The hushed homeopathic leptospirosis outbreak trial that you didn't know existed
- Lucy Reynolds
- Nov 18, 2025
- 8 min read
Updated: Dec 1, 2025
"None of the journals were willing to publish this groundbreaking trial - one of the largest ever conducted in medicine. What happened? I'll leave it to readers to make up their own minds." Christopher M Johnson ND.
This article is a summary of the rapid government response to a leptospirosis outbreak in Cuba in 2007, and covers topics around vaccines and natural alternatives such as homeopathic prophylaxis. It shows how homeopathy can be used well along side conventional vaccines, or in lieu of them, if the situation demands, eg urgent humanitarian crisis, logistic problems, time and budget constraints etc.
(Here is a teaser video from the Homeopathic Research Institute: https://fb.watch/DsoVSmWw0B/ about my next article - where inventor of the Meningitis vaccine Dr Campa Huergo accidentally discovers homeopathy.)
Below, the original author was criticising the Cuban homeopathic trial - despite it being a last ditch and highly successful attempt to save human life, created by world leading experts in vaccine development at the WHO Finlay Institute, and amidst a record outbreak. Indeed, the trial may not be perfect - it was after all, a real-life emergency.
The trial resulted in a 90% reduction rate in disease across 2 million people in the diseased region, and an overall near-eradication across the entire population of around 11 million people (i.e. 0-2 cases a week within just a few months of administration, in an island nation where leptospirosis is endemic, especially in hurricane season). The treatment was prepared and available in just two weeks, by the creators of the pre-existing leptospirosis vaccine, (who are well versed in the positive effects of using conventional medicine, alongside natural alternative) - but with no harmful side effects, and coincidentally costing just 2% of the conventional alternative.
The most informative comments from the journal, are below:
ARTICLE REPONSE 1 OF 2
Author: Christopher N Johnson ND
Re: Good medicine: homeopathy
Once again it must be said that what passes for ‘scientific’ discussion amongst homeopathic critics is almost entirely lacking in substance. Scientific statements, by definition, must be precise and testable. Unfortunately, criticisms of homeopathy rarely pass this test.
Alan Henness, who calls himself a ‘challenger of misleading health claims,’ continues to make vague assertions and accusations without having any grasp of the basic facts.
His previous attempts to delegitimize the Cuban homeopathic leptospirosis trial having been defused by David Eyles, he falls back on this last attempt: “Presumably then, if homeo-prophylaxis for Leptospirosis was so successful and saved so many lives, the Cuban health authorities will have been boldly rolling it out all over Cuba for the last five years?”
In fact, this is precisely what has been done, with remarkable effect: leptospirosis is now nearly eradicated - so much so that the homeopathic prophylaxis is no longer routinely needed.
Somehow, ten years of using the conventional vaccine never brought about such success.
It is clear that homeopathic ‘skeptics’ do not like being bothered with data and evidence, but for those who are interested, the facts of the Cuban experience with prophylactic homeopathy are as follows:
1) The authors of the Cuban homeopathic leptospirosis trial were not homeopaths. They were veteran conventional medical researchers and scientists who had been manufacturing, testing and implementing the use of conventional vaccinations for decades. They were highly respected in the vaccine world. Their work had previously been published in many of the major vaccine journals such as, Vaccine, Human Vaccines, Expert Review of Vaccines, etc. They were and are in fact, amongst the world’s leading experts on leptospirosis vaccination – with the trivalent Vax-spiral (the only conventional leptospirosis vaccine made anywhere in the world) designed and manufactured in their own facilities (the Finlay Institute – a WHO-designated research center). In sum, they were not homeopathic apologists. Prior to the leptospirosis study, they had no ‘skin in the game’ whatsoever, and no reason at all to defend or advocate for homeopathy.
2) The authors implemented the use of the homeopathic leptospirosis prophylaxis as a last ditch effort in 2007, when the island was overwhelmed by a record hurricane season and there were insufficient resources/time to produce enough of the conventional vaccine. They tried homeopathy in light of having no other options.
3) Unlike the conventional vaccine, the homeopathic product could be produced in less than 2 weeks (compared to 6 months), cost 2% of the conventional vaccine, and was far more easily stored and administered.
4) The results of using the homeopathic product in 2007 were far more successful than any previous use of the conventional vaccine, despite what was objectively one of the worst Atlantic hurricane seasons in modern history. Within 2 weeks of administering the homeopathic product, they observed a 90% decrease in incidence of leptospirosis in the intervention region (comprising 2.1 million persons), while in the low-risk areas which did not receive any intervention (either homeopathic or conventional) incidence of the disease continued to rise – a set of facts that would have been drastically reversed if the homeopathic product had no efficacy.
5) The homeopathic prophylaxis was then, in the ensuing years, administered to the entire Cuban population (11 million persons), to the effect of near eradication of the disease on the island – a result not achieved with use of the conventional vaccine product.
6) Despite the fact that these researchers had for decades published papers in the leading vaccine journals, none of these journals were willing to publish this groundbreaking trial – by all accounts, one of the largest ever conducted in medicine. What happened? Were the researchers no longer ‘experts?’ Did they forget how to conduct a proper trial? Was the trial of insufficient quality? No legitimate criticism has been registered to date and none was given by the journals. I’ll leave it to readers to make up their own minds, but will provide some historical context: from the beginning of homeopathy the conventional medical community has repeatedly sabotaged homeopathic research. Throughout the 19th century, on numerous occasions, conventional medial authorities simply confiscated and destroyed the records of successful homeopathic trials. Of course, we know the scientific world is much more ‘civilized’ now, right?
