Discussion Opioid Method is not actually unreliable

[Caribbean Sky]

sure, it can be, if you don't know how to use drugs - but this shit is killer. You cannot fake that no matter how much journalists overreact.

I even have an uncle who works in a funeral home in West Virginia, and a large amount of the deaths they take care of are from fentanyl or opioids, or stuff hidden in them. It's no joke.


But I have found it's not fentanyl at least you should be using anymore. If you buy that shit purposefully, it's not fentanyl. For some reason, I don't know. I have just been on the dark web and talking to people.
I have gathered that either a massive amount of heroin on a body that has no tolerance to it

Or nitazenes, which can often be more powerful and because of their nature as RCs would be toyed and fucked with like fentanyl compounds.

it's such a fatal drug that I am surprised you have to choose a specific route of administration - in my previous attempt i believe the main problem was that i wasnt taking "fentanyl" - but I have been told anything that reaches your blood vessels immediately is the best. IV, smoking, and snorting, are what experienced users on this site have told me.

As for time alone, if an overdose is fatal, your window to be cured with Narcan is no more than an hour.
As long as you were taking an amount, you are sure is fatal. That's all the time you need to allow yourself.
The difference it seems is not the amount of hours you have alone, but whether or not your dose is enough to be fatal.
This also to me would probably make the risk of brain damage almost null because you'd be dead before anyone could revive you.
(I would hope that people I knew would put me out of my misery anyway LOL)

so the only things 'unreliable' about this method I see are

lack of access (and lack of knowledge about getting drugs, which is understandable)
lack of knowledge on drug use (like with RoAs, & misinformation on how fast it is whilst unconscious)

otherwise its a surefire way to go.

Disclaimer: I am not a medical pro or have been using drugs for nearly as long as some users on this site.
But I have been trying for many months now to choose a way to die.
and have experience using the darkweb in that time.
(and in my opinion a lot of this is just base level knowledge from a little bit of research)
Just putting this here because I do not wish to spread misinformation as if its gospel.


Please be nice and correct me if I'm wrong. Wanted to share this

 

[be or not to be]

I would like to know if having access to slow-release hydromorphone could do something. For example, taking 640 MG, 60 pills.

 

[AuroraB]

I live in a big city full of F (street-F ...whatever it really is) users who use all day long on the streets, pass out standing up bent over for hours, wake up, get food, and do it again the next day. Out of the 1000s of addicts on the streets in this city, we have a few deaths per week. If it were true that F meant certain death, there would be no more F addicts, they'd all be dead by now.

 

[identity0]

I agree, it is an excellent method. It causes euphoria and a sense of well-being so it is probably very peaceful. I have read many stories of overdose survivors and it sounds like most of them just fall asleep and dont remember any pain. Some users that vomit dont even find that highly unpleasant because of the euphoria

I live in a big city full of F (street-F ...whatever it really is) users who use all day long on the streets, pass out standing up bent over for hours, wake up, get food, and do it again the next day. Out of the 1000s of addicts on the streets in this city, we have a few deaths per week. If it were true that F meant certain death, there would be no more F addicts, they'd all be dead by now.

The dose makes the poison. People on the street arent trying to overdose. If you intentionally overdose on F or H in an isolated place, by insufflation or injection, where you wont get narcan'd then it's lights out. If swallowing it then maybe you just vomit too much of it up of course

 

[ham and potatoes]

f it were true that F meant certain death, there would be no more F addicts, they'd all be dead by now.

That's because they are trying to get high, not die.
Opioid overdoses kill like 100,000 people in the US a year.
So yeah, you get some pretty pure F or zenes, and want to kill yourself with it, I'm sure it would work

 

[theolivanderroach]

That would be my ideal way to ctb. My only issue is my tolerance. I've been using opioids since high school to get high or just recklessly not caring if I OD. I've felt my breathing get super slow and even stop at some points but I was fine. One time I got super drunk, took benzos, ambien, and injected pure hydromorphone. I wasn't even trying to OD I just wanted to get as fucked up as possible but also of course I don't care if I died in the process. I woke up just fine :/ I think I'd have to take an insane amount at this point which I don't have the money for. I've been sober for about 5 months now hopefully to get my tolerance down (not to ctb this way but to enjoy a good high before I do). I swear there's a curse that people trying to OD don't, and those who do weren't trying to.

 

[AuroraB]

I agree, it is an excellent method. It causes euphoria and a sense of well-being so it is probably very peaceful. I have read many stories of overdose survivors and it sounds like most of them just fall asleep and dont remember any pain. Some users that vomit dont even find that highly unpleasant because of the euphoria


The dose makes the poison. People on the street arent trying to overdose. If you intentionally overdose on F or H in an isolated place, by insufflation or injection, where you wont get narcan'd then it's lights out. If swallowing it then maybe you just vomit too much of up of course

That's because they are trying to get high, not die.
Opioid overdoses kill like 100,000 people in the US a year.
So yeah, you get some pretty pure F or zenes, and want to kill yourself with it, I'm sure it would work

my understanding is it takes about the size of a grain of rice to kill ya...i walk these mean streets and these folks are puffing away more than a grain of rice. come visit any west coast city and go to the worst neighborhoods, and you'll see.

