Skip to main content


EDM (Early Day Motion) 287: tabled on 21 June 2010

Tabled in the 2010-12 session.

This motion has been signed by 17 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 randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled study at Durban University of Technology, South Africa, which evaluated the efficacy of homeopathic simillimum in the treatment of chronic primary insomnia; notes that the measurement tools used were a sleep diary (SD) and a sleep impairment index (SII); further notes that the SD data revealed that verum treatment resulted in a significant increase in duration of sleep throughout the study and a significant improvement in SII scores, compared to the placebo treatment which resulted in no significant increase in the duration of sleep; observes that an initial improvement occurred in the placebo group but this was not sustained and that a comparison between the results revealed a statistically significant difference; believes that homeopathic simillimum treatment of primary insomnia is effective compared with placebo in this study; and calls for further research in 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These members had previously signed the motion, but have now withdrawn their support.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 conducted at Durban University of Technology, South Africa, by Naude et al, published in Homeopathy (2010) 99 63-68, which claimed that homeopathic treatment of primary insomnia was significantly more effective compared with placebo; further notes that only 33 patients were enrolled, which makes any conclusion statistically questionable, especially given the randomisation did not take account of the distribution of any clinically relevant variables between the resulting two groups, for example any age differences; further notes that there was not full blinding with respect to the dispenser of the treatment; recognises the dangers, inherent with publication bias, in selectively citing isolated small studies of dubious significance in the absence of any demonstration that infinitely diluted and vigorously shaken solutions have a rational and effective method of action; 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 clearly 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 287A1: tabled on 24 June 2010