7) Despite all this, the researchers and scientists involved with the study still advocate for and use conventional vaccination in many diseases. Unlike homeopathic ‘skeptics,’ these people are actually committed to science – i.e. unbiased and objective observation. They care only about what works and are not blinded by dogma and ideology.
8) Based on the results achieved with leptospirosis, the Cuban Ministry of Health began using homeopathic prophylaxis and treatment for other infectious epidemics, including dengue fever, ‘swine’ flu, hepatitis A and conjunctivitis – all with similar success.
Author: Christopher N Johnson ND
Competing interests: No competing interests
ARTICLE REPONSE 2 OF 2
Author: David Ayles
Re: Good medicine: homeopathy
In commenting upon the Cuban Leptospirosis paper, Alan Henness appears to have either misread the paper, or misunderstood it, or both.
Leptospirosis is a zoonotic disease which is a particular problem to humans mainly in tropical and developing countries. Symptoms listed in the paper include meningitis, pneumonitis, hepatitis, nephritis, mastitis, myocarditis, haemorrhagic crisis and multi organ failure.
Infection occurs through mucosa and open skin lesions from contact with water contaminated with urine from domestic and wild animals. Farmers and people working with livestock are therefore at the highest risk of exposure. In areas where drinking water supplies are open and sewage disposal is primitive, whole populations are at risk. These risks are increased when natural disasters such as flooding or earthquake disrupt water supplies.
Leptospirosis is endemic throughout Cuba, but the three eastern regions chosen for this study are particularly prone to epidemics throughout the rainy and hurricane season, beginning in October through to the end of December. This study commenced at the end of October 2007 and completed at the end of 2008.
From the second half of 2007, it was apparent that conditions in the Eastern regions were causing a relatively high incidence of the disease, based upon the weekly reports of confirmed cases. As a result of two further major rainfall events in October and November it was clear that a major epidemic was likely.
A programme of prophylaxis was therefore instituted by means of a homeopathic preparation of the four strains of Leptospirosis endemic in that part of Cuba and administered to as much of the population in that area as possible. For the purposes of the study, this was designated the Intervention Region (IR) whilst the rest of Cuba was designated the Rest of Country (RC). The homeoprophylaxis was administered throughout the IR during week 45 onwards, i.e. the first week in November, achieving coverage of 90% of the IR population who received the intervention by week 50. Because the programme only started in week 45, about one third the way through the high risk period, confirmed cases appear to have already reached about 38 per week. However, from that point onwards, the numbers of cases plummeted to 2 or 3 by week 49 and remained at that level for the rest of the high risk period. Throughout 2008, cases bumped along at between 2 and zero cases per week, when the programme was repeated in September 2008 achieving 96% coverage. The 2008 high risk period rarely rose above 2 cases per week.
Despite this considerable success, Alan Henness comments as follows:
‘No control’ – This is not a Randomised Controlled Trial.
Reply: It is a prospective observational cohort study. The intervention arm comprises some 2.1 million people (IR) and the comparison arm (RC) of 8.8 million people.
‘No randomisation’
Reply: There is no need. The study effectively enrols the entire population of Cuba. ‘The intervention region was very significantly different at base line from other affected areas of Cuba.’
Reply: That is perfectly true. The IR was historically by far the most badly affected region. That is why an emergency programme was instituted there.
'The paper gives scant detail about the models and how the validation of the models was done.'
Reply: The details of the model derivation are described in the section headed ‘Statistical analysis’. The validation of the model actually used was compared to the cases for the RC, where the authors state that the actual cases do not differ significantly from the model predictions. ‘Many possible non-specific effects were not discussed....’
Reply: Such as?
‘Without proper randomisation, these effects could not have been taken into account.’
Reply: See ‘No randomisation’ above. ‘Many high-risk individuals........ were also vaccinated’. Reply: In 2007, only 15,000 high risk individuals were vaccinated in the IR, amounting to 0.6% of the total IR population. Given the considerable flooding in this region at this time, this tiny percentage is unlikely to have affected the results or conclusions of the study.
‘There were other more plausible reasons.’ Reply: Again, such as? ‘I suspect these severe limitations are the reason why the study wasn’t accepted for publication in a respectable scientific journal, but in a homeopathy trade journal.’
Reply: 'Homeopathy' is a peer reviewed scientific journal published by Elsevier.
In his comments, it is clear that Alan Henness has not understood the distinctions between an observational study of a population; a randomised controlled trial using a sample of a population; and the need and reasons to randomise the sample in the latter, but not the former. This distinction is covered in most books on basic medical statistics, to which I direct his kind attention.
This study, and the emergency which gave rise to it, demonstrates that the Cuban health authorities acted boldly and swiftly in responding to what was clearly an emerging epidemic of a very nasty disease. Not only were several hundred people prevented from contracting Leptospirosis in 2007 and 2008, but many lives were most likely saved. Furthermore, by getting on top of the outbreak as early as they did, they managed to ensure that resources needed to cope with other emergencies were better available.
Despite this, Alan Henness asserts confidently that: ‘....it would be ethically wrong to base a health intervention on such an unsound trial.’
The people of Eastern Cuba may count themselves fortunate that Alan Henness is not their Chief Medical Officer.
Author: David Ayles
Competing interests: User of homeopathy on sheep and cattle
End of article
FREE HOMEOPATHY AT HOME GUIDE
Interested in trying homeopathy for yourself? Get my free Homeopathy at Home Guide on my homepage to see which 12 remedies I recommend you start off with, and why. It will teach you the basics of those remedies, and what they can be used for - ideal in home emergencies and acute situations. You can simple home kits from Helios and Ainsworth Pharmacies, or come on one of my Homeopathy at Home courses.
Lucy Reynolds BSc PDHom Adv
Homeopathic Practitioner
Homeopathy online and in Northumberland, UK