 

[rotciv]

You can buy pure non-illegal nitazenes stronger than fentanyl and use it in many ways. If you dissolve 500mg of any nitazene in DMSO and apply in the skin i garantee that u never wake up again.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

The dose makes the poison. People on the street arent trying to overdose. If you intentionally overdose on F or H in an isolated place, by insufflation or injection, where you wont get narcan'd then it's lights out. If swallowing it then maybe you just vomit too much of it up of course

I also feel like it's important to note that street fent also isn't pure, it's cut. So some batches may have more fent in them than others. I'd imagine that this would also play a role in the likelihood of someone dying from a fent overdose. We also need to take into consideration tolerance. A fent addict is likely to build up a tolerance for the drug overtime, meaning that it would take a larger amount of it in order for them to OD. So along with intentions, the average fent addict would also require a higher dosage to OD, making the chances of them dying as due to fent a bit smaller.

my understanding is it takes about the size of a grain of rice to kill ya...i walk these mean streets and these folks are puffing away more than a grain of rice.

Based on lab results, 2 out of 5 seized counterfeit pills contain lethal doses7, which the DEA defines as being 2 mg of fentanyl8. However, the different forms of lab-created fentanyl and its analogs, along with it being often combined with other illicit drugs, make it very difficult to determine a specific amount that would lead to death. Fentanyl also affects individuals differently, so what might be fatal for one person might not be for another.

What Is a Lethal Dosage of Fentanyl? | Windward Way Recovery

Discover the lethal dosage of fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid. Understand the risks of accidental overdose and the dangers of combining prescription and illegal drugs. Get essential information about this potentially deadly painkiller.

windwardway.com

Also, I don't know how there being fent addicts means anything here. Even if a bunch of fent addicts were to die today there would a whole bunch of new ones coming their way shortly afterwards. That doesn't disprove the fact that deaths from synthetic opioids have been on the raise, with most of those deaths being from fentanyl. In 2022, there was reported to be 73,838 deaths involving synthetic opioid overdoses in the US, a large portion of which were as a result of illicitly manufactured fentanyl.

---

From what I know OP, the success rate for ctbing via opioid OD is around a low to moderate one. I know that on lostallhope its lethality is listed at around 49.4%. Still, it's relative risk is higher when it comes to suicide completion in comparison to many other suicide methods involving poisoning/ODing (though, it is important to note that 45% of fatal drug poisonings include unknown drugs). It should be noted that the study had some limitations, such as it being hampered by coding deficiencies in mortality and hospital data. There may also be some conflicts of interest, such as funding from the AB InBev foundation which has links to the alcohol industry.

 

[AuroraB]

You can buy pure non-illegal nitazenes stronger than fentanyl and use it in many ways. If you dissolve 500mg of any nitazene in DMSO and apply in the skin i garantee that u never wake up again.

Curious in which country these aren't illegal and readily able to obtain. Never heard of this before. Thanks.

 

[rotciv]

Curious in which country these aren't illegal and readily able to obtain. Never heard of this before. Thanks.

Research chemicals

 

[Wendigo]

What about 1200mg of Oxycodone ( fast acting), 600mg of Oxazepam or 1000mg of flurazepam and Antiemetics ( 36-48h treatment). Would this work?

 

[Caribbean Sky]

sorry if anyone sees this, I think most of you caught what I mean already anyway, but I meant to say that nitazenes AREN'T toyed and fucked with like fentanyl compounds. Being rarer and newer.

for some people who commented I don't know what you mean about still on reliability. I think the only unreliability is misinformation and not knowing. This stuff is highly fatal and if you apply it in a highly fatal away you will die is easily as it is reported.

and if you don't wanna go straight to the media, just look at what I said about my uncle. what he sees and observes. It's tragic.

I also feel like it's important to note that street fent also isn't pure, it's cut. So some batches may have more fent in them than others. I'd imagine that this would also play a role in the likelihood of someone dying from a fent overdose. We also need to take into consideration tolerance. A fent addict is likely to build up a tolerance for the drug overtime, meaning that it would take a larger amount of it in order for them to OD. So along with intentions, the average fent addict would also require a higher dosage to OD, making the chances of them dying as due to fent a bit smaller.

What Is a Lethal Dosage of Fentanyl? | Windward Way Recovery

Discover the lethal dosage of fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid. Understand the risks of accidental overdose and the dangers of combining prescription and illegal drugs. Get essential information about this potentially deadly painkiller.

windwardway.com

Also, I don't know how there being fent addicts means anything here. Even if a bunch of fent addicts were to die today there would a whole bunch of new ones coming their way shortly afterwards. That doesn't disprove the fact that deaths from synthetic opioids have been on the raise, with most of those deaths being from fentanyl. In 2022, there was reported to be 73,838 deaths involving synthetic opioid overdoses in the US, a large portion of which were as a result of illicitly manufactured fentanyl.

---

From what I know OP, the success rate for ctbing via opioid OD is around a low to moderate one. I know that on lostallhope its lethality is listed at around 49.4%. Still, it's relative risk is higher when it comes to suicide completion in comparison to many other suicide methods involving poisoning/ODing (though, it is important to note that 45% of fatal drug poisonings include unknown drugs). It should be noted that the study had some limitations, such as it being hampered by coding deficiencies in mortality and hospital data. There may also be some conflicts of interest, such as funding from the AB InBev foundation which has links to the alcohol industry.

and I'm sorry, I still don't catch what you're saying about low success rate here. Everything you linked seems to state otherwise. Why? What's your reasoning?

