If one is poisoned, and receives the antidote, does it make your symptoms start to go away and you feel like the poison’s effect is being undone?
Or does it merely keep you alive, but your physical suffering and pain (from the poison) continues?
Interesting question!
A WAG but I would say that generally an antidote would make you feel better. The pain you’re feeling is caused by the poison damaging your body. If the antidote is working then your body is no longer being damaged.
Cyanide, for example, kills people by binding to the iron in their blood cells which makes it impossible for the cells to carry oxygen. So your entire body begins to die from a lack of oxygen and the process is quite painful. The antidotes for cyanide poisoning will in turn bind to cyanide and prevent it from binding to the iron. This would reduce the oxygen deprivation, which in turn would reduce both the damage and the pain caused by that deprivation.
The question is too vague to give specific answers. Depends not only on the specific poison, but also the amount, how long it’s been in the body, and the damage done so far. Also pre-existing conditions. Then it also depends on the specific antidote used, amount, etc. etc.
Some antidotes hurt like hell. Give an opioid addict who’s not breathing much due to an OD of heroin a shot of naloxone, and they’ll wake up and start screaming holy hell because not only would they be breathing again, but they’d be going thru acute opioid withdrawal. (Yes, I have done this. Saved a life only to get cussed out.)
Some antidotes just restore people to normal. Overdose on insulin and have a glucose level of 23 with unconsciousness and perhaps seizures? Give some IV glucose (or a shot of glucagon) and as soon as the glucose comes up towards normal, everything’s hunky-dory. Usually. If enough brain cells survived.
Not that many ‘poisons’ have antidotes anyway. Mostly it’s giving drugs to try to slow or stop the poison’s actions while giving supportive care and see if the person manages to survive. That’s how antivenoms work.
I don’t understand how antidotes were discovered before the age of science: there weren’t that many reliable poisons, despite the promises of tame alchemists, although Mother Nature provided a galaxy of harmful plants and life-forms that could perform the office accidentally; however at least when an Italian renaissance aristocrat tried a new poison out on his friends, it would either work or it wouldn’t.
With antidotes however there is no time for trial and error. By the time one had got through all the babbling of “Try hot milk.”, “No, fried toad’s eyeballs !”, "Hold a dead split pigeon under his nose." and “Gum Mastic dissolved in Aqua Fortis !” to half a dozen emetics that would probably kill one in any case, the crisis would be over and the corpse turning a livid blue.
Even if a strong constitution threw off the venom, as much as with Mithridates, who could say which had worked ?
In a non-poisoning case, such as the long drawn out martyrdom of President Garfield in the 19th century, many remedies were tried out and many suggestions made — some frankly idiotic. If one only had, maybe 4 hours in a poisoning case there would be less time for empiric experiment.
“Plop, plop, fizz, fizz. Oh, what a relief it is.”
QtM said it well: depends on the “antidote.”
And as importantly, depends on your state when you get the “antidote.”
Let’s say the missus sneaked some cyanide into your viagra (pretend, here). You are mostly dead and I go down the extremely dangerous antidote sequence for that (I have to add sodium nitrite to hydoxycobalimin for clinical reasons, although that’s not what you are asking). You aren’t going to sit up from nearly dead and jump for joy. You’ll be too sick.
To an earlier point, as an aside, I am not aware that cyanide poisoning is particularly painful. I doubt I would even be able to diagnose it in a patient with unknown reasons for cardiovascular collapse. You need a tipoff like we had in the Tylenol poisonings back when (was it the early 80’s?).
Let’s say you get carried away stamping out bugs with organophosphates and I have to give you atropine. Same deal; you are going to be sicker than a dog and you are not going to suddenly feel great.
Ditto w/ acetaminophen/n acetylcysteine, usually.
But how about this: You mistake some ethylene glycol for your Jim Beam and get carried away. You call me from your cabin, and no; you don’t have any fomepizole handy. Aha! Old timer that I am, I have you drink your Jim Beam.
Finally, an antidote that might make you feel better!
On average though, as I run through them in my head, I can’t think of antidotes which take a relatively symptomatic patient and perk 'em right up. For some conditions (super high potassium, e.g.; super low blood sugar) the treatment we give (not exactly “antidotes”) does result in a return to a pretty normal state.
I guess I might throw in flumazenil and a benzodiazepene OD (along w/ narcotics/narcan mentioned by QtM) examples of a fairly specific toxicity/antidote that can result in a rapid (often temporary) return to normal…
I know a couple of people that got bit by rattle snakes and got the antivenin.
One said they were sick as hell for 2 days and still had problems with dead flesh around the area of the bite that continued to get worse for over a week.
