Oh, I agree - one of the root causes was the belief in homeopathic philosophy. My main point is that this case is a lousy talking point when campaigning against homeopathy. It's not like there's a lack of real, tangible evidence against homeopathy - people should use that to argue against it instead.
(Not like it's likely to do any good. Homeopathic believers are pretty hard to sway.)
I am not a fan of homeopathy, but there is probably some underlying truth to that concept. I think it is more complicated than that, but the immune system works by identifying threats and going after them. It is a little bit like what happened in WWII in the U.S. when lots of Japanese Americans were rounded up and sent to camps because they were deemed a potential threat. I have found that strengthening the body first and then re-exposing myself is a way to get healthier. That was not a plan and most re-exposures for me were unintentional. But, having worked on strengthening my body, I have found that re-exposure triggers mop up of old problems along with new.
I have not used homeopathy nor read up on it. I don't really know exactly what they do. But my impression is they are skipping that first part, that their mental model is missing something and thus results are rather hit or miss.
No, homeopathy is 100% a scam. The principle is that a compound (say, penicillin) has some amount of vibrational energy that is imparted into the surrounding molecules. As you continually dilute out the original "active" molecule, the "energy" of the molecule is imprinted onto the remaining solute.
Even better, the more you dilute, the more potent it becomes. You literally get to a point where there is no active molecule left...just H2O.
What you are saying (exposing your immune system to a small threat so it can safely build a response) is a valid argument. In fact, that's how vaccines work. Give your body a little bit of non-infectious virus so it can build appropriate antigens before you encounter it in real life.
I have no idea what you are saying about Japanese Americans though.
What I mean about Japanese Americans is that they were rounded up wholesale. There was no sorting. The immune system works like that. After years of being sick, as I grew stronger, exposures resulted in wholesale roundup of both the new germs and old ones which had been quietly flying below the radar for years.
I am not a big fan of vaccines, but that's a bear I usually try to not wrestle. Still, I appreciate the acknowledgement that the principle is valid.
I really dislike that mental model. I dislike the entire concept of "we don't really know what is going on, so we will claim your body is merely attacking itself for no real reason". I cannot prove it wrong, but I believe it to be wrong. For my edification, can you list some of the specific conditions which are viewed as "auto-immune disorders" caused by a "strong" immune system?
Why is difficult to accept that a system that evolved to attack certain cells can misidentify targets, especially if the real targets have selective pressures to mimic friendly cells?
It happens all the time in other systems (friendly fire, false positives in anti-virus-software)
"I dislike the entire concept of "we don't really know what is going on, so we will claim your body is merely attacking itself for no real reason". "
Likely because you have an unrealistic expectation for how the immune system actually works. One that works "too well" is not advantageous. "No real reason" is silly, because that is the job of the immune system, to attack invaders. If it misidentifies your own systems as invasive, it will attack your own systems. The mechanism is not in question, how to treat it best is.
(Not like it's likely to do any good. Homeopathic believers are pretty hard to sway.)