Not trying to be a bitch, I'm just politely challenging you.

(unreliability or not, like I said, you get it and apply it in a fatal way, you're gone)

You can buy pure non-illegal nitazenes stronger than fentanyl and use it in many ways. If you dissolve 500mg of any nitazene in DMSO and apply in the skin i garantee that u never wake up again.

what is your source on this? I don't know if buying any RC chemicals is legal in America.

Plus, which nitazenes are you talking about that you need 500 mg? Most synthetic opioids have a potency even stronger than fentanyl as I listed in my post. You probably don't even need like, 25 mg.
(though again I myself don't wanna spread misinformation, so lmk)

In any case, I would like your source on that, please. Maybe it can be a resource for future readers of this post

 

[Sunshine]

If you have no tolerance and get Heroin (with a test kit checking its purity) and then inject it right into your arm or even add a IV drip with heroin on the other arm, how are you supposed to survive this? Plus it seems more peaceful than SN: I don't see how unless someone finds you but if you are smart about it like in a hotel room booked days ahead or somewhere very remote how is that supposed to happen.

 

[Caribbean Sky]

If you have no tolerance and get Heroin (with a test kit checking its purity) and then inject it right into your arm or even add a IV drip with heroin on the other arm, how are you supposed to survive this? Plus it seems more peaceful than SN: I don't see how unless someone finds you but if you are smart about it like in a hotel room booked days ahead or somewhere very remote how is that supposed to happen.

where do you find these test kits? Are they just strips?

 

[EvisceratedJester]

and I'm sorry, I still don't catch what you're saying about low success rate here. Everything you linked seems to state otherwise. Why? What's your reasoning?

Not trying to be a bitch, I'm just politely challenging you.

(unreliability or not, like I said, you get it and apply it in a fatal way, you're gone)

Challenging me on what exactly? There isn't anything to challenge here. I'm just regurgitating information I have on it and it's reliability to you. 49.4% isn't a high success rate, it's moderate. Opioids are generally still more reliable in comparison to other types of drugs when it comes to fatal ODs. Those were the points I was making. If you want more information on their reliability then you can go onto this thread:

Rhizo's drug AMA – the only comprehensive resource on drug poisonings you will ever need

AMA: I have a degree in psychology with specialized experience in substance use research, psychopharmacology, psychedelic research, etc. I've also read a lot about drug poisonings, the PPH, and various methods on this forum. I've been using the dark net to buy drugs and been connected to...

sanctioned-suicide.net

But I'm not here to debate you.

 

[Sunshine]

where do you find these test kits? Are they just strips?

Heroin Single Use Drug Testing Kit

<p>The EZ Test Heroin enables analysis of a suspect substance to check for Heroin.</p> The Heroin Purity Test enables you to quickly get an idea about the purity of the heroin. Just open the ampoule, add (EXACTLY!) 20 milligrams of your sample to this te

www.eztestkits.com

For example.

I know some people are worried that you can pass out too quick before giving yourself enough injection to kill you but in that case wouldn't a drip work to finish the job? Getting pure Heroin, having no tolerance, one arm injection, other arm drip. In a place where you won't be found for at least 1 hour, should be 100% peaceful success.

Challenging me on what exactly? There isn't anything to challenge here. I'm just regurgitating information I have on it and it's reliability to you. 49.4% isn't a high success rate, it's moderate. Opioids are generally still more reliable in comparison to other types of drugs when it comes to fatal ODs. Those were the points I was making. If you want more information on their reliability then you can go onto this thread:

Rhizo's drug AMA – the only comprehensive resource on drug poisonings you will ever need

AMA: I have a degree in psychology with specialized experience in substance use research, psychopharmacology, psychedelic research, etc. I've also read a lot about drug poisonings, the PPH, and various methods on this forum. I've been using the dark net to buy drugs and been connected to...

sanctioned-suicide.net

But I'm not here to debate you.

How exactly can it be 49.4% if a person with no tolerance puts in a high dose of pure opioids into their body?
It has to include people who were stupid about it and used minimal dosages or did it in public or in a place where someone found them quick enough.

 

[Caribbean Sky]

w

Challenging me on what exactly? There isn't anything to challenge here. I'm just regurgitating information I have on it and it's reliability to you. 49.4% isn't a high success rate, it's moderate. Opioids are generally still more reliable in comparison to other types of drugs when it comes to fatal ODs. Those were the points I was making. If you want more information on their reliability then you can go onto this thread:

Rhizo's drug AMA – the only comprehensive resource on drug poisonings you will ever need

AMA: I have a degree in psychology with specialized experience in substance use research, psychopharmacology, psychedelic research, etc. I've also read a lot about drug poisonings, the PPH, and various methods on this forum. I've been using the dark net to buy drugs and been connected to...

sanctioned-suicide.net

But I'm not here to debate you.

what makes the success rate not higher AS A SUICIDE METHOD is lack of knowledge, not really fatality, there I said it. as someone where F didnmt work (isn't even really fent) im saying that, for the reason in the parantheses.