The other had a heart attack about an hour after receiving it and was told it was the poison that caused it, not the serum.
So in other words, they didn’t feel hunky dory immediately.
Not down that low, but low enough to have the classic shakes and irrational behavior. Glucose sludge [blargh] and 5 minutes, back to normal. It was what happens when you do your insulin but then for some reason [serious holdup and miscommunication with the kitchen when out to breakfast] you don’t get your food in a timely manner. <after that I would wait to shoot up until the food was on the damned table, and covertly shoot up in my seat at the table. Fuck anybody near by who objects. Way back when I was a gestational diabetes patient for the first time. I have 30 years experience under my belt now, haven’t hyper or hypo 'd in decades.>
An antidote, and in particular an antivenin, in general, will stop the poison from doing further damage - it will not undo the damage already done by the poison.
People have known about poisons and their antidotes for millenia.
Well, yes, but how? Saying that people learned treatments from their predecessors just pushes the question back to how their predecessors learned.
And of course in most old cases, the answer was that they didn’t, and that the things they thought were antidotes really weren’t. Most supposed antidotes came from magical thinking of some form or another. Occasionally you’d get lucky (you really can make something that helps with snakebites from the blood of a horse who survived a snakebite, and if you try to use booze as an antidote for everything, eventually it’ll actually work on methanol poisoning), but far more often, your antidote ends up doing nothing, or does more harm than good. I’ve heard, for instance, that the rattlesnake’s reputation for lethality comes mostly from the common practice of “treating” snakebites with alcohol, and that your chances of survival without the alcohol are much better.
You mean, it’s not like on TV, where someone gives you a poison that will kill you in (exactly!) 24 hours, but at 23 hrs 58 minutes you get the antidote and you’re perfectly fine?
TV lied to me?
This raises the question - just how many poison/antidote pairs actually exist?
The answer would appear to be remarkably few. Especially in the form we see in fiction.
How many good poisons might one find in historical times? How many would have antidotes that would actually work? I’m thinking in terms of poisons a murderer might choose to dispatch a victim, or like we love in fiction, make demands for the provision of an antidote.
These come to mind:
Aconite, Strychnine, Opiates, Belladonna, Hemlock, Laburnam, Castor Bean, Foxglove
Cyanide, Hydrochloric acid, Arsenic
More? Some will have you dead on the floor before any antidote is likely
Which ones? Most ‘antidotes’ put forth by early healers were not what you’d call effective. And a lot of early ‘poisons’ weren’t poisonous.
Knew a guy who got shot up with atropine as an antidote to Diisopropyl fluorophosphate poisoning. He did not enjoy the experience. Funny thing is, the fume hood was working, so he didn’t actually dose himself with DFP in the first place.
Yes, but what did they accurately describe as poisons and antidotes? Those links do not give those details.
I don’t know if every ailment has a cure, bestowed by the impartial hand of natural law, anyway. And one might be chary of proffered cures: those familiar with garden nettles when young could easily shy away from the common facile folk wisdom declaring the cure for a sting is to rub the place with more nettles.
In western culture at least — it would be inadvisable to look too closely at the morbid ingredients of Chinese Wu Gu ( Death by Wugs was not guaranteed : careful googling, since guru also means a vile Japanese torture genre ) — there wasn’t much.
Supplementing my earlier post on this paucity, from Desmond Steward’s The White Rose, a recent anti-Tudor diatribe:
‘At that date Rome was full of sinister rumours of poisoning, used to explain the deaths of great personages that baffled physicians — although the vast majority of such deaths must gave been due to natural causes. The only poisons available were belladonna and aconite, with a few other noxious herbs, none if them very effective, or arsenic which betrayed its presence by the excruciating agonies it inflicted. Yet even educated people believed that an expert poisoner was capable of killing anyone if he wanted to…’
Chap.10.
As for natural deaths misinterpreted, the treatments for kidney disease until the 19th century showed a remarkable lack of wisdom, even for forgivable ignorance. In cases amidst the common herd it was no doubt easy to assume malice from witchcraft or the poisoner’s hand.
Sorry for the possible hijack, but in the context of this thread is their a clear distinction between an actual antidote** and a mere treatment?
For example, a patient ingests a poison, x**, which begins a life threatening reaction, y**. Thinking quickly, QtM administers a**, which neutralizes x**, halting the escalation of y** before death occurs.
vs.
The same situation, but instead the patient is given b** in order to treat y** before the patient dies from it.
In the above scenarios, a**, which attacks the cause of the symptoms would be an antidote, but not b**, which merely treats their effect, correct?