34 Professor Halford. 



Is Strychnine an Antidote P 



I must refer to Dr. A. Mueller's work* on this subject, 

 since he is both a scientific and enthusiastic inquirer. 

 The following is from his book : " The writer published 

 his theory of the action of snake poison in May 1888, 

 after having practised the strychnine treatment for 

 some years, and thoroughly satisfied himself of its 

 efficacy. In the latter part of 1888, accounts of 

 Feoktistow's researches reached this country. His 

 final conclusions, to the effect that snake poison is 

 solely a nerve poison, that it does not destroy proto- 

 plasm, and has no effect whatever on the blood to 

 which its destructive potency on animal lite may be 

 ascribed, were in complete harmony with the writer's 

 views, in fact, a re-statement of his theory." 



COMMENT. 



The whole of the evidence gathered together in this 

 little book tends to show that snake venom is primarily 

 a blood poison, and that secondarily, the nervous 

 system becomes implicated. I am not going to deny 

 the facts of recovery stated in Dr. Mueller's book. J 

 take them as true ; but as regards the antidote, a few 

 words must be said. 



Let us suppose snake venom to be injected, and 

 subsequently, as soon as possible, a solution of strych- 

 nine ; then my experience tells me that, in spite of the 

 spinal convulsions produced by strychnia, the venom 

 will prevail. I do not say, don't try it ; but as the 

 instructions are given to medical men to go on and 

 increase the dose till symptoms of stiychnine poisoning 

 result, I believe there are few medical men who 



* " On Snake Poison : Its Action and Antidote," 1893. 