We want the people we are intending these resources for to be informed, and not actually jeopardize themselves by simply painfully worrying about irrelevant specifics.
all I meant by just challenging you was that I have no reason to be negative towards you - this the point of info

Heroin Single Use Drug Testing Kit

<p>The EZ Test Heroin enables analysis of a suspect substance to check for Heroin.</p> The Heroin Purity Test enables you to quickly get an idea about the purity of the heroin. Just open the ampoule, add (EXACTLY!) 20 milligrams of your sample to this te

www.eztestkits.com

so just for heroin then? not worried with RCs though.

I know some people are worried that you can pass out too quick before giving yourself enough injection to kill you but in that case wouldn't a drip work to finish the job? Getting pure Heroin, having no tolerance, one arm injection, other arm drip. In a place where you won't be found for at least 1 hour, should be 100% peaceful success.

I have no idea where people get this from. again, im not an expert with this stuff, but if how fast the super-poisonous drug is knocking you out is a problem you're doing other things wrong too. a drip should not be necessary to die.

perhaps an infusion set, to make sure enough of the drug gets to you? sure maybe. but with what sort of drug we're discussing here you generally can fit it all in a solution within a 25cc syringe. (not ALL drugs, ofc**)

(also a large amount of what I just said has come from drug users and people with unique experiences)

How exactly can it be 49.4% if a person with no tolerance puts in a high dose of pure opioids into their body?
It has to include people who were stupid about it and used minimal dosages or did it in public or in a place where someone found them quick enough.

person themselves said they were parroting. and you are (most likely) right - does not account for the lac. of. information.

THIS IS THE POINT OF THE WHOLE THREAD. "Opioids not unreliable - just not good info"
also like with the fentanyl example I just gave - bc for some strange reason its found packed into oxy pills and heroin and laced with elephant tranqs unknowingly MORE PURE than fentanyl you would attempt to buy on purpose.

 

[Caribbean Sky]

wow, I'm surprised no one else has replied this or seen this. Perhaps I should make a new thread with it to spread this info to more people.

But if anyone sees this right now: the main reason why this is considered "unreliable" if you are trying to ctb,
is because of the variability of illicit drugs, and how confusing information can be about them right now, even when the information is open out there.
Opioids have some of the biggest misinformation about them circling around right now, and it is really showing on this site.

For example: buying fentanyl on purpose will not get you fentanyl right now (i know cause i tried)

most things you hear people dying from in the news are actual fentanyl hidden other drugs, like morphine or heroin, or xylazine, or carfentanil (elephant tranq) for heaven's sake

and as much as anyone tries to tell you otherwise what you buy off the Internet is/can be killer. its a tightrope for anyone who does this recreationally. ive said it a few times in this thread, but my uncle who works in a funeral home in West Virginia deals with several of these 'unfortunate' folks

and even stuff like what feels strongest isn't because of how chemicals break down in your body and having a (slightly) greater understanding of chemistry is rarer

and that's what actually kills unfortunate people while you, who are trying to die, head to the wrong place.

so as you can see the unreliability in this comes from misinformation about drugs, the status of things and even chemistry,
in just the wide variation in what you can encounter.

but this would probably be a lot more easier for most people if this information was actually out there in the easy to digest and understand.
(aka, there's nothing in the physicality of this method that makes it hard, not really)

and i think its been painful for some people watching because they see something that looks simple and painless and then they get confused at all the confusing literature and they misunderstand.
and its really just as painless and simple as it looks.

and if this helps anybody: though i did not have enough, and there was barely any in the sample actually, AND I used an intra muscular injection route,
when I took the fentanyl it was not more than 30 peaceful seconds of falling back on the pillow, and slipping into unconsciousness. peace.

 

[orbwithinorb]

wow, I'm surprised no one else has replied this or seen this. Perhaps I should make a new thread with it to spread this info to more people.

But if anyone sees this right now: the main reason why this is considered "unreliable" if you are trying to ctb,
is because of the variability of illicit drugs, and how confusing information can be about them right now, even when the information is open out there.
Opioids have some of the biggest misinformation about them circling around right now, and it is really showing on this site.

For example: buying fentanyl on purpose will not get you fentanyl right now (i know cause i tried)

most things you hear people dying from in the news are actual fentanyl hidden other drugs, like morphine or heroin, or xylazine, or carfentanil (elephant tranq) for heaven's sake

and as much as anyone tries to tell you otherwise what you buy off the Internet is/can be killer. its a tightrope for anyone who does this recreationally. ive said it a few times in this thread, but my uncle who works in a funeral home in West Virginia deals with several of these 'unfortunate' folks

and even stuff like what feels strongest isn't because of how chemicals break down in your body and having a (slightly) greater understanding of chemistry is rarer

and that's what actually kills unfortunate people while you, who are trying to die, head to the wrong place.

so as you can see the unreliability in this comes from misinformation about drugs, the status of things and even chemistry,
in just the wide variation in what you can encounter.

but this would probably be a lot more easier for most people if this information was actually out there in the easy to digest and understand.
(aka, there's nothing in the physicality of this method that makes it hard, not really)

and i think its been painful for some people watching because they see something that looks simple and painless and then they get confused at all the confusing literature and they misunderstand.
and its really just as painless and simple as it looks.

and if this helps anybody: though i did not have enough, and there was barely any in the sample actually, AND I used an intra muscular injection route,
when I took the fentanyl it was not more than 30 peaceful seconds of falling back on the pillow, and slipping into unconsciousness. peace.

