Less academic of course. And mercuric chlorine was an autocorrect mistake from chloride.
If mercuric chloride was actually effective (without killing the patient) seems like total luck, and generally the first actual effective treatment was considered Salvarsan [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsphenamine] - which was arsenic based yes?
Until antibiotics came around.
But people tried all sorts of things, including liquid mercury, as your source notes.
The WebMD page is about calomel, mercuric chloride, and perchloride of mercury, not metallic mercury; the body text is clear about this, but the title is wrong. It describes all kinds of poisoning symptoms that don't occur with metallic mercury. So too for the mercury section of the Science Museum web page, except for a brief mention of attempts to treat with mercury vapors. And neither of them seems very credible.
My source did not note that people tried liquid mercury.
“Mercury has been employed in one or other of its forms in almost all diseases”
Are you really saying that in that time, no one tried the most obvious form?
You’re right though that I was wrong it was the primary one - I’m truly horrified at the various things people tried. But I guess untreated syphilis is one of the worst possible ways to die, and I’d try pretty much anything too.
[https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/history...]
Less academic of course. And mercuric chlorine was an autocorrect mistake from chloride.
If mercuric chloride was actually effective (without killing the patient) seems like total luck, and generally the first actual effective treatment was considered Salvarsan [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsphenamine] - which was arsenic based yes?
Until antibiotics came around.
But people tried all sorts of things, including liquid mercury, as your source notes.