen. Nonetheless, the HCCC had sufficient damning and alarming evidence to reach a decision. This now hangs a new threat over Sam Cohen’s head. If he tries what he has been trying (and getting away with) for many years, he will be dealt with by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and a breach could include a prison sentence. He can count his lucky stars that he escaped a prison sentence this time around. I tend to believe that Mr Cohen thinks that we are all stupid, and that he can now advise his clients that the medications will be posted to them from the pharmacist, as if to suggest that this method puts him in the clear. We shall see if he actually understands the severity of this Prohibition Order. I wonder if he has the capacity to know when to stop.

THANKS TO THE HCCC

I shall be writing to the relevant officers associated with the Health Care Complaints Commission to express my gratitude at the way in which they handled this complex case. It was made complex because, as I have said many times, not a single word that Mr Cohen utters is ever remotely related to the truth. In reading the 22-page report, I was amazed at the lie upon lie that he was heaping upon the HCCC. He just does not have a grip on reality. The investigators and researchers at the HCCC did a stirling job. Indeed it took six month to conclude the report. However, that was a reflection of the depth to which the Commission conducted its affairs to protect the public from a man who was certainly risking people’s health and safety.

Statement of Decision HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

Mr Samuel Cohen, Institute of Hair Regrowth and Beauty (lHRB)

1. Background

1.1 On 16 August 2010 a complaint was received at the Commission. This complaint concerned the provision of services by Mr Samuel Cohen who is the operator and proprietor of the Institute of Hair Regrowth and Beauty (lHRB). IHRB is situated at Suite 1, Level 5, 105 Pitt Street, Sydney.

1.2 The complainant had been a previous client of Mr Cohen and paid $3,700 cash for a hair replacement treatment program which included a “money back guarantee” if not satisfied. After nine months treatment the complainant was not satisfied with the results and requested a refund which was not forthcoming. He also complained about allergic reactions to the “Topical Solution” supplied by IHRB. He then commenced legal action against IHRB which culminated in a hearing date being set at the Consumer Trade and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT) for 15 September 2010. Mr Cohen paid a refund in full a week prior to the commencement of proceedings and the CTTT closed the case.

1.3 Over a period of time the complainant came into contact with a number of other clients of IHRB who were also dissatisfied with the quality of treatment they received. This contact was initiated through a website titled “IHRB my story”. Through this website, the complainant came into contact with two further complainants. One of these complainants had also instigated legal proceedings against IHRB which were settled out of court. All complainants experienced side effects as a result of applying the topical solutions provided by IHRB which required medical treatment.

1.4 On 2 September 2010, the second complainant attended IHRB for a consultation with Mr Cohen and alleges he was supplied with proscar, lonilen and 15% minoxidil topical lotion without any prescription. These are prescription only medications. The medication allegedly supplied had no prescribing doctor details and no client details. The complainant states that no warnings or any kind of advice as to the possible side effects of the drugs was provided by Mr Cohen.

1.5 The complainant stated he paid for the medication via EFPTOS. He states that when he first visited IHRB in 2007, he was asked by Mr Cohen to get a doctor’s prescription before certain medications could be provided to him. However, he claims that, as he became a regular client, he was provided with proscar and loniten by Mr Cohen without a doctor’s prescription.

1.6 On 20 September 2010 the third complainant provided a statement to the Commission.

2. The Complaint

2.1 The complainants alleged that Mr Cohen was in possession of and selling medications either with or without prescriptions at his business premises. They allege that these medications, identified as the drugs proscar, loniten and minoxidil, are sold to clients: 1. Without a doctor’s prescription. 2. Without medicine information sheets. 3. Without any discussions of or reference to the risks or potential side effects involved in taking the medication.

It is a contravention of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (PTGA) for non qualified persons to dispense these medications. The complainants also alleged that Mr Cohen was endangering the health of his clients by encouraging the reapplication of his “topical solution” after they had suffered an allergic reaction, and by recommending medication such as loniten, which is not approved for hair growth by the Food and Drug Administration (FDAUSA) and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA Australia)

3. Issues

3.1 The following issues were investigated concerning Health Services provided by Mr Cohen at IHRB. Whether or not:

i) Mr Cohen was unlawfully supplying medications to clients of IHRB contrary to the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966.

ii) Mr Cohen was dispensing medications to clients for whom it was not prescribed, using medication obtained from the prescriptions of other clients.

iii) Mr Cohen had been retaining client prescriptions for significant periods of time and then arranging bulk dispensing of medication.

iv) Mr Cohen deliberately altered two client prescriptions.

v) Mr Cohen supplied prescription medications to clients who had not been assessed or provided with a prescription by a medical practitioner.

vi) Mr Cohen was recommending loniten tablets, a prescription medication, to clients as a hair regrowth medication knowing that it is not approved in Australia by the TGA.

vii) Mr Cohen endangered the health and safety of clients by supplying medications without medicine information sheets and advising them to reapply prescribed “topical solution” after they had experienced adverse side effects.

4. Respondent

4.1 Mr Cohen is the operator and proprietor of the Institute of Hair Regrowth and Beauty (IHRB). He started the business in December 2002. He has no formal qualifications in medicine or health. He states that he has forty years experience in the hair regrowth industry and this experience has established his expertise in this field.

5. Investigation

5.1 On 9 September 2010 investigators from the Commission attended the residence of the first complainant and obtained numerous documents and medications from him. These medications were proscar, loniten and minoxidil. Some of the minoxidil medication had been obtained by him from his own consultations with Mr Cohen dating from 11 September 2008. An unopened plastic bottle containing 100 x 10 mg loniten tablets, a 30 x 5 mg packet of finasteride tablets and a bottle of 100 ml minoxidil topical solution of 15% concentration were also obtained. These items were allegedly supplied to the second complainant on 2 September 2010 by Mr Cohen.

5.2 On 20 September 2010 a statement was obtained from the third complainant, a previous IHRB client, in which he described his experiences with Mr Cohen. He also provided commission investigators with photographs of himself taken in July 2007 when he suffered from a second allergic reaction to the medication provided to him by Mr Cohen. He states, that after his first adverse reaction, Mr Cohen advised him that it was safe to reapply the minoxidil topical solution and later recommended that he take loniten.

5.3 On 22 September 2010, during the execution of a search warrant conducted in the presence of Mr Cohen, police and commission investigators located and obtained a large quantity of medications including minoxidil solutions, proscar and loniten. This included 48 bottles of minoxidil which Mr Cohen stated had been supplied the day before by a pharmacist with whom he had a business relationship. In addition, a further 77 bottles of minoxidil solution were found. These bottles were located in several boxes which were labelled according to the concentration of minoxidil the bottles contained. The bottles did not have client names on them. Proscar and loniten were also obtained. These items were correctly labelled with client names and prescribing doctor details.

5.4 Documentation was also obtained relating to the ordering, purchasing and sale of these medications by Mr Cohen to multiple clients. 117 client prescriptions were also located as well as client record cards displaying medication supply and treatment details.

5.5 During the execution of the warrant Mr Cohen provided responses to various question asked where he outlined his business processes. He stated: • He obtains the medication from a pharmacist • He obtains the prescriptions from IHRB clients • Has his office assistant attend the Pharmacy and present the scripts and she returns with the medication • He then supplies the medication via post to the clients.

5.6 On 22 September 2010 the Commission also attended a dispensing and compounding pharmacy. HCCC investigators served a notice on the pharmacist and obtained dispensing records for minoxidil, proscar and loniten. Investigators were also accompanied by an officer from the Pharmaceutical Services Branch of NSW Health (PSB)

5.7 At the premises the PSB officer located a large quantity of compounded medication, namely 24x100ml bottles of minoxidil of varying concentration. The minoxidil was labelled “made in accordance with IHRB specifications”.None of the bottles contained client details and the pharmacist did not have prescriptions for these medications.

