Sam Badawi blocked my Facebook

Sam Badawi blocked my Facebook

Print This Post Print This Post

Sam Badawi, whom we are led to believe is the owner (although I doubt it) of Christopher Hanna Platinum hairdressing salon at the Ivy in Sydney, is endorsing Sam Cohen’s products and hair regrowth treatments. I sent an email to Mr Sam Badawi inviting him to record a radio interview with me so that he can explain why he has provided a public testimonial to Mr Sam Cohen of IHRB, which Mr Cohen is using to promote IHRB’s products. Unfortunately, Mr Sam Badawi did not respond to my email.

Sam Badawi blocks my Facebook after IHRB queryPrior to sending it, I had made enquiries to ensure that the email address was correct, and that Mr Badawi was in Sydney and in his office. I then posted the same email in the form of a letter, on my official letterhead. That, too, was ignored. I then sent a message via Facebook. Within hours, Mr Badawi blocked me so that I would not be able to communicate with him again.

Of course, I have his mobile number and home address. However, I felt that three attempts were enough, considering that he had made his intentions clear.

In this article, I will review Mr Badawi’s testimonial, and ask if he has exposed himself by giving Mr Cohen such glowing support. Let’s take one step at a time by starting with my invitation, which Mr Badawi decided to ignore, then snub, and then block. Here is what I had written to him:



Dear Mr Badawi

I sent an email to you on 1 Dec 2013, and then posted a letter care-of your Salon at the Ivy on 3 Dec. I want to be sure that I have done everything possible to reach you so that you are aware of my invitation for a radio interview, because I will be publishing an article about your involvement with Mr Sam Cohen of IHRB. I am simply paying you every professional courtesy before I publish my article. In case you did not see the email sent to, here is what it said:

Dear Mr Badawi

I noticed that your name and photo are appearing in promotional material published by Mr Sam Cohen of IHRB, as per attached.

In your testimonial, you offer your full support to IHRB’s treatment.

Given your standing in the community as a hairdresser, your opinion and recommendation would carry significant weight. In view of this, I wonder if you would care to outline your level of support and explain to my readers why you feel IHRB has been effective.

I run the website called I will be publishing a story about Mr Cohen’s latest round of advertising. Whether or not you grant me an interview, I will analyse your testimonial in great detail, as I have done for other articles on the site.

I invite you to conduct a radio interview with me, via the phone. I would like to ask you about your experiences with IHRB, and your hair re-growth treatment, and ask about what you have said in the testimonial. The radio interview will then be posted on the internet and my YouTube Channel for the public to hear.

As you say, ‘Being a hairdresser and owning a “hairdressing salon”, and having a good knowledge of hair…’ it is important for the public to understand what you know about IHRB and why you speak so highly of its products and treatments.

If it is more convenient for you, I would be happy to conduct the interview after-hours so that I do not take up any of your valuable trading hours.

I expect to publish a story by 12 December 2013. This invitation is a courtesy to allow you to explain your position. You have gone on record, so this matter is now in the public interest.

If you wish to avail yourself, I can arrange for our respective secretaries to arrange the date and time for the interview.

Your sincerely

Jonar Nader [A scan of the testimonial was attached with each communique]



The IHRB advertisement in which Mr Sam Badawi endorses IHRB and Sam Cohen.

The IHRB advertisement in which Mr Sam Badawi endorses IHRB and Sam Cohen. He also appears in other ads, such as the one shown at the bottom of this article.

WHite line 660 30


Mr Badawi, here are some of the questions that I would like for you to answer. The first relates to your gratitude towards Sam Cohen. In your testimonial, you say, ‘THANK YOU!! For regrowing my hair with your “Intellectual Property” added Topical Solution and “hygiene products”, giving me back my confidence.’

If you believe that your hair grew back, I have no reason to doubt you. I firmly believe that some of your hair could have grown back. I do not dispute that your hair had improved. I emphasise this in order to clarify with you, Mr Badawi, that I am not doubting that your hair grew back (even though, to my eyes, the before-and-after photos are not impressive). If your hair grew back, I would suggest that it was due to the medications that were readily available on the market (which anyone could have purchased at a few dollars) and that the medications contained nothing in them that could be counted as efficacious intellectual property owned by IHRB or Sam Cohen.

My long list of questions starts with the following:

1a What medications did you take? Did you take Proscar or Propecia (Finasteride)? Did you take Loniten? Did you take Minoxidil? If so, what was the percentage? Did the Minoxidil contain Retin-A?

Why are these questions important? Because your hair might well have grown back due to these products which you could have purchased at any pharmacy (some only with a prescription). These products do not belong to IHRB or Mr Cohen. In any case, were you informed by Mr Cohen of the possible side-effects? Were you aware of the proper warnings, such as the real possibility that Minoxidil could cause you to lose more hair? Furthermore, did you know that Finasteride can cause permanent erectile dysfunction? And that it can cause men to grow breasts which could lead to male breast cancer? Did you know that you could experience testicular pain? Did you know that Loniten is a very dangerous product that specifically is NOT to be used for hair growth. Loniten is a medication that has NOTHING to do with hair. Those who take it are last-resort elderly patients with extreme cases of blood pressure who first need to start taking Loniten while in hospital under medical supervision and under strict dietary controls because, amongst other things, it causes water retention. Loniten has some serious side effects. One of them is that hair can grow on any part of the body (ears, nose, feet, face… anywhere), including the scalp. The TGA and the FDA and the manufacturers of Loniten say that it is NOT to be used for hair growth. Mr Cohen will tell you that Loniten is nothing more than Minoxidil, and that Minoxidil is approved for hair. No, this is not correct. We can say that acetone is used to remove nail-polish from nails, when applied topically on the nail. However, no-one in their right mind would drink the acetone. Taking Loniten tablets via the mouth (as a form of Minoxidil for hair growth) is like drinking the acetone. Loniten is Minoxidil. Minoxidil is not approved for use inside the body via the mouth. It is only approved as a topical solution. So taking Loniten tablets (like drinking the acetone) AND placing the topical solution on your head, is doubly dangerous. It is placing Minoxidil INSIDE your system, as well as on top of your scalp. Besides, were you informed that Minoxidil has been known to cause SUDDEN DEATH? Have you seen what some of the side effects for Minoxidil look like? Are you suggesting that your friends go and trust Mr Sam Cohen with these possible side effects? Do you want your friends to put their health and safety in the hands of a man who has been known to overdose clients on medications which he was never licensed to sell? Do you want your friends to deal with a man whom the Commissioner of the Health Care Complaints Commission had said was a risk to public health and safety? Do you want your friends and the clients of Christopher Hanna Platinum to transact in a way that has been described by the Australian Medical Association as ‘absolutely disgraceful’?

