Talk:Antivenom

Application / treatment

"Antivenoms typically need to be administered as soon as possible after the venom has been injected to be effective (up to 4-5 hours)."

I think this is not always true. It may depend on the kind of venom (ie, the kind of animal the venom came from). In the case of Australian snakes of family Elapidae, antivenin has been used apparently effectively with longer delays, in some cases over 24 hours. In those cases the main toxic agents are neurotoxins and proper first aid can sometimes delay the onset of symptoms for hours or days. At one stage (warning: this was the 1980s and i was never any kind of expert) the typical procedure was apparently to wait for symptoms before using antivenin for Australian snake bite. I think quick treatment might be more important for other kinds of venom, especially those that cause tissue necrosis. Ideally it would be nice if experts from several parts of the world check this out before rewriting. I definitely don't feel qualified to hack the main page myself.

Antivenom or Antivenin?

Is there a difference between antivenom and antivenin?

Regardless, usagse should be consistent within the article Bdoserror 21:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, the primary difference is that "antivenin" is in the dictionary whereas "antivenom" is not. 24.245.45.98 03:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Which dictionary? The MedTerms Dictionary at MedicineNet.Com [1] lists 'antivenom' as a synonym for 'antivenin'. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Three examples: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary. If you go to Encyclopedia.com [2] and search for "antivenin," the article returned talks about it in the context of being an immune serum for venom. If you do the same for "antivenom," you will find no results. It seesm that "antivenin" is the correct term, but "antivenom" is gaining currency in the language thanks to its widespread (albeit erroneous) use. I acknowledge that people use the word "antivenom" to mean "antivenin," but as "antivenin" appears to be the more official term, it seems that the article should be titled "Antivenin" instead of "Antivenom." -Jeff 24.245.45.98 12:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There is also the issue of under which name are users more likely to look for it. I would suspect that would be 'antivenom'. 'Antivenin' redirects to 'Antivenom'. It's a question of giving emphasis to the technically correct term, or to the term that is more 'intuitive'. Switching the current setup would require an admin to delete the current 'Antivenin' redirect that that 'Antivenom' could be moved to 'Antivenin.' -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't require an admin to do that. Just edit the Antivenin page, and turn this one into a redirect. PenguiN42 23:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste moves mess up the history. In order to properly preserve the page history, it is always better to move the page. If an existing redirect has no history other than as a redirect, it is better to delete the redirect and then move the article. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There seemed no reason not to, so I've made the move. Now it reflects the correct term, and users who search for "antivenom" will still find the information that they want. And as you can see, the history has not been affected.

Sjc196 08:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Antivenom is definitely the preferred medical term, the article name shouldn't have been changed, antivenin is an old and outdated term which is rarely used anymore. What definitely shouldn't have been changed is the trade name of the antivenoms listed in the article, go to Australia and ask for box jellyfish antivenin and they all think you're crazy (the trade name is box jellyfish antivenom). Also shouldn't have changed the name of the Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Anti-Venin Bank, (follow the link the name of the place is Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Antivenom Bank) or the name of a article in the references, the title of the paper is: Failure of intramuscular antivenom in Red-back spider envenoming. I would recommend changing it all back.Mr Bungle 12:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence? Antivenin appears in a whole lot more dictionaries than antivenom... I'll add the OED online to that list: It lists antivenin, antivenine, and antivenene, but no antivenom. As for trade names, go ahead and make them right. Dfeuer 09:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nowadays the most common term is antivenom. Medical authorities use antivenom, almost all journal articles use antivenom as the preferred term, i.e. Clinical Toxicology, the official journal of the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and the European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists use antivenom, as the following review papers show [3], [4], [5]. Toxicon another leading toxinology journal also uses antivenom [6], [7], [8], The world health organization also prefer antivenom in their literature [9]. The American Zoo and Aquarium Association and the American Association of Poison Control Centers also run ‘The Antivenom Index’ which shows where antivenoms are stored around America.[10] All these authorities in clinical toxicology use the term antivenom, Wikipedia should too. I also just finished watching Snakes on a plane and they use the word antivenom (although I know a cheesy film is poor evidence), seems its common in pop culture also.Mr Bungle 05:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You have demonstrated that the term "antivenom" is used. That's a first step. You have not demonstrated that it is "the most common term" or "the preferred term". You also have demonstrated that WHO has used the term, but did not demonstrate that they prefer it, or that they use it more often than "antivenin". Dfeuer 10:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I know I haven't proved it 100% but I think its going to be difficult to find a resource that states 'Antivenom is the preferred term to antivenin', what I have tried to achieve is show that most authorities use it almost exclusively. Remember nobody proved that antivenin is preferred either, just that antivenom doesn’t appear in a few non medical online dictionaries and steadmans online which is missing numerous entries in its online version. Likely it was a slow process over time where antivenin faded away and antivenom became preferred, I will keep going through some of the journals and see if I can come up with something more definitive.Mr Bungle 20:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You have not shown that authorities use it almost exclusively, whatever you may have tried to do. A search of Entrez PubMed limited to the last five years turns up 415 articles using "antivenin", 55 of them review articles. It turns up 494 articles using "antivenom", 58 of them review articles. I don't think you would call that an overwhelming difference. I want to note that antivenom fails to show up in several of the best-known English dictionaries, not just a few unknowns. What I think we need to determine is whether