5.8 On 24 September 2010 Commission investigators executed a search warrant at the pharmacy concerned.

5.9 During the search Commission investigators located a folder which contained 47 prescriptions and ordering records from IHRB. Computer records and sales records for medication sold to Mr Cohen were also obtained.

5.10 The prescriptions obtained were cross referenced with IHRB client cards and dispensing records, specifically in respect to minoxidil, proscar and loniten.

5.11 On 27 September 2010 the Commission made an interim prohibition order in relation to Mr Cohen and IHRB. The duration of the order was for a period of 8 weeks, valid until 22 November 2010 providing that Mr Cohen: • Must not alter or amend any prescriptions in his possession. • Must not order any schedule 2 or schedule 4 medication from a pharmacy or a person licensed to dispense such medication. • Must not sell any schedule 2 or schedule 4 medication.

5.14 On 22 October 2010 a statement was obtained from the second complainant. He stated that he was sold proscar and loniten without a doctor’s prescription by Mr Cohen. He stated that he had previously suffered acute side effects from taking proscar and the topical solution which led to him attending hospital.

5.15 The pharmacist was interviewed by commission investigators on 27 October 2010

5.16 Mr Cohen was interviewed by commission investigators on 12 October 2010. Mr Cohen also gave evidence before me on 10 December 2010.

6. The Evidence

Issue 1- Whether Mr Cohen was unlawfully supplying medications to clients of IHRB contrary to the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966.

6.1 NSW Health Pharmaceutical Services Branch (PSB) issue guidelines with regard to schedule 2 and schedule 4 medications. These guides are summaries and should be used in conjunction with the PTGA and the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 2008 (PTG Reg). The relevant sections of the Act, Regulations and guidelines are as follows: • Schedule 2 medications are – Substances which are dangerous to life if misused or carelessly handled, but which should be available to the public for therapeutic use or other purposes without undue restriction. • Retail sale only by authorised practitioners. Pharmacists and persons licensed as “poisons sellers” (country stores remote from pharmacy). • Wholesale sale of therapeutic substances may be made only by persons licensed or authorised to do so under the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulations • Schedule 4 medications are – Substances which in the public interest should be supplied only upon the written prescription of a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner authorised to prescribe the substance, midwife practitioner authorised to prescribe the substance, dentist, optometrist authorised to prescribe the substance or veterinary practitioner. Schedule 4 medications are restricted substances.

6.2 Specific requirements are made for record keeping and the writing and filling of prescriptions to ensure that they are not inappropriately obtained, and that the client is appropriately instructed in the use of the drug.

6.3 The PTGA contains the following definitions.

6.4 Sell- includes dealing in, agreeing to sell, or offering or exposing for sale, or keeping or having in possession for sale, or sending, forwarding, delivering or receiving for sale or on sale, or authorising, directing, causing, suffering, permitting or attempting any of such acts or things.

6.5 Supply includes:

a) Sell, dispense and distribute b) Supply, whether by free of charge or otherwise, by way of sample or advertisement c)Agree or offer to sell or distribute d) Keep or have in possession for sale, dispensing or distribution e)Send, forward, deliver or receive for sale, dispensing or distribution

6.6 PTGA 1966 Section 10

Prohibition on supply of certain substances otherwise than by wholesale

(1) A person who supplies otherwise than by wholesale any substance specified on schedule 1,2,or 3 of the poisons list except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a general suppliers licence or a general suppliers authority issued under the regulations is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty: 15 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both

(2) A person who supplies a restricted substance (a schedule 4 medication) otherwise than by wholesale is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty (a) 20 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both, if the restricted substance involved in the offence is of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section, or (b) 15 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both, in any other case.

6.7 Proscar, loniten and minoxidil mixed with retin A are restricted substances

6.8 Minoxidil is listed in the PTGA as a schedule 2 substance if it is of a concentration of 5% or below. If minoxidil is in excess of 5% concentration or if it is compounded with additional substances which are schedule 4 or above, it becomes a schedule 4 substance.

6.9 Minoxidil (trade names Rogaine, Regaine, Avacor, Loniten (orally), is a vasodilator medication known for its ability to slow or stop hair loss and promote hair regrowth.

6.10 Common side effects of minoxidil include 1 burning or irritation of the eye; itching; redness or irritation at the treated area; unwanted hair growth elsewhere on the body. Users should seek medical attention if they experience the severe side effects. Severe allergic reactions include rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue; chest pain; dizziness; fainting; fast heartbeat; sudden, unexplained weight gain; swollen hands or feet.

6.11 Finasteride (commercial name of proscar and propecia) is used in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and male pattern baldness (MPB). Finasterides are schedule 4 substances under the PTGA 1966.

6.12 Side effects of finasteride include’ impotence, abnormal ejaculation, decreased ejaculatory volume, abnormal sexual function, gynecomastia, erectile dysfunction, ejaculation disorder and testicular pain. Resolution occurred in men who discontinued therapy with finasteride due to these side effects and in most men who continued therapy.

1 Monthly Index of Medical Specialities(MIMS) Full Prescribing Information 2 Monthly Index of Medical Specialities(MIMS) Full Prescribing Information

6.13 Retin A is a schedule 4 medication. If this substance is compounded with another substance, such as minoxidil of any concentration, it results in the compounded substance being a schedule 4 substance.

6.14 Retin A is mixed with minoxidil because this increases the absorption of the minoxidil which in turn, should make the minoxidil more effective when applied to the scalp.

6.15 Loniten is indicated as an adjunctive therapy for clients with severe refractory hypotension which has failed to respond to extensive multiple therapies. Warnings 3_ if used alone loniten can cause a significant retention of salt and water, producing dependent oedema puffiness of face, eyes and hands. Loniten is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDAUSA) or Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for hair growth in Australia. Loniten is a schedule 4 medication.

6.16 Mr Cohen provides a preformatted letter to clients who sign up for his services. This letter is for the attention of a general practitioner confirming that the client has enrolled on IHRB’s hair regrowth program. The letter outlines a request to the practitioner to prescribe a “Topical Solution” which comprises of 0.0025 retin A in 5% minoxidil. It also requests a prescription for finasteride as a booster. The letter further states that the medication is listed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDAUSA) and TGA as a treatment for hair loss and, if the practitioner considers the client suitable, a prescription can be completed by the practitioner. The TGA approves minoxidil and finasteride (propecia) for hair loss treatment. Finasteride is only approved in 1 mg doses. The use of the active ingredient minoxidil4 in combination with any products which inflame the scalp, for example topical retinoids such as retin A, is not recommended due to the possibility of enhanced rninoxidil absorption and consequently, increased potential for adverse reactions. This advice is not included in the preformatted letters provided to general practitioners by Mr Cohen.

6.17 The client then returns in person to IHRB or forwards the prescriptions to Mr Cohen. Upon receipt of the prescriptions Mr Cohen orders the compounding of the solutions from a pharrnacist. The requests for medication are performed on occasions via an email message, telephone call or by a written order to the pharmacist, signed by Mr Cohen.

6.18 Prescriptions obtained from IHRB and the pharmacy were for minoxidil solutions mixed with retin A, loniten and proscar.

6.19 A number of client cards, 581 in total, were obtained from IHRB premises. These cards provide details of prescriptions received and medication supplied by Mr Cohen to his clients over a number of years.

6.20 The pharmacist compounds the topical solution to the requirements of Mr Cohen which in the case of minoxidil is between 5% and 17% concentration depending on the order, with retin A added. These “Topical Solutions” are compounded according to IHRB specifications and the solution includes a number of other herb extracts which are added. These ingredients are over and above what has been written on the doctor’s prescriptions.