Furthermore, if your bottles ever contained Retin-A, then you need to know that the TGA recommends against the use of Retin-A with Minoxidil because the Retin-A opens the scalp and enables the topical Minoxidil to enter the body. So if you have taken Loniten (which is dangerous) and topical Minoxidil with Retin-A, then you have placed in your body a potentially lethal dose of Minoxidil. Some people have suffered badly from this combination. One of IHRB’s clients settled out of court, after he was assessed as being minutes away from an anaphylactic shock. Others have suffered with a weeping scalp, and others have had to present to a hospital after their scalp started to fill with pimples that were filled with blood. I personally suffered painful rashes to my scalp and body.

Do you want clients of Christopher Hanna Platinum and friends of Sam Badawi to deal with a Sam Cohen whose processes have been described by the HCCC in a report to the Minister for Health as ‘repugnant‘?

Therefore Mr Badawi, are you sure you want your friends and family and clients to just go to Mr Sam Cohen and use these products which the authorities have said should not be used in this way? Do you know what some people have suffered after using Retin-A? Take a look at these photos of Retin-A side effects and tell me if you want your friends to take these risks, on the thrust of your recommendation.

1b When you went to transact with Mr Cohen, did you pay him between $3,000 and $4,900 just to sign-up? Why would you endorse this? What did you pay for?

When we go to purchase headache tablets or any medication or Viagra, we just pay as we go. We do not sign a contract and pay thousands of dollars to sign-up. What is the logic of signing-up to IHRB’s program? When we purchase Panadol or a product from Clarins, do we sign-up? No! So, why would you recommend this method of payment to your friends and the public? One would think that the only reason for a contract, is the supposed money-back guarantee. However, unless you have actually asked for your money back, you, Mr Badawi, will not know the pain and agony involved in trying to get your money back. Many people try, and many never see a cent, because they have to put up with what they claim to be endless lies from Mr Sam Cohen. I know this first-hand. Mr Cohen might tell you that he gave me a refund. I received my $3,700 back after spending 383 days fighting via the Consumer Tribunal, and after spending tens of thousands of dollars fighting Mr Cohen, and only after I had him in a checkmate position and issued Mr Cohen with a Summons to furnish proof of his supposedly efficacious ingredients. Many clients do not even bother turning up to the Second Hearing after witnessing the shenanigans that Mr Cohen plays during the First Hearing. You can read about my 383-day case here. If  you would like to see the extent of my 211-page submission, take a look at the bottom of this link to get an idea of the effort it took to fight Sam Cohen’s lies.

How did you first hear about Mr Cohen? Was it through his advertising? I would like to know when you saw those ads, because they might well have been ads that were never Authorised. Sam Cohen has never had the Required Advertising Approval. His ads as far back 2007 were Sanctioned, yet despite these first-round Sanctions, Mr Cohen continued to place those specific ads for 22 months, even though the Complaints Resolution Panel had told Mr Cohen that, due to his recalcitrance, he was being reported to the Department for Health in Canberra because Mr Cohen had failed to comply. Mr Cohen only altered his ads slightly after 22 months, and continued to advertise without Approvals, as he does to this very day. Since the first-round of Sanctions, IHRB’s ads were Sanctioned a second time, and he is once again in breach of those Sanctions which determined that his advertisements were ‘…unlawful, misleading and unverified’.  You can keep track of his complete disregard of the Sanctions if you check the daily counter which, at the time of writing this article, showed that Sam Cohen was 2 years and 49 days in breach of the Sanctions. IHRB was, for the second time, reported to Canberra. In his attempt to stall and waste time, Mr Cohen wrote back to the TGA, saying that his ads have been misjudged, and that he never made the claims for which he was being Sanctioned. Mr Badawi, to give you an idea of what the public has to endure from Sam Cohen, consider this as a tiny example of his modus operandi: Mr Cohen says that he NEVER said that he can block the balding gene, and he asked the TGA to show him proof of where he has ever said that he can block the balding gene. To understand the sheer absurdity of these obfuscating games that he plays on clients and Officials, just read this report and tell me what you think of Mr Cohen’s emphatic insistence about his many objections pertaining to my campaign, designed to protect the public financially and medically.