1. The two words indeed have different meanings, as the dictionary I cited suggests, in which case the most appropriate word, whichever that is, should probably be chosen.
2. The difference in word choice is regional, in which case the word first used in this article's history should be chosen. Dfeuer 04:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm less interested in how it is spelled in dictionaries, and more interested in how it is spelled in the references used here and in other articles. I've seen other cases in which spelling 'corrections' were made that included incorrectly changing direct quotes and proper names. 'Antivenom' is in common use, and was used in the major source I consulted (and cited) for Bill Haast. There is such a thing as 'hypercorrection'. -- Donald Albury 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I found the reference which states the preferred term is antivenom. In 1979 at a meeting of the WHO held in Zurich, Switzerland it was decided that antivenom should be the preferred term.

For use in english "venom " and "antivenom" are considered to be the preferred names rather than "venin/antivenin" or "venene/antivenene"

Page 5 in: Progress in the characterization of venoms and standardizatiob of antivenoms. WHO Offset publication No. 58, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1981.

Can we change it all back now?Mr Bungle 01:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That certainly does give good information about the views authorities had 27 years ago. It says nothing whatsoever about the situation today.

Another issue is that even if you uncover incontrovertible evidence that every major authority prefers that word, that still doesn't mean that Wikipedia should necessarily do so. I think it probably should, but there is no clear consensus on the matter, as far as I know, and official policy seems to suggest otherwise. See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_4#Medicine and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#The_naming_issue. Note: my recent edit to the latter was only to correct an outdated link to the former. Dfeuer 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no pleasing you is there; It wouldn't matter if the World Health Organization mandate was 127 years old it would need to be overturned for it to be any different and it hasn't been.[11] Antivenom should be in used English language wikipedia for the following reasons:

• It is common terminology that most people would understand or use if talking about treatment for envenoming
• The World Health Organization has deemed it the most appropriate for the English language
• Worldwide (English speaking) in the fields of toxicology and medicine it is almost exclusively used

Mr Bungle 09:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Venin is the French word for venom. Calling it antivenin is antiquated. The word in English Wikipedia should be antivenom. It should be changed back. Vert 18:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an outsiders view. I was suprised to see the redirect, and wondered if I'd been using an incorrect word for many years. This is such a silly turfwar. FWIW, I personally view this as redicting 'blood' to 'humour'