3 Monthly Index of Medical Specialities(MIMS) Full Prescribing Information 4 Monthly Index of Medical Specialities(MIMS) Full Prescribing Information

6.21 Minoxidil up to 15% concentration was located at Mr Cohen’s business premises during the search warrant on 22 September 2010. The minoxdil bottles did not have any client names on them. There were no warning and advisory information sheets or expiry dates on the bottles.

6.22 Documentation obtained at the pharmacy on 24 September 2010 indicates that prescriptions are not presented to the pharmacist at the point they are compounded and then dispensed. In his interview with Commission investigators on 27 October 2010 the pharmacist confirmed this. The pharmacist states that he has dispensed schedule 4 medication to Mr Cohen without being in possession of the prescription and at times, he admitted that he was not sure if the prescriptions were ever forthcoming from Mr Cohen.

6.23 Emails and IHRB letters for orders of medication signed by Mr Cohen and addressed to the pharmacist were obtained by Commission investigators from the pharmacy during the search warrant. The orders placed were for minoxidil solutions mixed with retin A. References are made in the letters to Mr Cohen being in possession of prescriptions for the orders.

6.24 On 12 October 2010 Mr Cohen was interviewed by Commission investigators. He states that the 48 bottles of minoxidil located at IHRB premises during the search warrant were without client names due to excessive crystallisation of the topical solutions. These bottles had been supplied to Mr Cohen on the 21 st September 2010. Mr Cohen states that the pharmacist was not compounding the topical solutions with his added herb extracts correctly and a number of clients were sending bottles back to Mr Cohen. Mr Cohen states that he was waiting to see if the topical solutions would stop crystallising before he put client names on the bottles, in case he had to return them all to the pharmacist.

6.25 Mr Cohen stated that he had been supplying medication to his clients over a number of years. He states that he was not familiar with the PTGA 1966 and was unaware that he was not authorised to supply schedule 2 and schedule 4 medications to his clients. He stated that he had since made himself familiar with the legislation. Mr Cohen states that since he had been appOinted as an agent for his clients, he believed he was entitled to act in this way. He does not dispute that he was not complying with the legislation and regulations, but stated his actions were accepted practice within the hair growth industry Issue IIб Whether Mr Cohen was dispensing medications to clients for whom it was not prescribed, using medication obtained from the prescriptions of other clients,

6.26 Mr Cohen stated that his client cards, which the commission obtained, were just like a doctor’s medical record. Mr Cohen states that what he means by this is that he records on the cards all important details such as consultations, medication he has supplied to the client, progress of the client’s treatment in terms of hair regrowth, and also details of any adverse reactions to the medication the client has experienced. Commission investigators asked Mr Cohen questions about a number of his clients. These questions addressed the entries Mr Cohen made on their client cards and his supply of schedule 4 medications to them. These clients are referred to below:

6.27 Client 1-first attended IHRB on 25 November 2009. He obtained a prescription for minoxidil and retin A on 2 December 2009 and Mr Cohen made a record in the client card that he received the prescription on 4 December 2009. On 16 December 2009 the client was supplied with 11 bottles of minoxidil solution. The prescription is not actually dispensed by the pharmacist until 9 August 2010.

• Client 2- first attended IHRB on 16 September 2009.He obtained a prescription on 17 October 2009. The client card depicts he was supplied 11 bottles of minoxidil on 4 November 2009. The prescription was not dispensed by the pharmacist until 21 May 2010.

• Client 3- first attended IHRB on 4 September 2009. He obtained a prescription on 14 September 2009. Mr Cohen made a record in the client card that he received the prescription on 17 September 2009. The client card depicts that the client was supplied minoxidil in September, October, November and December 2009 (single bottle dosages). He was also supplied minoxidil in March and April 2010. The prescription was not dispensed by the pharmacist until 7 May 2010.

• Client 4- first attended IHRB on 18 October 2007. He obtained a prescription for minoxidil and retin A on 5 October 2009. Mr Cohen made a record on the client card that he received the prescription on 6 October 2009. The client card shows the client was supplied minoxidil in October and November 2009 amounting to 5 bottles. He was then supplied 1 bottle in February 2010 and 1 bottle in April 2010. The prescription was not dispensed by the pharmacist until 11 May 2010.

• Client 5- first attended IHRB on 15 July 2009. He obtained a prescription on 22 July 2009 for minoxidil and retin A (including proscar and loniten) Mr Cohen made a record in the client card that he received the prescription on the 23 July 2009. On 31 July 2009 the client card shows the client was supplied 10 bottles of minoxidil. The prescription was not dispensed by the pharmacist until 19 April 2010.

• Client 6- first attended IHRB on 25 November 2009. He obtained a prescription for minoxidil and retin A on 2 December 2009. Mr Cohen made a record in the client card that he receives the prescription on 4 December 2009. On 16 December the client card depicts he supplied with 11 bottles of minoxidil to the client. The prescription was not dispensed by the pharmacist until 9 August 2010.

• Client 7- first visited IHRB 11 February 2008. He obtained a prescription for proscar on 21 February 2008. Mr Cohen made a record in the client card that he received this prescription on 25 February 2008. The client card depicts he supplied the client with proscar on 5 June and 14 June 2008 and 14 May 2009. E mails from Mr Cohen to the client refer to the supply of a pack of proscar for free on 5 June 2008. The original prescription for the proscar was located during the warrant conducted by the police. It has never been dispensed.

6.28 Mr Cohen admitted to the Commission that on the occasions cited above he dispensed medication to clients for whom it was not prescribed. He did this by using medication he obtained from other clients prescriptions. He states that this occurred only occasionally and he only ever did this when he knew a prescription for the medication had already previously been prescribed for the client by a doctor. Mr Cohen stated that he never supplied medication to a client when a prescription had not previously been written by a doctor. Mr Cohen states that he also supplied his clients with bottles of minoxidil which were returned by previous clients. If the bottles had the previous clients name on them he would peel the label off. So long as the bottles had not passed their expiry date he would supply them to other clients. Mr Cohen stated that most of the medication was basically the same.

6.29 Mr Cohen’s evidence was initially that such conduct was rare, and when individual examples were put to him he maintained that it was not his common practice. Issue 111- Mr Cohen has been retaining client prescriptions for significant periods of time and then arranging bulk dispensing of medication.

6.30 Out of a total number of 47 IHRB client prescriptions obtained from the pharmacy, on average it took six months from the time of them being written to the time of being dispensed by the pharmacist.

6.31 On 6 May 2010 the pharmacist admitted in interview to dispensing the following prescriptions to Mr Cohen for IHRB clients: • 400 x 10 mg loniten tablets. This was a repeat prescription dispensed all at once. The prescription was written on 6 August 2009 and the IHRB client card indicates that the client was sent one pack of loniten by Mr Cohen on 23 April 2010. No further loniten had been supplied up until 22 September 2010. • 400 x 10 mg loniten & 180 5 mg finasteride tablets (proscar). This was a repeat prescription dispensed all at once. The prescription was written on 19 August 2009. • 180 x 5 mg finasteride tablets (proscar). This was a repeat prescription dispensed all at once. The prescription was written on 29 September 2009.

6.32 The pharmacist states that Mr Cohen requested that the above ‘Items be dispensed but did not provide any reasons for why the repeats should be dispensed as well. These transactions on 6 May 2010 supplied Mr Cohen with 800 loniten and 360 finasteride tablets.

