I should emphasise that vaccination would obviously not fall into this group of treatments. For a start, they do not get more powerful the more you dilute them and then they can't really be called a drug.

Of course vaccination is unlike homeopathy. Paradoxically, vaccines usually contain MORE of the biological agent than would usually result in an infection.

As an example, the infective dose for something like Salmonella typhi can be as little as 1000 - 10,000 organisms, and for infections like Shigella as little as 10 organisms. Salmonella are attenuated in the typhoid vaccine, but are present in several orders of magnitude higher than the naturally infecting dose. This is the case with most vaccines; the number of organisms in the vaccine are in excess of the number people are exposed to in order to get infected. People do not realise this, or conveniently ignore this fact.

So the myth of vaccines containing only "a tiny, little dose" of the nasty infection is constantly and incorrectly perpetuated, particularly by homeopaths when they like to compare their bogus concepts with the weel established and evidence-based facts about vaccines.

I am not sure why you put "question" in inverted commas but...

"Although this seems to be the opposite of the way conventional medicines work, where a greater dose has a greater impact, there are conventional drugs that work on the same principle"

This is on the BHA website. It is preceded by a description of the dilution/succussion principle you described on the other thread. I think it fair to say that anyone would accept it is the dilution principle which is the main idea being stressed here and it is that which I would like more information on as I am aware of no analog in conventional medicine. I am, however, no medic, homeopathic or otherwise, so am welcome to be educated!