Thank you for this thread. I am currently looking for peaceful alternatives to SN and this is one of my methods. Have you purchased fent or opiods off the dark web before?

 

[Rhizomorph1]

sure, it can be, if you don't know how to use drugs - but this shit is killer. You cannot fake that no matter how much journalists overreact.

I even have an uncle who works in a funeral home in West Virginia, and a large amount of the deaths they take care of are from fentanyl or opioids, or stuff hidden in them. It's no joke.


But I have found it's not fentanyl at least you should be using anymore. If you buy that shit purposefully, it's not fentanyl. For some reason, I don't know. I have just been on the dark web and talking to people.
I have gathered that either a massive amount of heroin on a body that has no tolerance to it

Or nitazenes, which can often be more powerful and because of their nature as RCs would be toyed and fucked with like fentanyl compounds.

it's such a fatal drug that I am surprised you have to choose a specific route of administration - in my previous attempt i believe the main problem was that i wasnt taking "fentanyl" - but I have been told anything that reaches your blood vessels immediately is the best. IV, smoking, and snorting, are what experienced users on this site have told me.

As for time alone, if an overdose is fatal, your window to be cured with Narcan is no more than an hour.
As long as you were taking an amount, you are sure is fatal. That's all the time you need to allow yourself.
The difference it seems is not the amount of hours you have alone, but whether or not your dose is enough to be fatal.
This also to me would probably make the risk of brain damage almost null because you'd be dead before anyone could revive you.
(I would hope that people I knew would put me out of my misery anyway LOL)

so the only things 'unreliable' about this method I see are

lack of access (and lack of knowledge about getting drugs, which is understandable)
lack of knowledge on drug use (like with RoAs, & misinformation on how fast it is whilst unconscious)

otherwise its a surefire way to go.

Disclaimer: I am not a medical pro or have been using drugs for nearly as long as some users on this site.
But I have been trying for many months now to choose a way to die.
and have experience using the darkweb in that time.
(and in my opinion a lot of this is just base level knowledge from a little bit of research)
Just putting this here because I do not wish to spread misinformation as if its gospel.


Please be nice and correct me if I'm wrong. Wanted to share this

Regular opioid users who do not seek recovery have an average 7-year mortality likelihood.

That's 7 years of regular use; my experience tells me a solid majority of these people are relatively indifferent to whether their opioid kills them, and gleefully take massive doses with little regards to harm reduction. Not always, but a large subset of them are not taking care.

Yet, it takes 7 years.

So, yes the opioid crisis is booming and regular users are dropping like flies.

This doesn't speak to the one-time pharmacokinetics necessary to absorb a fatal dose in naive or partially naive suicidal populations. Risk among these populations is such because of their patterns of use combined with not just the potency of opioids, but the wide variations in market trends, contamination with other drugs (benzos), etc.

Think of it like this: rolling the dice 1000 times on a 2% likelihood of dying has a near-100% odds of dying. Edit: I just calculated it, and the odds are 99.999999831703% of occurring after 1000 times. Yet it remains incredibly low after only one or two tries.

You say the time takes an hour, but this assumes a considerably above-lethal-threshold dose. What about the countless individuals who vomit, miscalculate, etc. their dose and end up in the threshold range for hypoxic toxicity while the brain stem still has enough oxygen to survive? Many people go in and out of laboured breathing and witness significant brain damage while surviving even after being intoxicated for long hours.

See this thread for more information: https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/opioid-megathread-overview.138948/page-4#post-2755908

---

TL;DR: I don't think this perspective comprehensively accounts for the risk factors, different populations, varying pharmacokinetic profiles between them, etc.

Telling people it is reliable is dangerous as the reliability is probably moderate at best (not high, not low.) and failure to ctb can result in injuries from seizures or hypoxic brain damage.

I'm sure it's unintentional, but I hope this comment is taken as a cautionary consideration for those reading

Source: I have a background in psychopharmacology (degree in psychology with research thesis specializing in drug use) and have worked as a drug checking technician following trends in the illicit drug market, coroner's reports, risk factors, etc. etc.

---

There's a lot of talk about nitazenes but currently there is very little research data on them or case reports of people ctb'ing with them. I can't recommend them in good faith for this reason as their pharmacology involves a lot of guesswork and adverse effects, risk of injury or pain, etc. is still unknown.

I kinda hate giving advice on opioids because even though I believe in a right to knowledge & informed decisions, I deeply feel that SN is a far more reliable route and worth the extra time and energy to procure it given opioids come with *inherent* risks, even while mitigating the other risks like taking an antiemetic, etc. the varying pharmacologal response and unreliability of the drug market is unavoidable among other risks.

 

[justwannadip]

Regular opioid users who do not seek recovery have an average 7-year mortality likelihood.

That's 7 years of regular use; my experience tells me a solid majority of these people are relatively indifferent to whether their opioid kills them, and gleefully take massive doses with little regards to harm reduction. Not always, but a large subset of them are not taking care.

Yet, it takes 7 years.

So, yes the opioid crisis is booming and regular users are dropping like flies.

This doesn't speak to the one-time pharmacokinetics necessary to absorb a fatal dose in naive or partially naive suicidal populations. Risk among these populations is such because of their patterns of use combined with not just the potency of opioids, but the wide variations in market trends, contamination with other drugs (benzos), etc.