6.33 In addition to the above, a prescription of a confirmed IHRB client for loniten (100 x 10 mg tablet x 5 repeats) dated 12 December 2009 was obtained at IHRB premises. On the client card there is an entry that states that the male was sent one pack of loniten on 12 December 2009. According to the card, the client has not been supplied any further loniten by Mr Cohen. This prescription has not been dispensed. A potential 500 loniten tablets are available on this prescription. A prescription for minoxidil and retin A obtained from the pharmacy for the same client, dated 12 December 2009 was not dispensed until 8 August 2010.

6.34 Another prescription of a different IHRB client was for loniten ( 100 x 10 mg tablet x 5 repeats) dated 12 December 2009. On the client card there is an entry which states that the client was supplied with one pack of loniten on December 12 2009. This prescription has not been dispensed. A potential 500 loniten tablets are available on this prescription.

6.35 The evidence is that Mr Cohen obtains medication in bulk and on prescription for different clients than those to whom he provides it. He maintains that he only provides medication where a client has a prescription from a medical practitioner. Issue IV- Mr Cohen deliberately altered two client prescriptions to increase the dosage of items dispensed

6.36 Two prescriptions obtained from the pharmacy and dispensed by the pharmacist for Mr Cohen’s clients have been altered. The first prescription was for 15% minoxidil + 0.0025% retin A x 16 bottles and it was written on 19 March 2010. The prescribing doctor was spoken to by commission investigators on 6 October 2010 and the doctor viewed a faxed copy of the original prescription. The doctor states that the prescription was originally written for 6 bottles of 15% minoxidil + 0.0025% retin A. The prescription has been altered from 6 to 16 after the doctor gave it to his client. An entry on the IHRB client card indicates that Mr Cohen received this prescription on 24 March 2010. His records show that he received a script for 15% minoxidil + retin A for 6 bottles. An order form dated 30 April 2010 signed by Mr Cohen and addressed to the pharmacist shows that Mr Cohen placed an order for 6 bottles of 10% minoxidil solution for this client and then a further 6 bottles of 15% minoxidil. This prescription was dispensed on 12 May 2010. Computer records obtained from the pharmacist confirm that 12 bottles of minoxidil were dispensed on 12 May 2010. The client was spoken to by commission investigators on 18 November 2010 and he states that he did not alter the prescription. He states that he forwarded it to Mr Cohen soon after he received it like he always does and received the minoxidil in the post.

6.37 The second altered IHRB client prescription was for 12x100ml bottles of 5% minoxidil solution mixed with 0.025 retin A and it was written on 21 November 2009. The IHRB client card indicates that the client was sent 11 x100 ml bottles of 5% minoxidil with 0.025 retin A on December 12 2009. The actual prescription was dispensed by the pharmacist on 9 August 2010. The client card also shows that the client returned these bottles on 10 March 2010 due to suffering from “eruptions” (adverse reaction to scalp). He was sent 5% solution without retin A as a replacement on 12 April 2010.

6.38 The prescribing doctor was spoken to by commission investigators on 7 October 2010. He viewed a faxed copy of the prescription and states that he only authorised 1 bottle. He states that x12 in ink has been added by someone else. It is unknown who received the medication dispensed by the pharmacist for Mr Cohen on 9 August 2010.

6.39 Mr Cohen denies that he altered these prescriptions and also states that he has never altered a client’s prescription in any way.

Issue V- Mr Cohen has supplied prescription medications to clients who had not been assessed or provided with a prescription by a medical practitioner.

6.40 The second complainant became a client of IHRB in late 2006. During his first consultation with Mr Cohen he was shown a number of photographs of people who had been successfully treated by Mr Cohen. The complainant states that Mr Cohen said he would supply him with 12 bottles of minoxidil topical solution which contained his “special spices”. The complainant states that Mr Cohen said that the spices were a safe herbal solution. It was not until the second consultation that the complainant decided to purchase the program and he paid Mr Cohen $3,000. During his second consultation with Mr Cohen the complainant was supplied with two small bottles of minoxidil solution. No prescription was supplied but the complainant is unsure what concentration the minoxidil was. The complainant states that Mr Cohen said it would be better to start the program straight away. He was also advised that he would need to go to his GP in order to get a prescription for proscar. The complainant was provided with a list of several GPs who had previously prescribed proscar for IHRB clients. The complainant was then told by Mr Cohen to return in a few days to collect some more minoxidil. He states that Mr Cohen did not advise him that there may be side effects of the products and medication he was using.

6.41 Mr Cohen allegedly told the complainant that proscar was just a tablet that will make hair grow faster. The complainant obtained a prescription from his doctor for proscar but went to a pharmacy himself to have it dispensed rather than forwarding it to Mr Cohen. A few days after the second consultation the complainant states that he went to see Mr Cohen at the IHRB office and picked up 2 or 3 bottles of minoxidil.

6.42 After about a month of using these products the complainant started to suffer from an itchy scalp and chest/breast tenderness. Having researched the side effects of proscar he decided to take fewer of the tablets.

6.43 In early 2007 the complainant states that he received a phone call from Mr Cohen to attend IHRB premises for a check up on how the treatment was going. Mr Cohen took several photographs of the complainants scalp. During this consultation the complainant states that he was supplied with 6 bottles of minoxidil. The bottles had someone else’s name on them. The complainant states that Mr Cohen told him not to worry since the bottles were the same as the previous ones supplied to him.

6.44 In January 2008 the complainant visited Mr Cohen. He was supplied with some more minoxidil and gave Mr Cohen the bottles in his possession which had expired. The complainant states that he asked Mr Cohen about the side effects of pros car that he had read on the internet. He states that Mr Cohen told him that there was nothing to worry about and that lots of people take it. The complainant states that he was told that it will not affect him if he takes one to two milligrams a day. In late January 2008 the complainant was supplied with six new bottles of minoxidil solution. Upon applying this new batch of topical solutions he stated that he suffered from an allergic reaction. The reaction was such that the complainant presented at the emergency room of Sydney Hospital for treatment. He advised the doctor that the cause of the rash to his head was a new shampoo he had been using. This was due to the embarrassment the situation was causing him. The following day the complainant states he went back to IHRB and new solutions were ordered. The complainant showed Mr Cohen how bad the rash was on his head was. The subsequent topical solutions had the same adverse effect and the rash on his head was getting worse. The complainant states that Mr Cohen insisted that the rash was nothing to do with the bottles of minoxidil topical solution. He states that Mr Cohen did not advise him to stop the treatment.

6.45 The complainant states that he asked Mr Cohen for a refund but instead of providing a refund, Mr Cohen supplied him with a product called “Capro Natural”. The complainant states that Mr Cohen told him that the “Capro Natural” contained only “Indian curries” and no minoxidil. By mid 2008 the complainant states that he had seen no improvement in his hair growth. He attended IHRB and Mr Cohen suggested that he go to his GP and ask for a prescription for loniten. The complainant states that Mr Cohen did not advise him that loniten is not recommended by the FDA or TGA as a hair regrowth product. At the same time the complainant advised that he had run out of proscar. At this point, the complainant alleges that Mr Cohen supplied him with a packet of proscar which had another client’s name on the packaging. The complainant states that he paid around $80 for the proscar.

6.46 The proscar medication was obtained by commission investigators on 9 September 2010. The client details on the proscar match the details of a different IHRB client.

6.47 Mr Cohen states that he may have recommended loniten to the complainant and he may not have told him it was not approved by the TGA. He denies ever selling proscar in mid 2008 to the complainant without a prescription. He suggests that maybe the complainant stole the proscar from his office. Mr Cohen states that he would never supply medication with other people’s names on it, particularly with proscar.

