From the link:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/homeopathy
That is chemical communication. If the communication is for purposes of triggering an auto-inductive response it is called "quorum sensing"
For hopefully the last time: homeopathy is not defined by the process it is trying to make use of, but the method in which it tries to do it. i.e. the "like cures like", and the "more dilute = more potent" approach. Those two things define homeopathy.
If you want to talk about what you think homeopathy is trying to make use of, and only argue about that, you're NOT talking about what makes homeopathy homeopathy.
I would say that it is the wrong way of applying homeopathy. It seems to be the exact opposite of what we now know and have named quorum sensing (unknown at the time of the founder).
So, again, you're no longer talking about homeopathy itself, but what you think homeopathy should be doing.
I am sure that if he had current knowledge of how bacteria and chemical sensing organelles function he would have advocated for a gradual "increase" (not decrease) in catalysts to find the proper level that triggers the auto-immune system to respond.
Irrelevant. He didn't. He advocated for 30C dilutions, etc. So let's deal with what homeopathy IS, not what you think it should be.
Whereas you want to scrap the field of homeopathy altogether, what I am proposing here may be of future use to the practitioners of homeopathy.
No, I am saying that if you remove what makes homeopathy homeopathy (i.e. the 2 fundamentals previously mentioned) then it is no longer homeopathy, but something else.
Yes, I would love the world to scrap the field of homeopathy: scrap the notions of "like cures like", and the dilution=potency nonsense.
Maybe, one day, homeopathy will adapt and formally scrap the fundamentals on which the practice was based, and the term "homeopathy" will become used for some other practice, hopefully one that is supported by science. But until then, let's stick with what the label actually represents, not what it aims to make use of, but the
how it tries to do it.
No, if you do it just right you are homeopathic.
No, if you do it according to the fundamentals of homeopathy then you are homeopathic: i.e. like-cures-like, and dilution=potency.
The word "homeopathy" comes from "homeo" - meaning "of the same kind", and "pathia" - meaning "feeling, suffering, emotion; disease, disorder". The idea of "like cures like" is in the very name.
IMO "like cures like" is shorthand for "induced immunity", nothing wrong with that.
Unfortunately you'd be wrong with your understanding of what it is shorthand for.
Induced immunity prevents the disease taking hold, prevents the symptoms. You try to induce immunity in those not yet suffering, in the hope that the immunity takes hold and thus grants protection going forward. This is the basis of vaccinations.
Homeopathy uses the notion of "like cures like" to try to cure symptoms
once you have them. So it's not to induce an immunity but to actually cure the ailment/symptoms thereof.
If you have CoVid, giving you something to induce immunity is going to do nothing for you. It's too late.
If you have a headache, homeopathy would suggest you take something that would give a headache to a healthy person (albeit the remedy would be so dilute as to be nothing but water). The remedy wouldn't be given to induce immunity. It's too late for that. The body will already be trying to generate an immunity through fighting whatever is causing the headache. To cure a person of ailment X, they would prescribe a remedy Y that would cause X in a healthy person. No inducing of immunity.
So no, your understanding of homeopathy is wrong in this regard.
Not all homeopaths work like that. (see post #183).
Modern homeopaths do. They adhere to the two fundamentals of homeopathy.
From
wiki:
"
Although he was firmly within the homeopathy movement of his day, the modern definition of homeopathy tends to exclude his concept of homeopathic potency,[2] which favoured remedies which, while very dilute, still retained small amounts of the original salt."
I.e. you are continuing to refer in your defence not to (modern) homeopathy, which is what is being discussed, but to other alternative medical practices.