Mr Badawi, now I would ask you to please cast your mind back to when you first became a client. Did Mr Sam Cohen give you the products and medications himself? Or did you travel to the chemist and purchase them yourself? You see, if Mr Cohen handed the medications to you, he would have been acting illegally because he was never authorised or licensed to sell medications. It was illegal for Mr Cohen to have sold such bottles. In the early days, his bottles used to have his name on them. He was never authorised to sell such products. He will tell you that he was acting as your agent. No! In terms of pharmaceutical products, the ‘agent’ is the person who goes to pick up the medications for their sick friend or spouse. A husband can take his wife’s prescription and go to the chemist and ask for it to be dispensed. That husband signs that he was acting as the agent for his wife. That is what is meant by the term ‘agent’. Yet, that husband cannot go to the chemist, ask the chemist to dispense the product, and ask the chemist to add special secret intellectual property to the medications, and cannot then put a label on the medications saying that it was specially formulated according to the husband’s specifications, and the husband cannot mark-up the product and sell it to his wife or any member of the public at ten times the price. The husband cannot ask his wife and others to pay a sign-on fee and to sign a contract to supply. The husband cannot issue a guarantee and enter into a business relationship with his wife to supply these products forever. All this would be illegal. So I ask you Mr Badawi, did Mr Cohen supply and sell those products to you? If so, then that would have been completely illegal. After Mr Cohen’s office was raided by police, and his pharmacists started to behave themselves, we see evidence of more label tampering.

Mr Badawi, I also wonder if you had a prescription in the first instance. With or without a prescription, it would have been illegal for Mr Cohen to supply and sell products to you. However, cast your mind back and ponder if you were sold products without a prescription. Mr Cohen defends this by saying that anyone can go to a chemist and purchase Minoxidil. No! They cannot go and purchase Minoxidil at greater than 5% concentration. They cannot purchase it with Retin-A included (unless it is specially compounded after a doctor had prescribed it, while knowing that the TGA does not recommend this). Furthermore, you and I can go to any store and purchase cigarettes and alcohol. Yet, we cannot sell cigarettes and alcohol without a licence. Minoxidil is a Schedule 2 poison. It cannot be sold without a licence. A pharmacist is licensed to sell it. Mr Sam Cohen and IHRB are not licensed to sell Scheduled products.

1c) Let us return to that first sentence you wrote in your testimonial, wherein you thanked Mr Cohen for his ‘Intellectual Property’.

You are referring to his topical solution which I have so far shown to you that he was never licensed to supply or sell? When some clients did challenge Mr Cohen about his illegal supply of pharmacy-only and/or prescription-only products, he spun a story about supplying only Activance. That product has nothing to do with regrowing hair. Activance ads were Sanctioned by the Complaints Resolution Panel and shown to be useless products. Now you are telling your clients of Christopher Hanna Platinum and your friends and your family that you personally endorse the Intellectual Property that Mr Cohen adds to the topical solutions.

What do you know about the ‘Intellectual Property’? The law requires anyone selling a therapeutic product to scientifically and medically PROVE that the product does work. The law requires IHRB and Sam Cohen to prove, via rigorous independent scientific testing that the products are efficacious and safe. The law requires that the ingredients be listed on the label. They cannot be secret. They must be scientifically and INDEPENDENTLY verified. So Mr Badawi, talk is cheap. Anyone can sell bottles on the market, making all sorts of claims. We have laws in Australia. The TGA requires certain levels of proof. Has Mr Cohen shown you the ingredients, as is required by law? Were the bottles which he has been selling to you, labelled according to the law? Did the bottles have a TGA number to prove that the products were Registered with the TGA? Click here to read what the TGA requires in terms of Registering products.

Once again, let’s take this a step at a time. When his pharmacists were supplying IHRB victims with Affidavits that the secret natural extracts do not exist, Mr Cohen protested. Click here to read how the first two pharmacists denied ever using any efficacious therapeutic products, saying that nothing of any use had belonged to IHRB or Sam Cohen. After the first pharmacist dumped Sam Cohen and IHRB, and refused to supply any more Minoxidil products to IHRB, Mr Cohen located another pharmacist (who happened to be a few doors down from IHRB’s old office in Pitt Street). That second pharmacist has since been stripped of his licence, and his career is in tatters after the Pharmacy Tribunal deregistered the pharmacist for misconduct. Mr Cohen had supplied that second pharmacist with a solution which Mr Cohen called a Chardonnay. Click here to read how that Chardonnay was debunked by the pharmacists. When a victim proves that the pharmacist denies any knowledge of the supposed secret formula, Mr Cohen switches stories and says that he adds them himself to Activance; a product that has nothing to do with hair and whose ads have been Sanctioned. Of course, that’s all messy. Mr Cohen claims to use Activance in order to deflect otherwise alleged criminal behaviour because he and IHRB have been Prohibited from supplying Minoxidil or any product that can only be supplied by a pharmacist or via a prescription. Yet, when we tested his bottles, we did find Minoxidil!

Mr Cohen then started to tell the Consumer Tribunal and his clients that his secret ‘intellectual property’ formula that he claims regrows hair, not only exists, but has been acknowledged to exist by the Health Care Complaints Commission. This was an astonishing turn of event. I engaged my lawyers to contact the Commissioner of HCCC, and here you can read the response from the Commissioner who confirmed that the HCCC knows nothing about his supposed secret formula.

In any case, the whole practice of Mr Cohen supposedly adding secret additives was described in the HCCC Annual Report as ‘repugnant’. The way Mr Cohen uses doctors was described by the President of the Australian Medical Association in NSW as ‘absolutely disgraceful’.

1d) What more can we say about IHRB’s supposed ‘Intellectual Property’?

Below we read an excerpt from an Affidavit signed by the first pharmacist who says that in eight and a half years, he never added any of Mr Cohen’s supposed extracts!

IHRB's first pharmacist says that for the 8.5 years that he had supplied the topical solution to IHRB, he never ever added anything to the bottles that would be IHRB's intellectual property.

IHRB’s first pharmacist says that for the 8.5 years that he had supplied the topical solution to IHRB, he never ever added anything to the bottles that would be IHRB’s intellectual property.

