In article <41388c5f.77808384 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
<lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>On 3 Sep 2004 08:01:26 -0700, iain.macmillan at 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?