Think of it like this: rolling the dice 1000 times on a 2% likelihood of dying has a near-100% odds of dying. Edit: I just calculated it, and the odds are 99.999999831703% of occurring after 1000 times. Yet it remains incredibly low after only one or two tries.

You say the time takes an hour, but this assumes a considerably above-lethal-threshold dose. What about the countless individuals who vomit, miscalculate, etc. their dose and end up in the threshold range for hypoxic toxicity while the brain stem still has enough oxygen to survive? Many people go in and out of laboured breathing and witness significant brain damage while surviving even after being intoxicated for long hours.

See this thread for more information: https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/opioid-megathread-overview.138948/page-4#post-2755908

---

TL;DR: I don't think this perspective comprehensively accounts for the risk factors, different populations, varying pharmacokinetic profiles between them, etc.

Telling people it is reliable is dangerous as the reliability is probably moderate at best (not high, not low.) and failure to ctb can result in injuries from seizures or hypoxic brain damage.

I'm sure it's unintentional, but I hope this comment is taken as a cautionary consideration for those reading

Source: I have a background in psychopharmacology (degree in psychology with research thesis specializing in drug use) and have worked as a drug checking technician following trends in the illicit drug market, coroner's reports, risk factors, etc. etc.

---

There's a lot of talk about nitazenes but currently there is very little research data on them or case reports of people ctb'ing with them. I can't recommend them in good faith for this reason as their pharmacology involves a lot of guesswork and adverse effects, risk of injury or pain, etc. is still unknown.

I kinda hate giving advice on opioids because even though I believe in a right to knowledge & informed decisions, I deeply feel that SN is a far more reliable route and worth the extra time and energy to procure it given opioids come with *inherent* risks, even while mitigating the other risks like taking an antiemetic, etc. the varying pharmacologal response and unreliability of the drug market is unavoidable among other risks.

Hey could you check dm's?

 

[decisive.housewife]

You can buy pure non-illegal nitazenes stronger than fentanyl and use it in many ways. If you dissolve 500mg of any nitazene in DMSO and apply in the skin i garantee that u never wake up again.

Sorry, could you please provide some more info about nitazene? Is it accessible through dark web (even though I am complete idiot when it comes to using it, I live in a small, third world country, so cash is used, credit cards rarely!) I use fentanyl patches, prescribed for my chronic pain, but I use it more than prescribed, of course. I suffer from debilitating pain due to dozens of illnesses and two spine surgeries gone terribly wrong, so if you maybe have time for some details? Thanks in advance, any information would be highly appreciated

 

[Caribbean Sky]

Regular opioid users who do not seek recovery have an average 7-year mortality likelihood.

That's 7 years of regular use; my experience tells me a solid majority of these people are relatively indifferent to whether their opioid kills them, and gleefully take massive doses with little regards to harm reduction. Not always, but a large subset of them are not taking care.

Yet, it takes 7 years.

So, yes the opioid crisis is booming and regular users are dropping like flies.

This doesn't speak to the one-time pharmacokinetics necessary to absorb a fatal dose in naive or partially naive suicidal populations. Risk among these populations is such because of their patterns of use combined with not just the potency of opioids, but the wide variations in market trends, contamination with other drugs (benzos), etc.

Think of it like this: rolling the dice 1000 times on a 2% likelihood of dying has a near-100% odds of dying. Edit: I just calculated it, and the odds are 99.999999831703% of occurring after 1000 times. Yet it remains incredibly low after only one or two tries.

You say the time takes an hour, but this assumes a considerably above-lethal-threshold dose. What about the countless individuals who vomit, miscalculate, etc. their dose and end up in the threshold range for hypoxic toxicity while the brain stem still has enough oxygen to survive? Many people go in and out of laboured breathing and witness significant brain damage while surviving even after being intoxicated for long hours.

See this thread for more information: https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/opioid-megathread-overview.138948/page-4#post-2755908

---

TL;DR: I don't think this perspective comprehensively accounts for the risk factors, different populations, varying pharmacokinetic profiles between them, etc.

Telling people it is reliable is dangerous as the reliability is probably moderate at best (not high, not low.) and failure to ctb can result in injuries from seizures or hypoxic brain damage.

I'm sure it's unintentional, but I hope this comment is taken as a cautionary consideration for those reading

Source: I have a background in psychopharmacology (degree in psychology with research thesis specializing in drug use) and have worked as a drug checking technician following trends in the illicit drug market, coroner's reports, risk factors, etc. etc.

---

There's a lot of talk about nitazenes but currently there is very little research data on them or case reports of people ctb'ing with them. I can't recommend them in good faith for this reason as their pharmacology involves a lot of guesswork and adverse effects, risk of injury or pain, etc. is still unknown.

I kinda hate giving advice on opioids because even though I believe in a right to knowledge & informed decisions, I deeply feel that SN is a far more reliable route and worth the extra time and energy to procure it given opioids come with *inherent* risks, even while mitigating the other risks like taking an antiemetic, etc. the varying pharmacologal response and unreliability of the drug market is unavoidable among other risks.

Anyone can lie on the Internet and say they have a background in this or that. Why should we believe you?

No offense, but people come to the site for a reason.

You repeat the phrase "I can't in good faith recommended" so how about not in good faith. Are you saying that every single paper that has been published and article published about someone dying from the drug is false?