WHite line 660 30

The second pharmacist said that Mr Cohen wanted him to add grape seed extract and a Vitamin A palmitate. The pharmacist wrote in an Affidavit that these items are not exclusive to IHRB. They are regular items on the market, and he also noted that these items have nothing to do with growing hair, and that they contain no active ingredients and that they have no therapeutic effect.

The second pharmacists says that the grape seed extracts and the Vitamin A palmitate have no active ingredients and no therapeutic value, and thus have nothing to do with regrowing hair, and that these items do not belong to IHRB. They are regular ingredients on the market and cannot be called IHRB's intellectual property. He also said that he had sold Minoxidil with Retin-A to IHRB at approximately $30 per bottle, which raises the question of why and how IHRB could illegally re-sell the bottles at massively inflated prices.

The second pharmacists says that the grape seed extracts and the Vitamin A palmitate have no active ingredients and no therapeutic value, and thus have nothing to do with regrowing hair, and that these items do not belong to IHRB. They are regular ingredients on the market and cannot be called IHRB’s intellectual property. He also said that he had sold Minoxidil with Retin-A to IHRB at approximately $30 per bottle, which raises the question of why and how IHRB could illegally re-sell the bottles at massively inflated prices.

WHite line 660 30

The third pharmacist (Elias Pharmacy) was most unco-operative. However, when he was summonsed to respond to a series of questions about what he added, he responded in a signed letter to the Registrar of the Consumer Tribunal and said that he never added anything to the IHRB’s bottles that were sold to a particular victim (whose name I obscured to protect his privacy) who was suing Mr Cohen at CTTT.

A summons was issued via CTTT asking Elias Pharmacy if it had ever added anything supplied by, or own by, IHRB.

A summons was issued via CTTT asking Elias Pharmacy if it had ever added anything supplied by, or own by, IHRB.

WHite line 660 30

Below was the return-on-summons wherein the pharmacists from Elias Pharmacy swears that he never added anything that was supplied by or own by IHRB or Sam Cohen.

The Retun-on-Summon from IHRB's third pharmacist who says in point 3 that he never added anything that could be said to be own by or supplied by IHRB or Sam Cohen.

The Retun-on-Summon from IHRB’s third pharmacist who says in point 3 that he never added anything that could be said to be own by or supplied by IHRB or Sam Cohen.



Mr Badawi, in your testimonial, you then say, ‘I strongly recommend all men, women and children losing hair or balding to seek Sam’s help without delay.’

Are you sure that is the advice you wish to give clients of Christopher Hanna Platinum, and to all your friends and the public? Don’t you realise that the reasons for hair loss could be wide and varied? Don’t you think that people losing hair ought to consult a doctor first? Can you entrust them into Sam Cohen’s care? Mr Cohen admits that he is not a doctor. Yet he was found by the Health Care Complaints Commission to be a risk to patients because of the way he handles medications illegally. Two former clients said that Mr Cohen said that pregnant women could use Minoxidil, when in fact, this can be dangerous. The Commissioner of the Health Care Complaints Commission conducted a six-month investigation into Mr Cohen and IHRB and found that Mr Cohen was endangering lives. So would you wish to go against the Commissioner’s findings and suggest that Mr Cohen is someone to whom you would like to send men, women, and children?

Besides, Mr Cohen and IHRB have been issued with Permanent Prohibition Orders by the HCCC. The Orders prohibit Mr Cohen or IHRB from SUPPLYING or SELLING any medications that would need a prescription, and any medications that can only be purchased via a pharmacy. Do you understand what that means? So how can you suggest that men, women, and children seek help from Mr Cohen when he is not a health practitioner, and he has been found to have operated illegally, and has been told not to SELL or SUPPLY products in any shape or form… so how, Mr Sam Badawi, can Mr Cohen help anyone, when he simply is prohibited from supplying or selling? I just do not understand how you can send men, women, and children to such a man.



Mr Badawi, in your testimonial, you then advise people, ‘Please ignore all the fabricated, vexatious and vilifying adverse publicity, character assassinating Sam and his organisation.’

Have you, Mr Sam Badawi, read the material about which you are advising your clients and the public to ‘ignore’. Do you really want people to ignore what the NSW Police found during the raid? Do you want people to ignore what the Health Care Complaints Commission uncovered? Do you want them to ignore the very many victims who tell of their sad stories? Do you want people to ignore the evidence presented here which includes what the Tribunals have discovered? Do you want people to ignore the Permanent Prohibition Orders? Do you want people to ignore what the experts at the Complaints Resolution Panel concluded about IHRB’s ads when they said the ads are so bad that they need to be withdrawn and asked Mr Cohen to publish retractions (which he never did)? Do you want people to ignore the law and trade with a man who has been prohibited from supplying or selling therapeutic products? What do you know about these allegations? How confident are you that everything presented on this site is, according to you, ‘fabricated’ yet you do not seem to understand what the Authorities have been saying about Mr Cohen and his operation. Did you write that testimonial yourself? Do you really know what those words (your words) mean, in relation to the evidence presented here to you — the very evidence about which you advise your Christopher Hanna Platinum clients and members of the public to ignore?



Mr Badawi, in your testimonial, you support Mr Cohen by saying, ‘Sam is very trustworthy and a straight shooter.’

How do you know this? You are risking your own reputation by suggesting that Mr Cohen is trustworthy. Do you trust him? The Court found that he lied to a Tribunal about his supposed university degree, and Mr Cohen now has a Criminal Conviction for lying to a Tribunal. I allege that he lied during my Consumer Tribunal case, and that of others. Take a look at this as an example of the blatant lies.

