On snake poison : its action and its antidote / by A. Mueller.

  • Mueller, A.
Date:
1893
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: On snake poison : its action and its antidote / by A. Mueller. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    72/108 (page 56)
    5G —last but not least—Dr. Bannerjee’s eight Indian cases. They are all well authenticated, being mostly taken from the Australasian Medical Gazette or from private notes, but to avoid useless repetition the greater part of them will be merely cited and only the more re- markable ones be given in detail. Whether in the face of this formidable array of evidence that blind incredulity and senseless opposition, usually blocking the way of every new discovery, will at last give way, remains to be seen. The writer has had his full share of them, and but for the valuable aid he received from the Hon. Dr. Creed, the able editor of the A. M. Gazette, would probably be struggling yet for the introduction of his antidote. When it is con- sidered that, in spite of such evidence as here produced, his discovery has as yet received no official recognition from any of the Australian medical authorities, and that even now there are medical men who can write such effusions as that of Dr. T. L. Bancroft, of Brisbane, beginning with the words: “It is deplorable to still see recorded cases of snakebite treated with strychnine, &c.,”(see Gazette for July, 1892)—the attitude assumed from the first by Dr. Creed and his un- failing advocacy of the antidote can not be too highly appreciated and lay both the writer and the public under a debt of deep gratitude to him. But for his early recognition of the soundness of the writer's theory and treatment of snakebite many valuable lives now saved would have been lost. As early as June, 1889, Dr. Creed wrote in an editorial : “ We desire to call the special attention of the pro- fession to Dr. Mueller’s papers on the pathology and cure of snake- bite, published in our issues for Nov., Dec., Feb, April and May last, and to press upon them the justice and, we submit, the necessity of extremely careful consideration of his theory and of the results shown in the cases in which, acting on it, he has used hypodermic injections of strychnine for the treatment of snakebite. We formerly expressed our concurrence in the opinion of Sir Joseph Fayrer, who wrote : ‘ I do not say that a physiological antidote is impossible, all I assert is, that it is not yet found.’ We are indeed pleased to state that we believe such an antidote is now found and that Dr. Mueller is the happy discoverer. We are of opinion that his theory as to