6.48 In interview on 12 October 2010 Mr Cohen was reminded by Commission investigators that during the pOlice search warrant a package for one of his client’s was located in the reception area of IHRB which contained minoxidil solutions and proscar. The client name on the box of proscar medication was different to the name on the package. Mr Cohen explained that the client “still had a prescription for proscar”. Mr Cohen stated that sometimes he will provide a box of proscar to a client if he has prior knowledge that the client had a prescription for proscar at some point. He stated that there had simply been a mix up on this occasion in relation to the wrong clients proscar being placed in the wrong package.

6.49 Mr Cohen stated the second complainant went off his program for over a year and he had not seen him for some time. He then states that the complainant came to see him a few months ago and he did not complain. Mr Cohen said he told the complainant during this visit “if you want to, you better go on – I think it’s loniten and proscar, exactly what I tell other people”

6.50 Further details of the complainant’s statement were then disclosed to Mr Cohen. This included the details of the complainants visit to IHRB on 2 September 2010. The complainant states that he spoke with Mr Cohen about growing his hair back. He also states that he decided to go back since he was owed six bottles of minoxidil. The complainant then states that he was supplied with a bottle of 15% minoxidil solution without a prescription. He also claims that he was supplied with loniten (100x10mg) tablets and finasteride (30x5mg) tablets without a prescription, together with a pill splitter. These items had no prescribing doctor details, and no client details. The complainant states that he paid for these items via EFTPOS at a cost of $185 and provided the Commission with a copy of the receipt. The complainant states that the minoxidil was a free sample for a trial. Mr Cohen’s IHRB price list includes loniten at a cost of $100 and finasteride at $85.

6.51 These items were amongst medications obtained by Commission investigators from the first complainant on 9 September 2010.

6.52 Mr Cohen denies supplying this medication to the complainant. He states that the complainant came to see him on 2 September 2010 and whilst in his office he must have stolen the medication. Mr Cohen did not deny that he would have had possession of the proscar and loniten on his premises. The commission received a letter from Mr Cohen dated 15 October 2010, stating that the complainant purchased 2 bottles of Saw Palmetto Complexes at a cost of $140, 1 bottle of Dermaclean for $25 and 1 bottle of shampoo for $20. He states that the complainant had told him that he had given up treating his hair and just wanted to keep up good hygiene. When Mr Cohen left the room for a short while, he says that the complainant must have stolen the medication.

6.53 The second complainant had been provided, at some time, with prescriptions for all of the medication provided to him by Mr Cohen. Mr Cohen’s selling of medications to the second complainant, prescribed for other clients, would be consistent with other examples set out in this decision. Both complainant one and two state that they have received bottles of minoxidil from Mr Cohen without first seeing a doctor. The concentration of this minoxidil is unknown. Entries on client record cards indicate that some clients have been supplied prescription medication during their first consultation with Mr Cohen. Mr Cohen states that these entries are simply mistakes. Subsequently, the clients were prescribed the same medication by their doctor. Issue VI-. Whether Mr Cohen was recommending loniten tablets, a prescription medication, to clients as a hair regrowth medication knowing that it is not approved in Australia by the TGA

6.54 Loniten is not approved by the FDA or the TGA as a hair growth medication. Loniten official Food and Drug Administration USA (FDA) information states “Use of Loniten tablets, in any formulation, to promote hair growth is not an approved indication”. When interviewed Mr Cohen agreed with this. He states “I’m suggesting if the doctor approves”. When asked if he tells his clients that loniten is not approved by the TGA when he recommends it he states “sometime I say it, sometimes I don’t”. When asked if it is ethical for him to recommend loniten when the prescribing doctor does not realise that it isn’t approved by the TGA, Mr Cohen replied “no, if he’s a doctor, he should realise. My job is to try and get the utmost out of a customer to regrow his hair. That is my job”.

6.55 When Mr Cohen supplies his pre-formatted letter to doctors, he refers to minoxidil and finasteride as being approved by the FDA and TGA for hair growth. On other occasions he will hand write proscar and loniten on the letter. Mr Cohen does not inform the potential prescribing doctors that loniten is not approved by the TGA. He told the Commission “I’m nobody to mention it”.

6.56 17 prescriptions for loniten were located during the search of IHRB premises. A further 3 were located at the pharmacy already dispensed to IHRB clients.

6.57 On his own admission, Mr Cohen recommends loniten tablets to clients knowing that it is not approved for hair growth by the TGA and without advising clients of its status.

Issue VII- Whether Mr Cohen has endangered the health and well being of clients by supplying medications without medicine information sheets and advising them to apply prescribed “topical solution” after they had experienced adverse side effects

6.58 The first complainant visited IHRB on 11 September 2008. He used a false name because he stated that Mr Cohen gave him reason to fear that his confidentiality would not be respected, The complainant states he was told that the topical solutions contained “special Indian curries” which Mr Cohen stated were “herbs” formulated during his 39 years of research and development and world exclusive innovation.

6.59 On the same day the complainant paid Mr Cohen $3,700 and he was provided with 6 bottles of “topical hair regrowth solution” Three of these bottles have been obtained by the Commission and the minoxidil is of 5% concentration which makes it non prescription schedule 2 medication. The complainant states that each of the bottles supplied contained a sticky residue at the bottom of the outside of the bottle which may have originally contained the details of a different client for whom the medication had been compounded. The complainant states that he has since contacted the compounding pharmacist and the pharmacist confirmed that the bottles he had dispensed did originally contain labels on the bottom which had client details.

The complainant states that the medication supplied to him was a combination of schedule 2 minoxidil and schedule 4 minoxidil mixed with retin A. The Commission has not obtained any of the schedule 4 minoxidil provided to the complainant. He states that he never received any client warning information sheets and was not aware of the potential side effects. He was also not aware at the time that Mr Cohen was not authorised to supply/sell these medications.
6.60 On 26 March 2009 Mr Cohen provided the complainant with a letter to forward to his doctor. This letter was a request for the doctor to prescribe the complainant with minoxidil + retin A, proscar and loniten. He was advised by Mr Cohen that the new program required half a tablet of proscar a day (2.5mg). The complainant states that Mr Cohen did not offer any advice as to what the potential side effects of these medications were. The complainant also alleges that Mr Cohen also falsely claimed that loniten had been approved by the FDA and TGA for hair growth. The content of an email dated 29 April 2009 from Mr Cohen to the complainant supports the complainant’s allegation. In this email Mr Cohen states “Loniten is actually minoxidil and has been approved by the TGA and FDA to help re-growth”. The complainant in an email to Mr Cohen dated 4 June 2009 stated that his dermatologist had told him that Loniten is not designed for hair growth and that he had been warned that the side effects of proscar included sexual dysfunction.

6.61 The complainant was unable to obtain a prescription for these items. The fact that he had given Mr Cohen a false name which was the name on the doctor’s letter may have been a reason for this.

6.62 The complainant states that it was the retin A in the solutions supplied that caused a painful rash to his scalp in June 2009. He states that this reaction occurred after he used a new bottle of solution from the six originally supplied and the only difference to the bottle was the words retin A on the label. This painful rash extended to the complainants back and caused bruising to his scalp. He states that two courses of antibiotics were required. The complainant states that he was advised by Mr Cohen that the rash had nothing to do with IHRB products and he was advised to continue with their use after the rash had subsided. The complainant thus continued to apply the topical solution. He claims he was not advised to seek medical advice.

6.63 In interview Mr Cohen stated that the complainant came to see him and supplied a false name. He states that he never supplied him with prescription only medication and the reason why he could not obtain a prescription was the fact he provided a false name. He states that the complainant even had an email account in the false name and he believes that the complainant has set out to try and destroy his business.