Mr Badawi, you say that Mr Cohen is trustworthy. Please study how he traps people and let me know if this is the conduct of a trustworthy man. And if that’s not enough, consider this allegation by another victim who took the matter to CTTT. Do you find it trustworthy for a person to tamper with labels?

You do not wonder about Mr Cohen when the Fair Trading Commissioner says in a media release that Mr Cohen’s conduct was ‘reprehensible’? The Fair Trading Commissioner then went on radio to further stress Sam Cohen’s misconduct. The Commissioner of the Health Care Complaints Commission said that Mr Cohen was an ‘unreliable witness’. You can read that in the 22-page report here.

Mr Sam Badawi, you say that Mr Cohen is a straight shooter. Would a straight shooter disregard the laws of the land and keep on ignoring Sanctions? I can show you a very long list. Meanwhile, consider how Mr Cohen has snubbed the Complaints Resolution Panel and the TGA for years and years. He continues to advertise against the Sanctions. Despite being told again and again to cease publishing his ‘unlawful, misleading and unverified’ advertisements, he keeps on advertising. Would a straight shooter ignore the warnings of the TGA?

You think that Mr Cohen is a straight shooter. Have you analysed his radio ads? Have you had a close look at the ads that IHRB has published over the years? You say in your testimonial that you support Mr Cohen’s ‘organisation’. Have you stopped to think how IHRB (which stands for the Institute of Hair Regrowth & Beauty) can call itself an Institute? Would a straight shooter make statements such as the ones which you can read if you click here?

Would a trustworthy man charge such exorbitant prices as these? And Mr Cohen charges for products that he was never licensed to sell. Is that what a straight shooter does? Here is an article about how Mr Cohen lies to the Department of Fair Trading. Would a straight shooter pass-off his own media releases as ‘independent editorials’? Would a trustworthy man have a contract that is completely unfair and unreasonable?



Mr Badawi, if you do not wish to believe a word I have told you, and if you are inclined to disbelieve the stories of other victims, then why not apply the test of ‘trustworthiness’  and the ‘straight shooter’ test directly to you, personally. You can know the answer to these questions by examining your transactions with Mr Cohen.

Did Mr Cohen sell you any Minoxidil directly? From his hand to yours? If he had done this, it would have been illegal. No unlicensed person can do so. Mr Cohen has never been licensed. Sure, Minoxidil can be purchased from a pharmacy. That is the only place you can buy it. Indeed, you can buy alcohol and cigarettes from retailers. However, you and I would be prohibited from on-selling them. So, too, with Minoxidil. It is illegal to on-sell it. So if you answered ‘yes’ to this question, how can you say that Mr Cohen is a straight shooter?

Did Mr Cohen sell you Minoxidil that is higher than 5% concentration? Did you have a doctor’s prescription for it? Minoxidil higher than 5% needs a prescription. With or without a prescription, it would have been illegal for Mr Cohen to have sold it to you. If he says he was acting as your Agent, then would an agent mark-up the bottles and make a profit, and add things to the medications (as he and you seem sure he adds his intellectual property) to a prescription when the doctor has no idea about this addition which could harm you? Are these the actions of a trustworthy man?

Did Mr Cohen sell you topical solutions with Retin-A? Did you have a doctor’s prescription? Was he licensed? If that is what had happened, then would a trustworthy person break the law and sell products to you when they are not authorised to?

Did you have a direct relationship with the pharmacist? A pharmacist who does not have a direct relationship with the client can get into trouble (because the pharmacist has a duty of care to you). Mr Sam Cohen’s second pharmacist was struck off the register and lost his career and his pharmacy!

Mr Cohen and the Institute of Hair Regrowth & Beauty were both issued with Prohibition Orders since October 2010. So ask yourself Mr Sam Badawi if you had purchased anything from Mr Cohen since October 2010. The Government had issued PROHIBITION ORDERS. I will spell out what they mean, right here, and you can tell me if the person you are describing as trustworthy has broken those Orders with YOU personally:

From the 22-page Statement by the Health Care Complaints Commission, we read:

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.

Now, Mr Badawi, so that you would not be misled or confused about what this means, I draw your attention to the same 22-page HCCC Determination wherein the matter is made clearer about what is meant by the words SUPPLY and SELL. You can read more about this by clicking this link and going to paragraphs 6.3 all the way to 6.91:

6.3 The PTGA [Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act] 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.

Therefore Mr Badawi, above you will note that Mr Cohen should never supply or sell. Did he supply or sell to you? Please study what the Government Act says above. Did what Mr Cohen do with YOU personally, breach that Act? Did he ever give you free products? Even if he never sold anything to you, and just gave them to you for free, then, according to the Act, he would have been in breach of the law. So ponder this and tell me if the man whom you are endorsing in your public testimonial would in fact fit the bill as a trustworthy straight shooter.