Right, I did it. I couldn't stand it anymore. Every book I have on the subject, every dictionary I have (including the Oxford English Dictionary (1991), Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (2001), and even the Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]) calls it antivenin and doesn't even mention antivenom. The word antivenom is simply an error that should not be perpetuated. --Jwinius 18:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Argh not this again, move it back as per above, i.e. the World Health Organization states: For use in english "venom " and "antivenom" are considered to be the preferred names rather than "venin/antivenin" or "venene/antivenene", plus you managed to change trade names of products and titles of journal articles and organisations to incorrect versions. - Mr Bungle | talk 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The medical industry doesn't always get things right; they're the same ones who usually say dRVVT stands for dilute Russell Viper Venom Time instead of dilute Russell's Viper Venom Time. As far as I can tell, antivenom is in the same category as nucular -- misspellings -- only the former looks better when it's written out. If I managed to change any trade names etc., that would be a mistake on my part. --Jwinius 23:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I know this is old, but I'm curious about your objection to dilute Russell Viper Venom Time. As far as I can tell, it's the possessive, but the trend is to not use the possessive on eponymous terms. The AMA Manual of Style has been recommending this practice for at least two decades now. Also, many nontechnical organizations have begun to drop the possessive as well (e.g., National Down Syndrome Society). Cyraxote (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

How is "antivenom" incorrect? As far as I know, it is something that counters the effects of venom. 142.26.133.248 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The WHO, which can be considered an authority on such matters, prefers "antivenom", so we had better have a compelling reason to contradict them. Those wishing to retain "antivenin" need to find an authoritative source that indicates that "antivenom" is undesirable. Jwinius's implication that a word's absence from a dictionary is more authoritative than its widespread adoption by the medical industry is absurd. --Doradus (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree the WHO is the primary authority on this but it's been a over a year since it was moved to antivenin and I sort of lost interest in debating this as it was going nowhere, plus it needs an admin to move it because of edits in the antivenom page. I guess we could request a move and then discuss it/vote or something. Mr Bungle | talk 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The article says antivenom is the preferred term, and its title is antivenin? And it was originally titled antivenom too? Why on earth was the article's name changed to an antiquated term? Dwr12 (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I can only concur. I'm especially confused by the OED claim above, when it states: "More fully antivenom serum. An antiserum produced against the venom of a snake, spider, etc., used esp. in the treatment of bites from such animals." and cites an usage in 1897. I've never requested a move, but this might be the time. shellac (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose of an encyclopedia article? Is it to inform ignorance, educate, and provide -- so far as possible -- correct information? Or is it to abet ignorance, eschew education, and provide a popular conception of what the ignorant believe to be "correct", rather than what actually is correct?

Should most of the content of the Wikipedia article on Begging the question be deleted and replaced with "another way to say raises the question", since that's what most modern users of the phrase erroneously believe it to mean?

The correct term is "antivenin". Ignorant erroneous usage has rendered that as "antivenom" is some quarters; should Wikipedia perpetuate that error? (Amusing to note that even as I type this, the Internet Explorer spell-checker recognizes "antivenin", but not "antivenom".)

https://www.mgbiologics.com/products/canine/rattler-antivenin/

http://www.wideopenspaces.com/florida-officials-have-antivenin-on-standby-as-cobra-search-continues/

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1081/CLT-100103827?journalCode=ictx19

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3200105/

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15563659709001209

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15563657808988249

https://books.google.com/books?id=tdiPdtpyBFcC&pg=PP8&lpg=PP8&dq=journal+of+toxicology+antivenin+-antivenom&source=bl&ots=SXk9xRPyZu&sig=s80VN-lOrK_rxcbkoaGwkLoTmq4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqktarrrTTAhVJhlQKHW6XCbEQ6AEIMDAD

http://www.wemjournal.org/article/S1080-6032(03)70557-2/abstract

http://www.jcma-online.com/article/S1726-4901(10)70117-9/abstract

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/114/1/e128.full.pdf?download=true

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/000456327100800134

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550189/

https://www.jscimedcentral.com/Pharmacology/vol2issue3.php

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1211/jpp.62.02.0014/abstract

http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v7/n1/fig_tab/nrd2399_T7.html

http://www.jbc.org/content/277/19/17072.abstract

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1148153

http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(13)00852-4/abstract

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/crinm/2017/1835796/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4591198?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with titling the article -- correctly -- "antivenin", and including a small section on "etymology", as appears in many similar articles?