6.64 On 21 July 2006 the third complainant attended IHRB for a consultation with Mr Cohen. He was provided with a questionnaire and the complainant states that he informed Mr Cohen of his 3 infected hair follicles. The complainant explained that he was taking antibiotics to clear the infection and he states that he was informed by Mr Cohen that this would not interfere with the treatment. The IHRB client card indicates that an appointment was made for the complainant to return to IHRB in two weeks after the infection had cleared. During this initial consultation the complainant states that Mr Cohen had written the name and strength of the topical solution he required. This was the only time the complainant ever saw Mr Cohen. After this initial consultation, everything was conducted over email and phone calls.

6.65 The complainant states that Mr Cohen told him that he was going to go bald since he had the common form of “male pattern baldness”, but that Mr Cohen stated that his treatment would grow his hair back. He states that Mr Cohen also told him that his program was exclusive as he would be adding his “own special curries” to the topical solution. The complainant was provided with an information pack which he states only contained a few facts and no mention of any risks involved in the treatments supplied. The complainant states that there was no information as to the possible side effects of applying the topical solutions. He states that Mr Cohen said that his program was safe for him and everyone else without adverse side effects.

6.66 The complainant states that he purchased Mr Cohen’s “hair regrowth treatment program” on 9 August 2006. This was through the Sun Herald newspaper who was advertising IHRB services. The complainant then went to see a doctor who he had selected from a list of doctors which Mr Cohen provided him with. The prescription for minoxidil and retin A was obtained by the complainant and sent to Mr Cohen for the compounding of the solutions. The solutions were received by the complainant on 19 October 2006.

6.67 The package received by the complainant included 12 bottles of minoxidil with retin A. According to the complainant there were no health warnings or advisory information sheets included for any of the items. The complainant states that he was completely unaware of what the possible side effects of the minoxidil solutions may have been. According to the complainant these were not explained by Mr Cohen either during their initial conSUltation or after he purchased the program.

6.68 The complainant states the labels on the bottles described the contents as 5% minoxidil with instructions on how many times to apply the solution. He states that the labels clearly stated that the user should read the leaflet carefully before use. However, the complainant states that there were no such leaflets. He also states that the bottles had the bottom labels missing where his name and the prescribing doctor’s details should have been.

6.69 Within a week of using the products the complainant states that he noticed that his feet were itching. After a month his body was itching all over and at times this was unbearable. It was so bad he thought that his home had been infested with fleas.

6.70 At the end of December 2006 the complainant went to see his doctor. His eyes were now also swollen and his head was beginning to leak with a yellow serous fluid. He was having dizzy spells, his eyes were sensitive to light and his heart was beating oddly. The doctor advised the complainant to cease taking everything, including antibiotics, shampoos or foods etc. This reduced the facial swelling, bleeding and leaking of serous fluid. The chronic itching of the skin remained.

6.71 The complainant states that he did not use any more IHRB products until July 2007. On 11 July 2007 he states that he informed Mr Cohen via email of the severe reaction he had to his products the previous year. In the email he asks Mr Cohen if his reactions and side effects were common with other customers and asks for advice as to other treatments should his second attempt at applying the topical solutions not work out.

6.72 In reply via telephone the complainant states that Mr Cohen said that he had never heard of any client having such a reaction to his topical solution. The complainant states that Mr Cohen told him “it was safe for him to continue with his program and that he should do so”. Mr Cohen asked for the bottles which were going out of date to be returned to him. The complainant complied with this request; keeping one bottle so he could reapply the solution.

6.73 On 13 July 2007 Mr Cohen via email advised the complainant to “please re start by applying only 0,5ml every evening for a week, if no adverse reaction takes place, go to 1,00ml” Mr Cohen did advise the complainant to stop if the minoxidil solution caused excessive itching, burning or irritation. There is no record in the photocopy of the complainant’s client card of Mr Cohen advising him to consult with a doctor first before recommencing the treatment.

6,74 Within hours of reapplying the topical solution the complainant states that he experienced an adverse reaction that was even more severe than the first one he experienced in 2006, He states that his face ballooned and his eyes closed over due to the swelling, He also states that Yellow serum ran freely from his head for the next 48 hours, The complainant was examined by his doctor who provided medication to try and reverse the reaction.

6.75 The complainant states that he sent a further email to IHRB with a number of photographs attached, These photographs were of his head and face and depict the adverse reaction that the complainant experienced when he reapplied the topical solutions, The complainant states that Mr Cohen said in a return phone call that he “had never seen such a reaction”, The complainant states that Mr Cohen said that the complainant “obviously had a problem”, A refund was refused since the complainant had not used any of the alternative IHRB products,

6.76 On 15 August 2007 the complainant emailed IHRB and advised that he had been informed that the cause of his allergic reaction was the topical solution and the symptoms would take quite a while to settle down, Mr Cohen agreed that it would be best at this point not to try any form of alternative treatment. On 21 August 2007 the complainant sent an email to IHRB requesting a refund, He also left phone messages but states that he received no response,

6.77 On 20 September 2007 the complainant states that Mr Cohen phoned him and suggested that he had loniten tablets to give him which in his case would be better since this would bypass the skin and therefore avoid another allergic reaction, The complainant states that Mr Cohen said that loniten was “tablet minoxidil”, The complainant states that nothing about the side effects of loniten were explained to him and he was not advised to go back to a doctor for a prescription, He declined the offer. A report by a doctor confirms that the complainant is allergic to minoxidil.

6.78 The complainant contacted the pharmacist who compounded the minoxidil solutions. The pharmacist responded to a request from the complainants solicitors and provided different versions of client information leaflets that he would forward to IHRB whilst he was compounding minoxidil with retin A for Mr Cohen from 2005-10. Complainants who gave evidence to the commission say that Mr Cohen never provided them with this information.

6.79 The complainant provided a report from a Trichologist5 dated 27 October 2009 which draws conclusions about the life threatening consequences which may have resulted when the complainant re – applied the topical solutions, The effect of his opinion is “the consultant compounded the severity of the complainant’s reactions by continuing to advise him to re-commence his topical treatment. This potentially might have lead to life threatening consequences for the complainant such as cardiac or respiratory arrest”, This opinion is shared by another Trichologist. He states “the biggest mistake IHRB made was in allowing the complainant to recommence the treatment”. Both of these reports were compiled for a firm of solicitors who were acting on behalf of the complainant in his court case against IHRB.

5 Trichologists are not medical practitioners, They specialise in the scientific study of problems of the hair and scalp 6.80 Mr Cohen says that when the third complainant came to him he said “sorry, I will not sell you my program until you come back after you get your scalp treated”. The photo copy of his IHRB client card confirms that the complainant attended IHRB on 21 July 2006 and was advised to “see his doctor and fix it”.

6.81 Mr Cohen said that the complainant then purchased the hair regrowth program remotely which meant there were no personal consultations. Mr Cohen said that the complainant then supplied him with a prescription and he supplied the minoxidil solution to him. Mr Cohen states that when the complainant started to get infected he advised him to stop but the complainant was very insistent. Mr Cohen states that he never saw the complainant’s infection, only photographs which he sent him. He states that after he had heard that the infection had cleared he said to the complainant “I would suggest you don’t use the retin A”. He states that the complainant has gone “beyond my, what you call it, instructions not to do things”.

6.82 Mr Cohen confirms that a number of bottles of topical solution containing minoxidil and retin A were returned to him by the complainant. He confirms that he would have probably supplied these bottles of minoxidil to other clients, unless the date had expired, in which case he would have thrown them away. Response from Mr Cohen under s 40 of the Act.