Then Mr Badawi, I ask you yet another telling question. Only you would know the answer to this: Did Mr Cohen ever refer to his secret formula as ‘Indian Curries’ or ‘Curries’? It’s a simple question. Did he ever use those words with you? I have Affidavits and testimonials from countless clients and pharmacists who had sworn that Mr Cohen tells people that he has special Indian Curries. Yet, when this question was put to him during a Tribunal Hearing, he denied ever using those words, and accused ME of inventing that term (Indian Curries). He said that it was I who had invented the term Indian Curries. I have the full transcript and the audio recording from the Tribunal wherein Mr Cohen shouts out that he never used those words. Why is this significant? Well, every statement that a victim issues at a Tribunal, seems to be disputed by Mr Cohen (until he is caught out — at which point his solicitor offers an adjustment and says that his client’s statement was a mistake). So you, Mr Badawi, would never know what was said between Mr Cohen and his other clients. However, you can use this simple, seemingly minor point, as an example of the dozens of objections that Mr Cohen makes. You might have been a witness to this phraseology if Mr Cohen ever mentioned his Indian Curries to you. And if he had, then you can see, by way of example, from the dozens of alleged lies, that Mr Cohen has no qualms about making false statements while under OATH! He told the Tribunal that he never used the phrase Indian Curries, and that it was I who had invented the term, and he might have laughingly uttered those words by way of a joke at me and my campaign. So, while under Oath, Mr Cohen has made a statement that only you can know to be true or otherwise. So, if he had used those words (Indian Curries) with you, then you can satisfy yourself if your mate Mr Cohen is a trustworthy straight-shooter. His outburst is on tape and in a transcript. By the way, the timeline is of interest here. You say in your testimonial that you saw Mr Cohen in April 2008. Did he use the words ‘Indian Curries’ with you in April 2008? You see, I became a client in September 2008 and only one year later did I start my campaign. So he cannot possibly say that I had anything to do with that phraseology in April 2008.

Mr Badawi, I also ask you how you came to learn about IHRB? Did you see any advertising in 2008? IHRB was told in 2007 NOT to advertise by making those unverified claims. Also, take a look at the ad you saw. Did it have an Advertising Approval Number from the TGA’s Advertising Division? NO! Mr Cohen keeps saying that he knows nothing about this requirement. Yet, in 2007, the Complaints Resolution Panel told Mr Cohen about his unverified ads and that he needs Advertising Approval. Therefore, it could well be that you were (as I was) lured via ads that should have never been published, because they were Sanctioned and IHRB was told not to publish such ads and not to make such statements!

Mr Badawi, do you feel that someone is a straight shooter when they send a letter to the Consumer Tribunal claiming that they cannot issue a refund to a client because the IHRB cheque requires two signatures, when in fact that is not true, as ASIC records would show? Would that be a blatant lie? Would you call someone trustworthy when they play with such alleged untruths at a Tribunal?

After Mr Cohen was caught telling lies at the Consumer Tribunal, Mr Cohen said that he ‘inadvertently’ said that he has a Bachelor of Science Degree. How does someone say such a thing inadvertently? How can it be inadvertent when Mr Cohen had also signed an Affidavit for the NSW Court against another of his clients, and in that document, he states and signs and swears that he has a BSc. And many years earlier, an Annual Report from the old Ashley & Martin also states that Mr Cohen has a BSc. Do you consider it to be trustworthy for someone to lie to the Tribunal and then claim that it was inadvertent, when a solid history shows that Mr Cohen has been telling people that he has a Degree (therefore expecting people to trust his judgement about his supposed scientific discovery of Indian Curries and additives that grow hair better than anything else on the market)?

Mr Badawi, does this article about a woman who alleges that Mr Cohen lied to her, cast any doubt over Mr Cohen’s trustworthiness?

Mr Badawi, do you think that publishing ads showing hair growth, which is nothing more than PhotoShop, count as being an honest way to run a business?

Mr Sam Badawi, would you consider a person who breaks the law to be a trustworthy person?

Mr Sam Badawi, do you think that a story such as this one is fair, showing a client who says that he paid $3,800 for a bottle worth $12.95? Is that what a straight-shooter does?

Do you think, Mr Sam Badawi, that a person who misrepresents his past, is a straight shooter?

Do you think, Mr Sam Badawi, that a person who orders goods and does not pay for them, is a trustworthy person?

Mr Sam Badawi, in the advertisement wherein YOU are featured and wherein YOUR testimonial is published, Mr Cohen says in his header, ‘THIS IS A WORLDS FIRST…’ What is the average person supposed to understand by this phrase? Is that what a straight shooter does? Read the relevant section in this article and tell me if you think it is the mark of a straight shooter to mislead people by using a phrase like THIS IS A WORLD’S FIRST. The average person would presume that there is a solution to regrow hair that is the first in the world. When challenged, Mr Cohen says that he meant that he is the first in the world to offer a guarantee. And that was disputed by the CEO of Ashley & Martin who said that Ashley & Martin had offered guarantees in the old days when Sam Cohen was still working there — so how can Sam Cohen claim that he is the first in the world to offer a guarantee? Besides, how does he know what every trader in the world is doing in terms of hair regrowth guarantees. So what is the average person to assume upon reading his headlines in his unlawful ads?

Mr Sam Badawi, would you say that a person who lies to the Police is a straight shooter?

Mr Badawi, you are now part of the IHRB list of people who have given testimonials to Mr Sam Cohen. Please think carefully and ponder if you crafted your own testimonial. Did you write the testimonial all on your own, without any influence? Did you craft each and every sentence in your own testimonial? Consider these examples of people who made testimonials in the past, and why the Complaints Resolution Panel declared IHRB’s testimonials to be ‘unverified’. Mr Badawi, would you have the courage to answer this question truthfully? Can you say that your testimonial was written by you? Study this testimonial to see that you might not be the only one in that boat. Would you be brave enough like this former client who had his face and testimonial featured in an IHRB ad but later contacted Mr Cohen and asked that his name no longer be associated?

Mr Badawi, you be the judge and tell us if this is a contract that a straight shooter would use.

Mr Sam Badawi, as a hairdresser, you might appreciate the value of good publicity. You might also value good independent reviews. On IHRB’s website and in sales kits, Mr Sam Cohen tells everyone that these are comments from ‘independent journals’. Read this article and tell me if these are independent comments, and then ponder if a businessman should tell clients and the public that these are independent comments. You be the judge.

Incidentally, take a look at what I discovered about how Mr Cohen responds to the Authorities. Is this what we would expect from a straight shooter?



