Re: A bit quacky
Modern pharmacology doesn't justify "western folk medicine" any more than it does traditional Chinese herbalism, and you're the only person here to suggest the former is "superior".
Prescientific medicine tried a great many things, at random or according to narratives that were not grounded in any actual material causal relationship, to address a great many conditions. Of course on occasion it happened to hit on one that worked, whether that was willow bark extract or sweet wormwood.
You might want to try a bit of critical thinking - it'd improve your arguments tremendously.
Incidentally, would you care to cite a reputable history of the discovery of penicillin that supports your contention that it was isolated from a mold-based folk remedy? That's not Fleming's story, and even if you prefer Duchesne or Tiberio for the hero of your story, I've never seen any evidence that they were inspired by folk medicine either. And while you're at it you could cite a source for the link you imply between cobwebs and aspirin, because the rest of the world seems to be ignorant of it. (Cobwebs were traditionally used in European folk medicine as a poultice for wounds, not as an analgesic or for fever. And they don't contain acetylsalicylic acid.)
While we're on the subject, a more apropos example would have been cinchona / quinine / malaria. There is a tale worth telling. Lucile Brockway's Science and Colonial Expansion is a good treatment.