A prominent public health academic says he makes “no apologies” for flooding Australia’s medicines regulator with complaints about alternative therapies, a move that has drawn the ire of Complementary Medicines Australia.
Assoc Prof Ken Harvey has accused Complementary Medicines Australia of attempting to “oust” him from his role at Monash University by complaining about him to the Therapeutic Goods Administration and to the university.
Harvey is the representative for the consumer advocacy group, Choice, on the therapeutic goods advertising code council and the therapeutic goods advertising complaint resolution panel. As part of this role, he draws attention to false and potentially dangerous health claims being made by the complementary and alternative therapy industry about their products.
At Monash University, Harvey is leading a research project approved by the University’s school of public health in which students decide which spurious health claims to bring to the attention of regulators. Complementary Medicines Australia alleges Harvey is using his university position “to solicit enrolled students to become involved in a political anti-complementary medicines campaign”.
“By recruiting Monash students to this cause, under the guise of academic training, they are becoming complicit in your anti-complementary medicines campaign and we question the breach of government statutory conflicts of interest provisions,” the complaint said.
“We asked Monash to consider the reputational risk relating to this issue and consider whether your position at Monash is consistent with the university’s standards of ethical conduct.”
Harvey is no stranger to controversy. In 2014 he quit his job as an adjunct associate professor with La Trobe University after the university struck a $15m research deal with the vitamins giant, Swisse Wellness, a move Harvey believed was unethical. He is also a member of the pro-science group, Friends of Science in Medicine.
He said he stood by the research project with his students. “I make no apologies for being involved in a campaign to flood the regulator with complaints,” Harvey said.
“The aim is to draw attention to the consequences of the current ‘light touch’ regulation of complementary medicines and the need for regulatory reform. That 98% of all complaints submitted to the therapeutic goods advertising complaint resolution panel are upheld is just one indication of the sorry state of this industry.”
Harvey said it was standard procedure for members of the committees he served on to declare possible conflicts of interest when assessing complaints. “Accordingly, when a complaint has been submitted to the panel from myself, my students, or Friends of Science in Medicine, I declare a conflict and leave the room while this complaint is being discussed,” he said.
He dismissed Complementary Medicines Australia as “crazy” and said he had the full support of his department. “The student project is a legitimate academic exercise approved by senior members of the school of public health,” he said.
A spokeswoman from Complementary Medicines Australia said the organisation respected Harvey’s right to generate complaints about complementary medicines and his right to encourage others to submit complaints.
“CMA perceives, however, a conflict of interest when complaints are generated as a classroom exercise supervised by Dr Harvey, and then subsequently forwarded for judgement by a committee of which Dr Harvey is a sitting member,” she said.
“If Dr Harvey personally lodged the complaints, and correct procedures followed, he would not be able to participate in the committee’s deliberations. Our organisation has queried the procedural fairness and apparent lack of impartiality when an individual is heavily involved in producing complaints and then judges the validity of those complaints.”