Mr Badawi, in your testimonial, you say, ‘I am not being paid for this testimonial or for advertising.’

I have no reason to doubt you. However, were you ever given any products free of charge? If so, I think your lawyers would tell you, if they examined the Codes and Acts surrounding the real definition of what an independent (therapeutic) testimonial is, that customers who receive free goods are not permitted to give testimonials. So please answer this question as a matter of curiosity. In any case, even if you were never paid in any way, I am curious as to why you would pin your reputation on that of Mr Cohen’s. If you were aware of the bad publicity, including this TV expose by ‘Today Tonight’ on Channel 7, why would you still endorse Mr Cohen? That is a real mystery. You back him up so much, that you would refuse an interview with me to help clarify the situation. Why would you not care to bring things out in the open so that your clients of Christopher Hanna Platinum and the public who might (or might not know you) can hear you explaining where you stand on this matter?

By the way, why did you make this point (about payment) to the public? Mr Cohen might have asked you to tell people that you are not being paid. That is because other testimonials have been dubious. I have spoken with other clients who have told me that they were receiving free products in exchange for their testimonial. And that is not permitted! So now you know the history behind why this sentence was important for Mr Cohen.



Mr Badawi, in your testimonial, you say, ‘After trying various treatments and programs and Rogaine for 3 years, in vain, I came to see seek (sic) your help in April 2008.’

Mr Badawi, do you understand the seriousness of this statement? You are telling the world that nothing worked, and that Rogain (which is Minoxidil) did not work. So you are saying that only IHRB’s treatment did work. And you are suggesting that what did work was Sam Cohen’s Intellectual Property. Are you sure you want to say that? What do you know about the Intellectual Property? You must tell the public what you did take. Did you take Finasteride? Did you take Loniten? Did you take Minoxidil at a higher dosage? Did you take Minoxidil with Retin-A? You owe it to the public to be truthful with them. If you do not specify what you took, you are leaving the public to assume that it was the secret Intellectual Property that worked. Can you, Mr Sam Badawi, swear under Oath that you can, with full knowledge, endorse these mysterious additives and natural extracts that IHRB claims to be its own? Do you really know what you are endorsing here? Perhaps your hair grew back because you took the medications listed above, sold illegally to you. And what is the retail price of those medications? How much did you pay Mr Cohen? Does it make sense to pay thousands of dollars to an unlicensed man, to sell you products you can purchase without a contract, from the pharmacy, via a doctor’s prescription (if you and your doctor want to take the risks of erectile dysfunction, heart problems etc listed above). What do you say to that? The LAW (not me) requires that testimonials be verified. You need to verify what you say, Mr Badawi! Your reputation is riding on it.



Mr Badawi, in your testimonial, you say, ‘That is why I am still happily on your “maintenance program”. If your program was ineffective, I would not STICK TO IT.’

Mr Badawi, first, what is this maintenance program? That is a phrase that means nothing. So let’s shoot straight. It is perhaps you suggesting that you are still using the topical solution. I bet it contains Minoxidil. Keep one of your bottles in a safe place. Seal it well. Keep it in a cool place away from the sun, and let’s have it tested independently! Mr Badawi, if you really want to know the truth, let’s send one of your bottles to the laboratory of your choice (directly so that I never see it and never touch it) and have it tested. First, we might find that it contains Minoxidil, which if supplied or sold via Mr Cohen, would mean that Mr Cohen has breached the Prohibition Order. Second, ask Mr Cohen to tell you the ingredients of his Intellectual Property (which by law he should have listed on the label) and let’s test for their existence as being efficacious active ingredients that have been proven to regrow hair and that they are owned by Mr Cohen or IHRB. I would happily pay for the lab tests.

Putting the Prohibition Order aside, you must ask what that’s all about? What is in it? Does it belong to IHRB, or is it normal Minoxidil that you can purchase at $12? Or is it a higher dosage of Minoxidil that you can easily ask a compounding pharmacist to compound for you at a few dollars? Or does it contain Retin-A that your doctor would prescribe for you, and you can have any compounding pharmacist prepare for you at a few dollars? So what is this maintenance program? Does it include shampoo and Dermaclean sold to you at exorbitant prices? Are you aware that Mr Cohen, while under OATH at a Tribunal Hearing, has stated that his IHRB shampoo has NOTHING to do with growing hair. He said that his shampoo and Dermaclean are not part of the treatment. So why are you paying a fortune for shampoo that contains ingredients that IHRB’s first pharmacist (who supplied Mr Cohen for 8.5 years) says NOT TO USE. A shampoo that is nothing more than detergent. A shampoo that is supposed to be Organic, but which does not come with any organic certification? Read those links and tell me what you think you are paying for. Oh and I have not even touched on Saw Palmetto which I hope you are not taking, because the New England Journal of Medicine has debunked it!

By the way, in recent times, have you been receiving your bottles in plain white unmarked bottles with no label? Do you realise that if that bottle contained Minoxidil, then it would be illegal for this transaction to take place, and illegal for such bottles not to be labelled. Minoxidil is a Scheduled POISON. The TGA has strict rules about how such bottles must be labelled. Minoxidil is a therapeutic product, which would mean such bottles need to be Registered with the TGA. MR BADAWI, WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT MR COHEN, IN YOUR EYES, IS PERMITTED TO BREAK THE LAW OF THE LAND? DO YOU ENDORSE THIS KIND OF ILLEGAL BEHAVIOUR? WOULD YOU STILL PURCHASE PRODUCTS FROM SUCH A PERSON IF YOU NOW KNOW THAT HE IS UNDER PROHIBITION ORDERS? Mr Cohen should have told you about these Orders the moment he was issued with such Orders. Did he inform you, or merely laugh it off as some crazy campaign against him?

