Art. XIV. — Tlte Present Pvsition of the Snake-bite 

 Controversy. 



By James W. Barrett, M.D., M.S., F.R.C.S. Eng. 



Demonstrator and Examiner in Physiology in the University of Melbourne. 

 [Read November 10, 1892.] 



Tlie public and the technical press have of late been 

 occupied with discussions on the merit or demerit of the so- 

 called strychnine cure for snake-bite, but as usual, very little 

 definite evidence has been adduced. I have, therefore, 

 thought it advisable to bring the facts of the case under the 

 notice of the members of this Society, so that the position 

 occupied by the rival disputants may be rendered perfectly 

 clear. Dr. Mueller of Yackandandah, it seems, has satisfied 

 himself that a theory respecting the action of snake poison 

 has been proved. He believes that strychnia is consequently 

 indicated as a remedy. When, however, he is asked'[to 

 substantiate both these projiositions, by showing that the 

 treatment is successful, he has no further evidence to adduce 

 than the report of cases of snake-bite, real or supposed, in 

 which medical men assert that patients were saved from 

 death by the injection of strychnine. Now, it is obvious 

 that before reports of such cases can be of much value, it is 

 necessary to ascertain the percentage of individuals who 

 died from snake-bite when other modes of treatment were 

 adopted. In other words, snake-bite is or is not a very fatal 

 affection. 



The object of this communication is to endeavour to make 

 answer to that question. In investigating it, I have had 