Or, perhaps that should be "entomology", since many modern users get that one wrong, too. :)

74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeing how the article is still incorrectly titled after almost three years, I suppose that tells us something about the real function of Wikipedia: to perpetuate ignorance.

Oh well . . .

70.89.176.249 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Apology

Back in June 2007, I unilaterally moved this page from "Antivenom" to "Antivenin," after which I deliberately edited the "Antivenom" redirect so that the move could not be reverted without the help of an administrator. I want to apologize unreservedly for this action. It was not long before I not only realized that those in favor of "Antivenom" have a point, but that all of the newer herpetological publications also seem to be using the term "Antivenom." I've felt bad about my behavior ever since, but was too embarrassed to admit it. The fact is, spellings change and it's obvious to me now that this one is here to stay. When it reaches a point when it is advocated by the WHO and is used consistently in the literature, it's only a matter of time before the journalists and lexicographers will take notice. I will therefore support any measures necessary to have this page moved back to its previous title "Antivenom." Again, my apologies. Sincerely, --Jwinius (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a discussion that gives some historical perspective, with an analysis of more recent trends: https://scorpiondoc.silvrback.com/antivenom-antivenene-antivenin-and-anti-venom ˜˜˜˜ LeggyLettuce (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

- FWIW we took our dog to the emergency vet this morning and the term the doctor used, both in speaking and writing, was most definitely "antivenin." So at least for this one teaching hospital, they are most definitely teaching new vets "antivenin." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.140.164 (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

- This is a case of ignorance winning out. Of course, it was natural for most people to misunderstand when someone said the unfamiliar term "antivenin" and think they were saying "antivenom," which wasn't even a word. On the other hand, language should change to be easier and not stay the same just for those of us who know the correct term. It is much better for the WHO to use antivenom as there are many who use their information who are not native English speakers.Thoralor (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I concur that ignorance is winning out. Until recently, it's always been "antivenin." The movie Snakes on a Plane got it right. In fact, they specifically make reference to the fact that it's "antivenin," not "antivenom." In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, the entry for "antivenom" simply states, "antivenin." The definition of antivenin is, of course, "an antitoxin to a venom; also : an antiserum containing such antitoxin." Therefore, do we allow the world's best online encyclopedia to fall to some common denominator? Or do we merely change the title of this article to what it should be, "Antivenin," with a redirect from "Antivenom" to "Antivenin," along with a clear statement at the top explaining, "Despite common misuse of the term, "antivenom," the correct term is actually "antivenin." Aim higher, people. If you don't, those who don't know what they don't know will most certainly pull you down.Clepsydrae (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I support that. It would make the article more professional-sounding.

70.89.176.249 (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose moving this article to Antivenom, As per discussion above including the WHO recommending antivenom be used for the English language. Mr Bungle | talk 21:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. See above. --Jwinius (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I haven't seen any convincing reason for us to contradict the WHO. --Doradus (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Plus could User:Jwinius who made the original page move explain the edit he made after the page move? Was that to stop it being undone? Tigeron (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Once a redirect has an edit history, only an administrator can move another article to it. --Jwinius (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The OED has antivenom as short for antivenom serum. And antivenom wins slightly at Googlefight. But what about antitoxin and antidote? Colonel Warden (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Antivenom may be short for antivenom serum, but in my estimation that term is certainly not used as frequently, nor was antivenin serum used as often. The terms antitoxin and antidote are not as specific, as they also apply to other poisons (not just venoms). --Jwinius (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It this true?

The article says "Although individuals can vary in their physiopathological response and sensitivity to animal venoms, there is no natural immunity to them in humans" I think this is false, I think that there are plenty of animals with venoms that are used for hunting and defense that do not affect humans, one example is Cephalotoxin, which kills crustaceans in a matter of seconds but causes only minor irritation and allergic reactions in a small minority of people, most of us are completely naturally immune. --20:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opcnup (talk • contribs)

That sounds plausible. The passage is not referenced and may be an assumption. If you have a reference, then by all means rewrite it. --Jwinius (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Archaic?

