Re: the liver and the brain

From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 09/03/04 

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 16:59:37 +0100

In article <41388c5f.77808384@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
<lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>On 3 Sep 2004 08:01:26 -0700, iain.macmillan@health.wa.gov.au (Iain
>Macmillan) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>>A patient with heart failure in 1610 might have cough, chest pain and
>>swollen ankles. Eminent physicians of the time might see chest pain as
>>important, and treat with aspirin, cough as important and treat with
>>opiates, or swollen ankles as important and treat with leeches - all
>>of which treatments would be likely to produce benefits, but not with
>>the mechanisms or for the reasons the treating physicians would give.
>
>Aspirin in 1610?
>

If he'd said "willow twigs or bark" would it have made any difference to
the point being made?