6.83 As required by the Health Care Complaints Act Mr Cohen was provided with the opportunity to respond to the Commission’s proposal to make a prohibition order, issue a public statement and publish its decision. Issue I – supply of medication contrary to the PTG Act 1966

6.84 In his response to the Commission of 14 February 2011 Mr Cohen accepted that he had a practice of supplying medications when such medications ought to have been supplied only by a pharmacist. He accepted that this was inappropriate but stated that he did not knowingly break the law.

Issue II – supplying prescription only medication to clients using medication obtained under the prescriptions for other clients

6.85 Mr Cohen accepted that at least on occasion he dispensed medications to clients using medications that he obtained from other client’s prescriptions. He re-iterated that he only ever supplied the identical medication to a client that had already been prescribed by a doctor and that the evidence was that this only occurred occasionally. He accepted the proviSion of medications obtained from another patient’s script was inappropriate. Issue III – maintaining bulk supplies of medications for dispensing to clients

6.86 Mr Cohen states that the delay between the date of the scripts being written and then dispensed is not evidence that he retained prescriptions for the purpose of bulk dispensing and that there is no evidence that this occurred.

Issue IV – altering of prescriptions

6.87 Mr Cohen did not make any submissions in relation to this issue since the Commission made no findings.

6.88 Issue Vo Mr Cohen has supplied prescription medications to clients who had not been assessed or provided with a prescription by a medical practitioner.

Mr Cohen submitted that the evidence clearly shows that as a matter of general practice he would not supply medications unless a script was obtained. He also submitted that the evidence that he did supply medications without a script having been issued is very limited and that even if the alleged instances referred to by the Commission were accurate, they are isolated occasions.

6.89 Issue VI – recommending loniten tablets as a hair regrowth medication knowing that it has not been approved for that purpose in Australia by the TGA

Mr Cohen acknowledges that is inappropriate to recommend loniten in the knowledge that it is not approved by the TGA for the promotion of hair growth. He accepts that it is appropriate that the condition be placed on him that he informs his clients that loniten is not approved by the TGA in Australia to promote hair growth. Mr Cohen maintains that this was his practice.

6.90 Issue VII – Whether Mr Cohen has endangered the health and safety of clients in providing them medication

Mr Cohen denies that he supplied the first complainant with prescription only medication without a prescription. He also states that he did not make the representations claimed by the third complainant. Mr Cohen maintained that he gave information sheets setting out the risks of the medication supplied and that he explained the side effects verbally.

6.91 Mr Cohen further stated that the prohibition orders proposed by the HCCC were adequate to protect the public and that there was nothing to be gained by making a public statement.

7. Decision.

7.1 Mr Cohen provides a service that:

• Offers clients advice about the causes of hair loss and how to reverse its effects.

• Recommends and supplies to clients treatments using “Topical Solutions” which are a combination of prescription medication (minoxidil + retin A) and non prescription medications designed to stimulate hair growth.

• Recommends and supplies to clients prescribed oral medication such as finasteride (proscar) and loniten to stimulate hair growth

• Recommends and supplies to clients a number hygiene and herbal products as an aid for blocking DHT, the primary contributing factor in male pattern baldness (MPB) I am satisfied the Mr Cohen is a health practitioner providing a health service for the purposes of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 and that the Code of Conduct for unregistered health practitioners as prescribed by regulation under section 10AM of the Public Health Act 1991 applies to him so far as his hair regrowth business is concerned.

Issue I – supply of medication contrary to the PTG Act 1966

7.2 On his own admission, Mr Cohen has been unlawfully supplying his clients with minoxidil, proscar and lonilen, medications listed under schedule 2 and 4 of the PTGA 1966. Mr Cohen is not authorised to supply these medications to his clients. Mr Cohen’s explanation is that he was unaware of the PTGA legislation and believed that he was acting as an authorised agent for his clients. The PTGA contains specific requirements for record keeping and the writing and filling of prescriptions to ensure that they are not inappropriately obtained, and that the client is appropriately instructed in the use of the drug. Mr Cohen admitted that on occasion he was not sure if the proscar and loniten he supplied to clients contained the relevant advisory information sheets. Mr Cohen has also stated that he supplied packets of proscar to his clients if he was aware that a prescription had been previously prescribed. I am satisfied that IHRB clients are not being appropriately advised as to the potential side effects of taking proscar and loniten or receiving the standard warnings which are normally enclosed in the packaging of prescription medication. Issue” supplying prescription only medication to clients using medication obtained under the prescriptions for other clients

7.3 The Commission obtained substantial evidence that Mr Cohen dispensed medication to clients for whom it was not prescribed, using medication obtained from prescriptions of other clients. Mr Cohen’s evidence as to the extent of this practice was self-serving and unreliable. His initial evidence was that this occurred rarely, and, in response to the numerous examples produced to him he conceded that he had engaged in the practice to the extent of those examples but denied that it was his common practice. The Commission is in possession of evidence which suggests that this was the common practice of Mr Cohen. I am satisfied that it was Mr Cohen’s common practice to supply prescription-only medication to clients from medication he had obtained under the prescriptions for other clients. It should be noted that there is not enough firm enough evidence to reach a conclusion that Mr Cohen, in supplying to one patient with another patient’s medication, supplied anything other than the medication prescribed for the patient receiving it. Issue III – maintaining bulk supplies of medications for dispensing to clients

7.4 I am satisfied that Mr Cohen had an arrangement with a pharmacist whereby orders were placed by him for medication without production of relevant prescriptions and that, when this medication was not provided in the quantities prescribed by medical practitioners, he maintained bulk supplies of such medication to provide to other clients.

Issue IV altering of prescriptions

7.5 Evidence obtained by the Commission is that two IHRB client prescriptions were altered from the amounts prescribed by medical practitioners enabling the prescriptions to be dispensed in a greater amount to that originally prescribed. Although it would be consistent with Mr Cohen’s generally cavalier approach to the use of prescription medication I am unable to be satisfied that he altered these prescriptions.

Issue V – supply of prescription-only medications to clients who had not been provided with a prescription for that medication by a medical practitioner

7.6 The evidence of the second complainant is that he was sold loniten, proscar and 15% concentration minoxidil by Mr Cohen at IHRB premises on 2 September 2010 without a prescription. Mr Cohen denies selling the medication to the complainant saying that the complainant must have stolen it. While Mr Cohen was not a reliable witness, it is also clear that the complainants in this matter have significant grievances against Mr Cohen due to his past treatment of them. Mr Cohen’s general approach to the use of prescription medication, based on an examination of the documentary evidence, is that he does document the receipt of a prescription before providing it to a client. Further investigation would be required to reach a determination on whether prescription-only medication had been provided on this one occasion without Mr Cohen first sighting a prescription. This does not appear to be necessary for the Commission’s purposes of determining whether or not Mr Cohen breached the code of conduct for unregistered practitioners and the making of the necessary orders for the protection of the public health and safety. Issue VI – recommending loniten tablets as a hair regrowth medication knowing that it has not been approved for that purpose in Australia by the TGA

7.7 Loniten is not an approved medication for hair regrowth in Australia. Loniten is a treatment for high blood pressure. Mr Cohen is aware of this and admitted as much. Mr Cohen’s position is that if a medical practitioner prescribes loniten, it is that practitioner’s responsibility to advise the patient of the effects of the medication. Mr Cohen takes no responsibility for advising his clients of status of the medication. Mr Cohen does not advise the potential prescribing doctors, of which he provides a list to clients, that the use of loniten tablets, in any formulation to promote hair growth, is not an approved indication. Mr Cohen states “my job is to try and get the utmost out of a customer to regrow his hair. That is my job”. I am satisfied that Mr Cohen not only failed to advise clients that loniten was not approved by the TGA and FDA(USA) for hair regrowth but also advised at least one client, probably more, that it was so approved.

Issue VII – Whether Mr Cohen’s conduct was a risk public health and safety.