What kind of due diligence did you conduct before you issued your testimonial?



Mr Badawi, in your testimonial, you say, ‘… having a good knowledge of hair, I am very pleased to inform you about my satisfaction with your effective program.’

Mr Badawi, you are a hairdresser. I do not know what that means in terms of the training and qualifications you have. However, are you medically qualified to know about hair LOSS and the biological MEDICAL reasons why hair starts falling out for some men, women, and children? Are you medically qualified to know what and why hair started to fall out in various people? You claim to have good knowledge of hair. Does that mean you have a good knowledge of hair loss AND hair regrowth? These are medical issues. Are you wishing to stick your neck out and make statements about hair LOSS and hair REGROWTH? If so, would that put you in the category of a practitioner? Are you sure you want to be scrutinised by the Health Authorities as someone making health-realted statements in public? Therefore, one has to wonder what you being a hairdresser has anything to do with this! With respect to your profession, it is not a medical profession. So why are you using your hairdressing skills as any form of credentials to add weight to your unverified statements? If someone takes your advice, and finds that they are in trouble, are you willing to stake your reputation and your professional standing on your claims that IHRB is effective and that Sam Cohen can be trusted? You even say in your testimonial that you have referred friends and family to IHRB. What does that mean? Of what significance is this? Who were these people? Did they go? What were their verified results? The law requires verification. You are making assertions that go beyond the specific words you used. The inference is that you liked the program so much that you happily endorse it to your loved-ones. This is a strong statement. Fine, then back it up with real data. Otherwise, you are saying a lot about nothing, and your lawyer can tell you the significance of that. It is highly misleading and unverified. 



Mr Badawi, what is the current state of your business? In the testimonial, you say, ‘Being a hairdresser and owning a “hairdressing salon”…’

Mr Badawi, your testimonial was dated by IHRB in its promotional piece as 9 October 2013. The ‘after’ photo was taken in what seems to be a motor vehicle. Does Mr Cohen conduct his client visits in cars? Who took your photo? In any case, who are you?

I think the public deserves to know about your qualifications, and they need to be clear on your education. Is it true that you have a Bachelor of Computer Engineering from the University of NSW and that you went to Vaucluse High School? If so, how did you make the leap from there to working at NEC to becoming a hairdresser?

You say that you OWN a hairdressing salon. I noted on your Facebook page (before you blocked me) that you state your work as the OWNER of Christopher Hanna Platinum. Here is the confusing bit: The IHRB ad in which you appeared shows an updated testimonial and photo from you of 9 October 2013. That ad says that you are the Managing Director of ‘Christopher Hanna’, Sheraton on the Park, Sydney. I wonder if you had vacated that premises in January of 2013. So why is that testimonial ten months out of date in relation to your position and job title and geographic location?


The Sam Badawi Facebook page shows Mr Badawi as the owner of Christopher Hanna Platinum.

The Sam Badawi Facebook page shows Mr Badawi as the owner of Christopher Hanna Platinum.

WHite line 660 30



Mr Badawi, forgive me for asking. However, it is unclear to me about what is happening with Christopher Hanna Platinum. Who owns it? A search for Christopher Hanna Platinum reveals the name ‘Brave Beauty’ which lists as its Director and Secretary as Samir Zakaria and the External Administrator as Peter Hillig of Smith Hancock of Parramatta. Brave Beauty has a Supreme Court order for the appointment of Receivers and Managers after Guava Corp (whose directors are Mark Rahme and Pierre Haddad) was named as a Plaintiff in a complaint dated 29 January 2013. There is a Notice of Winding Up Order for Brave Beauty and a hearing was set for 25 March 2013. What is the latest with this, and who now owns and runs Christopher Hanna Platinum? Are you still a Director? Is the IHRB promotional piece shown above accurate, and was it accurate at the time of its publication in October 2013?

At this stage, I won’t ask you about the other entities with which you are associated, such as Skin Boost and Christopher Hanna Cosmedical.


An ABN search reveals the connection between Christopher Hanna Platinum and Brave Beauty -- the company under Administration after Guava Corp took court action.

An ABN search reveals the connection between Christopher Hanna Platinum and Brave Beauty — the company under Administration after Guava Corp took court action.

WHite line 660 30

A Winding-Up Order against Brave Beauty.

A Winding-Up Order against Brave Beauty.



Mr Badawi, if you would like to put your side of the story forward, you would be most welcome to contact me for an interview where you can update the public about your position. I mean you no harm. I simply wanted to know why you are endorsing Mr Cohen and IHRB. You went public with your testimonial. So now you have an opportunity to review this website and speak to me and the public via an interview, which would be followed up by an updated article. The floor is yours. I hold no personal grudges towards you. I simply want answers. You will find me friendly. I am not out to harm you. I am trying to protect innocent consumers from what I allege is a medical and financial scam. Will you join me in helping to make Sydney a better place for consumers?


Liquid Asset Management held an auction on Tuesday 25 June 2013 to clear stock from Brave Beauty. The gem of the pack was Lot number 600, the Pentium 4 computer. I shall be reviewing the hard drive. Nothing on a computer is ever deleted. So everything will be there. Standby for the juice.

Liquid Asset Management held an auction on Tuesday 25 June 2013 to clear stock from Brave Beauty. The gem of the pack was Lot number 600, the Pentium 4 computer. I shall be reviewing the hard drive. Nothing on a computer is ever deleted. So everything will be there.



Another example of the ads in which Mr Sam Badawi's testimonial appears.

Another example of the ads in which Mr Sam Badawi’s testimonial appears. This was from ‘Spectator’ on page 10 of the 25 October 2013 edition.

Comments are closed.