which system of medicine is better than alopethic?!

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Conventional medicine is the best system there is. It is not only critical towards alternative (to) medicine. It is also very critical towards itself, and it is self correcting. When better evidence emerges, its practices change.

Practitioners of various kinds of alternative (to) medicine stubbornly refuse to step out of their boxes, and absorb new knowledge.

EDIT TO ADD:
It has been suggested by "thenoseknows" that homeopathy is superior to conventional medicine.

For a system to be better than conventional medicine, it has to do better than the placebo effect (the effect attributable to expectation, motivation, conditioning, endorphins etc.). Homeopathy doesn't fulfil that criterion.

It is also wrongful to claim, that homeopathy is not symptom based. In fact it is a core principle of homeopathy, that "like cures like" - meaning that a substance that causes a symptom will remove that symptom if sufficiently diluted and succussed (shaken vigorously ten times). This principle makes homeopathy a symptom based system in the extreme.

There is no system of medicine other than allopathic. All other "systems of medicine" are either tradition-based such as Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and acupuncture or pseudoscientific baloney such as homeopathy or osteopathy. Only allopathic medicine or real medicine is science and evidence based. It has a basis for working and it has proof that it works. Thenoseknows is lying when she said that homeopathy works. It doesn't and she knows it doesn't.

So to answer your question, there is no system of medicine which is better than "alopethic."

There is no such thing as 'allopathic' (or even 'alopethic') medicine. There is just medicine that works and stuff people call medicine, which doesn't work.

'Allopathy' was the term coined by the founder of homeopathy to describe what passed for conventional medicine two centuries ago. It is an absurd way to describe the medicine of the 21st century and is generally used by promoters of snake-oil and suchlike.

ETA: Sorry, somehow missed Nitram's answer, which makes the same point.

Homeopathy has considerably more advantages than allopathy: it's non-toxic, produces no "side" effects (this is a subjective term after all: if you drop a bomb on a building with people inside, what's the side effect -- killing the people or destroying the building?), no animals are harmed in testing, it doesn't pollute the environment (which is what happens when hospitals, etc flush drugs down the toilet to dispose of them), it CURES gently, and effectively and is not invasive. It treats the whole person, rather than focussing on one part at a time, and it's a whole lot more cost effective.
Allopathy just treats standalone symptoms and is merely disease management. It can't cure anything. More drugs are needed to "manage" the new drug induced disease that is created.

There is no such thing as allopathic medicine. Real medicine is the best kind, everything else is an alternative to medicine

None. This question is like asking, "Which system of mathematics is better than the numerical one?"

common sense dictates that the cause of the problem be corrected if at all possible. aside from first aid type crises where the body needs mechanical assistance, medicine does not correct the cause. this is why it inevitably fails to restore health. in most cases, illness is due to some insufficiency. the most common insufficiency is in internal communication due to nerve interference. the allopathic approach of waging war on the body with poisonous chemicals when it is sick is a stupid and illogical approach to health care.