I am asking are you saying that this drug is not deadly?
you say you don't wanna give advice on the matter because you want any given individual to have an informed opinion. Whether or not you would recommend opioids as a method is technically advice/an opion.

Again, anybody can lie on the Internet, so forgive me if I doubt your "background" because from what a large enough number of people have told me is that SN is painful and even worse in reliability than opioids. what do you say to this?

you say the reason for unreliability is just too much variance in people and administration, guess work, and risk of injury and pain, correct?
One more thing I would like to say to that is part of what I just wrote, and what you just cited is people's own miscalculations, or inexperience. I would like that to be specified.

OK, if I've got that, and I believe you and your background,

you're not saying that means the drug is unlethal?
You're not saying unreliability translates to that the drug is not killer?

Because I don't think and I don't know if you're aware, how many people will get you confused.
you can paint me as a cautionary tail, which is such a rude and passive aggressive way to speak to me, but

saying you're being truthful: at least don't leave people confused on what you mean. You, with your educated background, are not saying that unreliability = unlethality (that the drug isnt a killer?)

thank you.

Regular opioid users who do not seek recovery have an average 7-year mortality likelihood.

That's 7 years of regular use; my experience tells me a solid majority of these people are relatively indifferent to whether their opioid kills them, and gleefully take massive doses with little regards to harm reduction. Not always, but a large subset of them are not taking care.

Yet, it takes 7 years.

So, yes the opioid crisis is booming and regular users are dropping like flies.

This doesn't speak to the one-time pharmacokinetics necessary to absorb a fatal dose in naive or partially naive suicidal populations. Risk among these populations is such because of their patterns of use combined with not just the potency of opioids, but the wide variations in market trends, contamination with other drugs (benzos), etc.

Think of it like this: rolling the dice 1000 times on a 2% likelihood of dying has a near-100% odds of dying. Edit: I just calculated it, and the odds are 99.999999831703% of occurring after 1000 times. Yet it remains incredibly low after only one or two tries.

You say the time takes an hour, but this assumes a considerably above-lethal-threshold dose. What about the countless individuals who vomit, miscalculate, etc. their dose and end up in the threshold range for hypoxic toxicity while the brain stem still has enough oxygen to survive? Many people go in and out of laboured breathing and witness significant brain damage while surviving even after being intoxicated for long hours.

See this thread for more information: https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/opioid-megathread-overview.138948/page-4#post-2755908

---

TL;DR: I don't think this perspective comprehensively accounts for the risk factors, different populations, varying pharmacokinetic profiles between them, etc.

Telling people it is reliable is dangerous as the reliability is probably moderate at best (not high, not low.) and failure to ctb can result in injuries from seizures or hypoxic brain damage.

I'm sure it's unintentional, but I hope this comment is taken as a cautionary consideration for those reading

Source: I have a background in psychopharmacology (degree in psychology with research thesis specializing in drug use) and have worked as a drug checking technician following trends in the illicit drug market, coroner's reports, risk factors, etc. etc.

---

There's a lot of talk about nitazenes but currently there is very little research data on them or case reports of people ctb'ing with them. I can't recommend them in good faith for this reason as their pharmacology involves a lot of guesswork and adverse effects, risk of injury or pain, etc. is still unknown.

I kinda hate giving advice on opioids because even though I believe in a right to knowledge & informed decisions, I deeply feel that SN is a far more reliable route and worth the extra time and energy to procure it given opioids come with *inherent* risks, even while mitigating the other risks like taking an antiemetic, etc. the varying pharmacologal response and unreliability of the drug market is unavoidable among other risks.

also, please find me a real articles in scientific research papers that prove the unreliability of what you're saying. Don't get mad at me, this is the Internet, and I will need you to prove or fact check the information that you are saying before I can respect it.

But obviously the question I post to you before is the most important because I don't want people to suffer the confusion that I see some of them suffering of not understanding you correct.

You can assume an "at your own risk" attitude, but at least let people make that decision if nothing else.

Anyone can lie on the Internet and say they have a background in this or that. Why should we believe you?

No offense, but people come to the site for a reason.

You repeat the phrase "I can't in good faith recommended" so how about not in good faith. Are you saying that every single paper that has been published and article published about someone dying from the drug is false?

I am asking are you saying that this drug is not deadly?
you say you don't wanna give advice on the matter because you want any given individual to have an informed opinion. Whether or not you would recommend opioids as a method is technically advice/an opion.

Again, anybody can lie on the Internet, so forgive me if I doubt your "background" because from what a large enough number of people have told me is that SN is painful and even worse in reliability than opioids. what do you say to this?

you say the reason for unreliability is just too much variance in people and administration, guess work, and risk of injury and pain, correct?
One more thing I would like to say to that is part of what I just wrote, and what you just cited is people's own miscalculations, or inexperience. I would like that to be specified.

OK, if I've got that, and I believe you and your background,

you're not saying that means the drug is unlethal?
You're not saying unreliability translates to that the drug is not killer?

Because I don't think and I don't know if you're aware, how many people will get you confused.
you can paint me as a cautionary tail, which is such a rude and passive aggressive way to speak to me, but

saying you're being truthful: at least don't leave people confused on what you mean. You, with your educated background, are not saying that unreliability = unlethality (that the drug isnt a killer?)

thank you.

also, please find me a real articles in scientific research papers that prove the unreliability of what you're saying. Don't get mad at me, this is the Internet, and I will need you to prove or fact check the information that you are saying before I can respect it.