"...historically the word antivenin was predominant around the world; however, this usage is archaic in English." You're quite correct that antivenom is now the preferred term and that's what the page should be called, but antivenin is still in widespread use, hardly archaic. Rubiscous (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Forsooth, thou hast not made thine case a convincing one! Nay! Tuxedobob (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This happens, I think, because of the divide between people doing active research (who are more likely to be aware of changes in terminology) and people doing only clinical work. Also happens because people who learned the old term will insist that people they teach or supervise use the old term, often without knowing which is currently considered correct. For example, the "correct" or "official" name for Down syndrome is Trisomy 21, but you'll only see that in research. Cyraxote (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment

This article could be re-classified as B-class with only a small level of improvement in sourcing. B-class usually requires at least one source per section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

antivenom reserves

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/snakebites-about-to-get-more-deadly

Did you mean antivenin reserves?

https://thehightechsociety.com/are-spiders-that-dangerous-a-scientific-look-at-spider-venom/

https://www.snake-antivenin.com/product/snake-antivenom-for-king-cobra-venom-red-cross-antivenin-treatment-for-ophiophagus-hannah-snake/

https://tucson.com/news/science/health-med-fit/year-scorpion-antivenin-trials-successful-fda-scrutiny-next/article_6d28174e-9b6d-54d8-af63-0e982908ab64.html

https://tuesdayshorse.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/antivenin-that-saves-life-of-florida-snake-handler-made-from-horses/

https://www.mgbiologics.com/products/canine/rattler-antivenin/

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Antivenom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151018201018/https://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9277&feedId=online-news_rss20 to http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9277&feedId=online-news_rss20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Production method

I wrote a line about the Venomyx Therapeutics. This was reverted as being spammy. However, I wanted to put the focus on the production method, rather than the company. Their production method uses microbial fermentation rather than animals (horses, sheep, ...). That is a significant improvement in itself. This neither mentions this old production method (using animals) nor does it mention the alternative production method (using microbes). See also single-domain antibody and this WIRED-article: Bacteria are brewing up the next generation of antivenoms (and yes I know that this isn't a suitable source for medical articles, but it gives an idea, suitable references could be found simply by searching on the terms mentioned in that article -i.e. "microbioal fermentation", ...). Look into it and add the missing info into the article. Genetics4good (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Table

In the table, what does "Country" represent? Is it where the antivenom is manufactured, or available, or where the specific venomous animals are found? --Son of Grobx (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Different production method

I mentioned a different method of production involving production from bacteria (i.e. genetically modified E. coli)

Should be worked out much better though,focusing on both the Venomyx and the VenomAB method. I thinkin it generates monoclonal antibodies, which are also superior in quality to the antibodies produced from domestic animals.

I haven't found any scientific paper as of yet on the Venomyx method, so that needs to be found and added. I did found this: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/04/22/synthetic-biologists-fight-snake-venom-engineered-dna/ which also seems to use a genetically modified strain of E.coli, like Venomyx, so perhaps useful to examine all publications from Paulo Lee Ho (Butantan Institute), along with publications of Daniel Dempsey, Deepankar Roy, Alex Capovilla and also Technical University of Denmark (for the VenomAB method). --Genetics4good (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Expensive to make, or not

"Snake antivenom is complicated and expensive for manufacturers to produce. " This statement links to a news article whose subtitle contradicts the interpretation:

"Why A Single Vial Of Antivenom Can Cost $14,000

It’s not because all antivenom is expensive to make."

I propose to rephrase the sentence here, to read "Antivenom undergoes successive markups after manufacturing, by licencees, wholesalers and hospitals." LeggyLettuce (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Coral snake antivenom status needs updated

The statement: U.S. coral snake antivenom is no longer manufactured, and remaining stocks of in-date antivenom for coral snakebite expired in fall 2009, leaving the U.S. without a coral snake antivenom.

is out of date compared to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_snake

which says

and, as of July 2021, Pfizer indicates that antivenom is available. Diekhans (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)