Not really. .  In proper homeopathy (there are modern bastardised versions)
the "likeness" has to do with symptoms that the agents can cause.   So if
vaccines caused autism, they could also feature in its cure.   Vaccines
could certainly be given to treat fevers, that being the commonest side
effect of some..

Other examples:  onion  (allium cepa) is a valid homeopathic remedy for hay
fever because it causes the eyes to water.   In one of the homeopathic
journals a homeopath describes treating  phosphorus poisoning with a
homeopathic preparation of phosphorous.

Homeopaths worked out what remedies were good for what by giving substances
to normal people and noting the symptoms ("provings").   You may be
interested in this account of some modern attempts to determine the
usefulness of such procedures.

Qiote ---
Lest it appear that I am being unduly sceptical about some of these
provings, let me describe briefly what happened in a modern proving, carried
out in 1978. The aim was to apply modern statistical methods to the analysis
of provings and the substance chosen for testing was Pulsatilla
(Wind-flower). This is very widely used in homeopathy and was extensively
proved by Hahnemann and others.

The proving was carried out with a 3x potency -- that is, with a low (10^-3)
dilution. This was chosen instead of the diluted tincture because it was the
strongest preparation that would not have an identifiable taste or
appearance. The proving was carried out on volunteers in the north-west of
England; most were members of a large philosophical society and were
interested in homeopathy, though their actual experience of it varied
greatly. The fact that most of the provers knew one another was a drawback,
but the same was true of most of the nineteenth-century provings.

The trial was planned to last three months, with provers taking one tablet
twice daily and recording their symptoms in a diary. During the first month
all the provers received a dummy tablet (placebo); they did not know this
although Dr Clover, who was conducting the trial, did. In the second month
half the provers received Pulsatilla and half received dummy tablets, while
in the third month those who had received dummy tablets now received
Pulsatilla and vice versa. In the second and third months neither the
provers nor Dr Clover knew which provers were receiving Pulsatilla, and
indeed at this time they did not even know the name of the drug that had
been chosen for the trial.

The results were remarkable. Thirty of the fifty-two participants returned
their diaries filled in to some extent although only 18 completed the whole
3-month trial. There was no evidence that Pulsatilla had produced any more
symptoms than had the dummy tablets. What was very striking, however, was
the fact that much the largest number of symptoms occurred during the first
month -- that is, at the time when all the volunteers were taking dummy
tablets. Some, indeed, withdrew from the trial because of the severity of
their symptoms. The incidence of symptoms declined progressively over the
whole 3- month period regardless of whether provers were taking Pulsatilla
or dummy tablets.

This trial does not necessarily show that Pulsatilla 3x is incapable of
producing symptoms but in this instance any symptoms it did produce were
totally swamped by the enormous number of "placebo" symptoms. This will not
come as any great surprise to orthodox doctors, who are by now well aware of
the importance of the placebo effect; but it does reinforce the point that
the older proving literature has to be viewed with a lot of caution. True,
the more critical writers of the time, such as Richard Hughes and Robert
Dudgeon, recognized this and allowed for it as best they could, but in many
cases it is almost impossible to assess the reliability of the reports. This
applies particularly to the provings of the relatively inert substances,
among which are some of the most widely used homeopathic medicines.

Another example of the same kind of effect was reported in a letter to the
British Homeopathic Journal. Dr H Walach, from the University of Freiburg,
was giving a lecture on provings, in which he was describing his own
experience with a homeopathic medicine derived from the rattlesnake
(lachesis). During the lecture he invited the audience to take part in an
experiment; he handed round two bottles containing pillules; the bottles
were labelled simply 1 and 2. Nine people took the pillules. Ten minutes
before the end of the lecture Dr Walach asked what effects people had had
from the medicine. Of the 9 who had taken the pillules, 4 had had definite
symptoms -- two with preparation 1 and 2 with preparation 2. Some were quite
striking: one person had felt the whole left side go to sleep and had
experienced a choking sensation. These are the effects that would be
expected from Lachesis, according to the homeopathic literature. The
audience was then asked to guess which bottle had contained the real
medicine and which the placebo; their guesses were equally divided. And the
answer. You've probably guessed it: neither -- both were placebo. [British
Homeopathic Journal, 85, 123-5]

Peter Moran