Lies, Fakes, & Fabrications

 Print This Post

At a Tribunal hearing, I said to the Presiding Member that Mr Sam Cohen had fabricated documents to support his lies. The Member  said, ‘I prefer that you didn’t use that word… that’s a very emotional word.’ What is the non-emotional way to point out to a legal Tribunal that Mr Cohen is a liar and a fabricator of evidence? How else was I supposed to make that statement? The correct response from the Member ought to have been, ‘Can you prove your allegations?’ Indeed I can. At the very bottom of this page are the thumbnail images of the 211 pages that I had submitted, outlining my claim, showing how I was conned and cheated by Sam Cohen. That 211-page document was made available to Mr Cohen. He had three weeks to study it. After that time, he submitted his defence to CTTT, and what follows are only some of the documents from his defence. You will see the lies and misleading documents.

Below is part of the letter written by Sam Cohen. He dares to say that I lied about him showing me photos and files of his clients. He said that he only shows photos of clients who had given him a model release form. I summonsed the release forms of 35 of his clients. Sam Cohen did not produce a single one. He has the audacity to say that he has model release forms, yet he cannot produce a single one! And that’s because he knows that I would not be summonsing that material if I did not have him in a checkmate position. I know full well that he has no respect for his clients’ privacy or confidentiality. I had done my homework, and I knew that he was showing me files of clients who had never given him permission to discuss their case with strangers like me. He might have release forms for the few people who appear in his ads. However, the many others whom he showed me, while telling me about their sexual orientation, their erectile dysfunction, and their personal affairs, with files wide open for me to read their address and other private details, were not models. They were clients who never gave permission for their files to be exposed.

Then Mr Cohen wrote saying that I had duly signed some sort of waiver, agreeing that I did not expect any hair regrowth on my scalp. He said that I had agreed that I did not expect my hair to fully recover. What he failed to disclose was the fact that Mr Cohen had signed my amended clause which said that I, as the client, expect to see a noticeable improvement. He conveniently omitted that part of the agreement. Click here for the full story about this absurdity. Anytime anyone asks for a refund, Sam Cohen says that they had signed that they do not expect hair to regrow or recover. What’s his guarantee all about, if his only argument is that people signed to say that they do not expect their hair to grow? Someone needs their head examined. (All the black underlines in his letter are his own emphasis.)

In the excerpt below, Mr Cohen said that he had given to me a Patient Information Sheet (which is a lie). Then Mr Cohen says that he had given to me a referral letter to my GP for a prescription. So he attaches the said referral letter which he had fabricated.

Let us start with the Patient Information Sheet. I said that Mr Cohen never did explain any of the side-effects to me, and that he changed the dosages. So he submitted this document, below, to the Tribunal, insisting that I was lying. He said that he had given that Patient Information Sheet to me on the 11th of September 2008. How could he have done so, when that sheet was produced and printed on the 8th of April 2009. I became a client eight months before that sheet was born, so how could he have given it to me? Sadly, he submitted this as an exhibit. I do not know how he can keep a straight face. The same sheet shows that the topical solution contains retinol (which all medical warnings say should not be done, and it shows the usage at one ml, which Mr Cohen increases in other documents, thereby taking the role of the prescriber, adviser, dispenser, and drug dealer. He has no authority to be tampering with dosages, but that does not stop him. He has no authority to be selling Minoxidil or any of the other Schedule 2 and Schedule 4 medications, but he still does — at inflated prices (one bottle he sells at $900 is available at my local pharmacy at $70).

Below, the referral letter on the left is a fake. It is dated 11 September 2008. Sam says that he gave this to me at our first consultation. How then does he explain the letter on the right, dated 26 March 2009? Sam gave me that letter on the right, approximately seven months into the program. When I signed-up on the 11th of September 2008, I was given 12 bottles of prescription-only (as well as pharmacy-only) medications, without a prescription. This is illegal. And now he is saying that he did not give me those bottles. Now he is saying that he was waiting on me to provide him with a doctor’s prescription. In that case, where did that second letter of 26 March come from? And if the letter on the left were real, why did he wait seven months? What was he waiting for? Why did he not ever send any emails or letters, requesting a prescription? That’s because he had told me that his treatment was all herbal, natural, and organic. I later found out that it was all dangerous, non-approved medications including Proscar and Loniten, which can cause heart failure and permanent erectile dysfunction, not to mention the Minoxidil warning of a side-effect that includes hair loss, along with a warning that Minoxidil has been known to case instant death.

Below we read more from Sam Cohen. He is saying that I had used the non-prescription Topical Solution. This is a double lie, with a misleading twist. The bottles he gave me could never have been obtained without a prescription. He had used someone else’s prescription, peeled their name off the bottles, and given 12 bottles to me, on the first transaction when I paid him $3700 (click here for the article about label tampering). Anyway, let’s humour him for a minute, and suppose that I was using the non-prescription Topical Solution. This is still wrong because the bottles that he knows I have, had written on them ‘5% Minoxidil’ and some had ‘Retin-A with 5% Minoxidil’. These products were compounded by IHRB’s first pharmacist. No such products can be compounded without a prescription. So how did they end up in Sam’s office, and how did they end up in my hand? Sam is misleading the Tribunal by suggesting that some bottles require a prescription, while others do not. A compounding pharmacist is not allowed to make products for bulk sales. Products can only be made for a certain individual. I walked in off the street, and had bottles thrust in my hands. Whichever way Sam argues the point, he is in breach of one or more laws, no matter how he twists this argument. So we have yet another sentence below, filled with deception.

Below we see that Sam Cohen provides a document that is vastly different from the original. This is amazing. He had a copy of the original which appeared in the 211-page report. Why would he fabricate a new one, when he knows that I had already referenced the original? This is the extent of his desperation. The document on the left is fabricated and: 1) Changes the shampoo usage from once to twice; 2) Suggests that I should be using his useless conditioner, which he originally had struck out; 3) Says that Proscar ‘might’ have been required, as indicated by his question mark. However, the original on the right shows that he had told me that I would not need any of those dangerous non-approved products; 4) Then the faked document shows a third bullet, mentioning Loniten, which simply did not exist in the original document when he was trying to tell me that his entire treatment was herbal, natural, and organic. Now he fakes this document to show that he had told me about Loniten (which he misspells as Lonoten), which is a dangerous non-apporved product that must never be used for hair growth; 5) The last bullet point changes the text and removes the words ‘I suggest’ because Sam is now trying to say that he never suggested anything, and that any and all medications or treatments were suggested by my GP. Sam has been the only person directing the treatment. However, when I suffered a rash, thanks to him and his useless dangerous products, he tried to blame my doctor. That’s like blaming Ronald McDonald. My GP had nothing to do with his treatment. So now Sam fabricates this new document, and submits it to the Tribunal, and has the bally-cheek to suggest that I was lying. There’s heaps and heaps and heaps more to show you, but I think you get the picture. Sam Cohen lives in a world of his own, down a special road called ‘Lies Rd’ and nothing, not even the truth, shall get in his way.

Below are the thumbnails from the 211-page document that I had given to Sam and to the Tribunal. Sam had it in his hands for three weeks, to study, before he submitted his defence. Despite this, he still submitted lies, forgeries, fakes, and fabricated documents, as well as documents designed to mislead everyone about his alleged qualifications and career. I address those in another article. (Some of the photos below have been blurred on purpose to prohbit their misuse.)

P.S. IHRB is the name of the Institute of Hair Regrowth and Beauty run by Sam Cohen of 105 Pitt Street Sydney.