Skip to main content


EDM (Early Day Motion) 286: tabled on 21 June 2010

Tabled in the 2010-12 session.

This motion has been signed by 16 Members. It has received 1 amendment.

As this motion is using historical data, we may not have the record of the original ordering, in which case signatories are listed alphabetically.

Amendment to this motion

There has been an amendment submitted to this motion.

View details of the amendment

Motion text

That this House welcomes the double-blind study conducted at the outpatient clinic at Jundiai Medical School in São Paulo, Brazil, which consisted of patients with moderate to severe depression; notes that patients were randomly assigned to a double-blind treatment with individualised homeopathic Q-potencies or fluoxetine (Prozac); further notes that the non-inferiority analysis indicated that the homeopathic Q-potencies were not inferior as compared to fluoxetine in treatment of this sample; observes that the study is the first randomised controlled double-blind trial with a reasonable number of subjects to draw conclusions about the homeopathic treatment of depression; acknowledges that homeopathy is recognised as a medical specialty in Brazil; and calls on the Government to carry out further research into this area.

These members had previously signed the motion, but have now withdrawn their support. The date shown is when the Member withdrew their signature from the motion.

After a motion has been tabled, other Members can table amendments to it. Amendments to this motion are shown below.

leave out from `House' to end and insert `notes the study published in August 2009 in the journal e-Cam by UC Adler et al, conducted in São Paulo on 91 patients with depression, which claimed that individualised homeopathic treatments were not inferior to fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; further notes that only 55 patients completed the study and that the finding of non-inferiority, while statistically significant, was marginal; further notes that fluoxetine is considered by many to be no more or barely more effective than a placebo in such patients and that this study therefore merely provides further evidence that homeopathy treatment is no more effective than placebo treatment; and supports the findings of the Fourth Report from the Science and Technology Select Committee of Session 2009-10, Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy, HC45, namely that there are ethical problems in prescribing patients placebos without full candour, that the evidence base is clear that homeopathy is not effective beyond placebo and so scarce NHS funds should not be spent commissioning it at a time when, due to cost, the health service is not even able to provide its patients with treatments that have been clearly shown to be effective, and that putting patients through pointless further clinical trials, and the spending of scarce public sector funds on research into homeopathy cannot be justified.'.
Liberal Democrat, Cambridge
EDM 286A1: tabled on 24 June 2010