I get asked this question a lot: what makes Pure Homeopathy different from Conventional Medicine? In the FAQs I explained the difference rather graphically. Here’s a more comprehensive comparison. I admit, I modified this list from B.K. Sarkar’s “Hahnemann’s Organon of Medicine” (Birla Publications). I think it summarizes things quite nicely.
Conventional Medicine generalises
Pure Homeopathy individualises
Conventional Medicine finds specific medicines to treat specific diseases.
Pure Homeopathy has no specific medicines for specific diseases.
Conventional Medicine sees the living organism as a bio-mechanical machine.
Pure Homeopathy sees the living organism as an indivisible whole.
Conventional Medicine defines disease as occupying a fixed address (tissues and organs) and treats those tissues and organs primarily and separately.
Pure Homeopathy defines disease as suffering which affects the entire organism.
Conventional Medicine regards disease as the total structural and functional changes of the body.
Pure Homeopathy regards structural and functional changes as being the result of the disease, and is not the disease itself.
Conventional Medicine tests its medicines 1) on animals in laboratory experiments, and 2) on diseased patients. It disregards the subjective experience.
Pure Homeopathy tests its remedies on healthy men and women who can communicate their subjective and objective experience clearly to the physician.
Conventional Medicine does not recognise a Law of Cure.
Pure Homeopathy sees no branch of knowledge as meeting the definition of Science without a Law which explains the relationship between two phenomena (Disease – Law of Similars – Medicines).
Conventional Medicine believes in palliation, heroic dosages, and polypharmacy.
Pure Homeopathy believes in the supreme efficacy of the Law of Similars, the Single Remedy, and the Optimal Dose.