>> The practice relies on two false principles: the "law of similars," aka "like cures like," meaning a substance that causes a specific symptom in a healthy person can treat conditions and diseases that involve that same symptom, and the "law of infinitesimals," which states that diluting the substance renders it more potent.
> These "principles" are actually true sometimes, to a certain extent in specific cases. Vaccines, for example, or hormesis.
You're being too charitable with "true sometimes", in my opinion. I've unbent a paper clip into a nearly straight strip of aluminum before. The result was a "paper clip" in name and origin only. I would call it a "paper clip" for convenience, and I might jokingly consider it a paper clip "to a certain extent". But calling the strip a paper clip wouldn't be useful unless I were to describe it as "a paper clip if I bend it back into the original shape". The "law of similars" and the "law of infinitesimals" as described by the article are like the straightened "paper clip": understandable generalizations from a practical truth, but too far from the initial practical truth for "true sometimes" to be a useful rule of thumb. (It is useful, however, to find out how a useless "principle" came about.)
A vaccine is not a cure. It's training for the immune system. The response to small amounts of a harmful substance can prepare the body to respond more quickly and/or more correctly to a future exposure. Giving yourself a vaccine while you're already infected with the virus would have little benefit if any. I could call a vaccine a cure "to some extent" if I wanted to be broad with my definitions, but would it be useful to do so? Not to me, so I might as well not call a vaccine a cure at all.
Hormesis is less about "small amounts can be more potent than large amounts" than "small amounts can actually help you at all compared to large amounts".