7.8 Mr Cohen has worked in the hair loss industry for many years. Over that time it has become his practice to treat prescription medication as one of the tools of his trade and to use it in the most expedient and profitable way. He maintains control over his clients’ use of such medication by marketing it in conjunction with his own hair loss remedies. While the process may be convenient to clients, it allows Mr Cohen to provide the medication as his own treatment. In conducting his business, Mr Cohen has become casual about the way in which this medication is provided to his clients. This has resulted in him providing prescription-only medication to clients without their prescriptions being filled and without adequate explanation of the side effects. This is both in breach of the law designed to ensure that medications with harmful effects are handled by properly qualified people and a risk to the health and safety of Mr Cohen’s clients.

7.9 In terms of the Commission’s jurisdiction, I find that Mr Cohen has breached Clause 3(1) of the Code of Conduct for unregistered health practitioners in that he has failed to provide health services in a safe and ethical manner.

8.0 Having determined that Mr Cohen has breached the Code of Conduct and that his conduct poses a risk to the health and safety of the public, the Commission makes the following prohibition order under section 41A(2)(a)(ii) of the Health Care Complaints Act placing conditions on Mr Cohen’s practice:

1. Mr Cohen must not be in possession of any client prescriptions.

2. Mr Cohen must not obtain, supply or sell any medications requiring a prescription by a medical practitioner or required to be sold only by a pharmacist.

3. Mr Cohen must inform his clients that loniten is not approved in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Administration when advising clients about hair regrowth prescription medication.

The conditions in the prohibition order will be permanent.

8.3 The Commission also issues the following public statement under section 41 A(2) (b) of the Health Care Complaints Act:

“The Health Care Complaints Commission (the Commission) conducted an investigation into Mr Samuel Cohen and the Institute of Hair Regrowth and Beauty (IHRB).

The investigation found that Mr Cohen has been supplying and selling prescription and non prescription pharmacy-only medication directly to his clients and has been supplying clients with medication obtained from other clients’ prescriptions. He has also been selling medication to clients without their prescriptions having been dispensed.

The medication provided by Mr Cohen had not been dispensed appropriately labelled with client and prescribing doctor’s details and has not provided clients with important medicine warning information sheets as to the side effects of the medication. Mr Cohen has recommended the drug loniten to his clients as an approved medication in Australia for hair regrowth. Loniten is not approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the use of loniten tablets, in any formulation to promote hair growth, is not an approved indication.

Mr Cohen recommends to his clients topical solutions for application to the scalp which are a combination of minoxidil and topical retinoids such as retin A. Such a combination is not recommended by the TGA due to the possibility of enhanced minoxidil absorption and consequently increased potential for adverse reactions.

Mr Cohen has breached the code of conduct for unregistered health practitioners in that he has failed to provide health services in a safe and ethical manner and his provision of health services is a risk to public health and safety.

The Commission made a prohibition order under section 41A(2)(a)(ii) placing the following conditions on Mr Cohen’s practice:

• Mr Cohen must not be in possession of any client prescriptions.

• Mr Cohen must not obtain, supply or sell any medications requiring a prescription by a medical practitioner or required to be sold only by a pharmacist

• Mr Cohen must inform his clients that loniten is not approved in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Administration when advising clients about hair regrowth prescription medication.

The conditions in the prohibition order will be permanent.

Mr Cohen claims that the practice of directly supplying medication to clients is common throughout the hair regrowth industry. It is also evident that a number of General Practitioners have been prescribing loniten and minoxidil mixed with topical retinoids without being aware of relevant guidelines.

Given the complexity of the matter and the apparent public interest in the full circumstances being disclosed, the Commissions Statement of Decision will also be made public”.

Kieran Pehm

Commissioner.

22 FEB 2011

P.S. IHRB is the name of the Institute of Hair Regrowth and Beauty run by Sam Cohen (Samuel Faraj Cohen) formerly of 105 Pitt Street Sydney and now at Renwick Street in Leichhardt. It is also written as Institute of Hair Regrowth & Beauty or Institute of Hair Re-growth & Beauty and the company purports offers hairloss (hair loss) and hair regrowth treatments.

The Health Care Complaints Commission issued this statement on its website on the 23rd of February 2011. In its 2011 Annual Report, HCCC dedicated a full page to Sam Cohen and his dangerous medications.

You can learn more here.

Fair Trading Commissioner Rod Stowe said a Leichhardt man who sells hair loss treatments had been convicted of misleading the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT).

Samuel Faraj Cohen, the Managing Director of the Institute of Hair Regrowth and Beauty Pty Ltd, was recently found guilty in Parramatta Local Court, of lying to the CTTT about his qualifications. He was ordered to pay nearly $1,000.

Samuel Cohen appeared before the Tribunal to defend an action brought by a consumer who was seeking a refund regarding a hair restoration program.

During the proceedings before the CTTT, Mr Cohen was asked about his qualifications. He claimed he had a Bachelor of Science degree.

Mr Stowe said as a result of a consumer’s complaint to Fair Trading, investigators interviewed Mr Cohen to establish if he had a Bachelor of Science degree.

“During the course of the Fair Trading investigation it became evident Mr Cohen had not been awarded a Bachelor of Science degree,” he said.

“He even provided misleading documents in relation to his academic progress, in an attempt to support his claim and cover his tracks.

“Mr Cohen knowingly and deliberately misled the Tribunal.

“His actions are reprehensible and can not be defended.”

Mr Stowe said consumers have a right to expect traders act with honesty and integrity.

“This outcome serves as a reminder to traders that dishonest behaviour will catch up with them,” he said.

“Fair Trading will not hesitate in taking similar action against any trader caught deceiving the public.”

Click here to go to the Fair Trading site to read the original media release.

More on this story is featured here. A backgrounder about the Bachelor of Science is featured here.

COHEN KICKS INVESTIGATORS OUT OF HIS OFFICE

People wonder why there was an altercation between me and Mr Cohen. Well, let me say that I believe that Mr Cohen needs to be aggressive to protect his scam empire. It has always worked for him in the past. When someone challenges him, he becomes aggressive. That scares most people away, and thus far he has frustrated an enormous amount of clients who were too embarrassed to take him to task.

I clearly remember how Mr Cohen, in his unique accent, said to me ‘Get out’. A strong, wild dictatorial offensive royal order that he would decree upon me, with finger pointing towards the door.

When Fair Trading investigators went to interview Mr Cohen, he tried to pull the wool over their eyes. When he worked out that they were probing too close to the bone, he ordered them out of his office. ‘Get out’, he said to investigators (one of whom was formerly a seasoned police officer). So they left. We live in a polite State. Try that in India or China and see what the authorities would do.

The investigators left and investigated and made phone calls and did their homework, and returned to charge Mr Cohen. He was convicted. He appealed. He lost his appeal. He has a criminal conviction to prove what I have been saying: Mr Cohen is a liar. It’s impossible to do business with liars because they live in a world of limitless opportunities. There are no boundaries and no limits. Liars, and I know many of them, do not know when to stop. The consumer is hurt and abused and conned and scammed. Liars win most of the time. It takes a lot of hard work to bring a liar to justice, because our civilised society gives everyone the benefit of the doubt, and our legal system works on proof, and it is difficult to prove everything, but thanks to the gallant men and women at Fair Trading, they were honouring their commitment to protect the people of NSW. Thank you Fair Trading.

FAIR TRADING SENDS TWITTER REGARDING SAM COHEN

Below is the Tweet that NSW Fair Trading sent to announce Sam Cohen’s conviction. It reads, ‘Samuel Faraj Cohen, Managing Director of hair regrowth & beauty company shorn of $1k for lying about his qualifications.’

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.