But obviously the question I post to you before is the most important because I don't want people to suffer the confusion that I see some of them suffering of not understanding you correct.

You can assume an "at your own risk" attitude, but at least let people make that decision if nothing else.

oh yeah, also, the one hour thing is just silly.

Talk to any actual opioid addict (outside this forum) as I have and it's just fucking common knowledge that a definitely lethal overdose takes minutes, and happens to the unsuspecting. you don't have to be a specialist or have a degree to know that, it's just common knowledge. I would say for myself just an hour to be safe.

I don't know where the oxygen to your brain stuff comes from. Papers would be nice. that's all I can say.

and I think most people would hit " considerably high over the lethal dose threshold" anyway, as it's incredibly easy to.

I'm not calling you a liar, at least I don't want to, but at the very least you're talking about some very specific circumstances, you studied at your profession because you don't have to be a super scientist nerd to be familiar with the rest of the stuff or know people who have personal experiences, example, my uncle.

This is why I want you to specify what you're saying to anybody like I mentioned before.

But the one hour thing and lethal dose thing is just ridiculous as I just outlined.

Anyone can lie on the Internet and say they have a background in this or that. Why should we believe you?

No offense, but people come to the site for a reason.

You repeat the phrase "I can't in good faith recommended" so how about not in good faith. Are you saying that every single paper that has been published and article published about someone dying from the drug is false?

I am asking are you saying that this drug is not deadly?
you say you don't wanna give advice on the matter because you want any given individual to have an informed opinion. Whether or not you would recommend opioids as a method is technically advice/an opion.

Again, anybody can lie on the Internet, so forgive me if I doubt your "background" because from what a large enough number of people have told me is that SN is painful and even worse in reliability than opioids. what do you say to this?

you say the reason for unreliability is just too much variance in people and administration, guess work, and risk of injury and pain, correct?
One more thing I would like to say to that is part of what I just wrote, and what you just cited is people's own miscalculations, or inexperience. I would like that to be specified.

OK, if I've got that, and I believe you and your background,

you're not saying that means the drug is unlethal?
You're not saying unreliability translates to that the drug is not killer?

Because I don't think and I don't know if you're aware, how many people will get you confused.
you can paint me as a cautionary tail, which is such a rude and passive aggressive way to speak to me, but

saying you're being truthful: at least don't leave people confused on what you mean. You, with your educated background, are not saying that unreliability = unlethality (that the drug isnt a killer?)

thank you.

also, please find me a real articles in scientific research papers that prove the unreliability of what you're saying. Don't get mad at me, this is the Internet, and I will need you to prove or fact check the information that you are saying before I can respect it.

But obviously the question I post to you before is the most important because I don't want people to suffer the confusion that I see some of them suffering of not understanding you correct.

You can assume an "at your own risk" attitude, but at least let people make that decision if nothing else.

oh yeah, also, the one hour thing is just silly.

Talk to any actual opioid addict (outside this forum) as I have and it's just fucking common knowledge that a definitely lethal overdose takes minutes, and happens to the unsuspecting. you don't have to be a specialist or have a degree to know that, it's just common knowledge. I would say for myself just an hour to be safe.

I don't know where the oxygen to your brain stuff comes from. Papers would be nice. that's all I can say.

and I think most people would hit " considerably high over the lethal dose threshold" anyway, as it's incredibly easy to.

I'm not calling you a liar, at least I don't want to, but at the very least you're talking about some very specific circumstances, you studied at your profession because you don't have to be a super scientist nerd to be familiar with the rest of the stuff or know people who have personal experiences, example, my uncle.

This is why I want you to specify what you're saying to anybody like I mentioned before.

But the one hour thing and lethal dose thing is just ridiculous as I just outlined.

i'm sorry, but just one final thing to add.

I think you're assuming that this stuff isn't incredibly easy to see for most people.
Or maybe it's just me who's figured it out, but I actually went to back over your comment and reread it slow slowly. Everything you're saying is stuff I already know about and to avoid, and that I thought I was explaining to people in this post.

You talk about naïve populations, and again maybe it's just me who understands it and figured it out, but I think you're unaware of just how many people can already see what you're warning against.

I mean to be a regular user or addict of opioids you need to already be familiar with a lot of very specific and dangerous stuff to get there, and obviously by then you need to watch out for tolerances.
I'm sorry. I apologize for misunderstanding you. You are just talking about unreliability.

But I think you are misunderstanding me a little. Because in this post, at least I thought I was explaining to a lot of people what the danger of the unreliability was: naivety/being uneducated/inexperienced and the variance in the drug trade right now if you don't know what to look for.

I myself am choosing nitazenes because if for some reason you were to try to buy fentanyl on purpose right now you will not get it, and THAT's from my experience (read dome of my threads) in the danger as well as highs are similar.

again, let me know if I was doing a poor job of explaining it, but that's all I really meant by them not being reliable: I thought everyone else can see it. Can't they?

in any case, the factors of unreliability you were talking about, aren't things uncontrollable by humans or something unchangeable at its core. Such as things like the tide of the oceans, or something being flawed with a contraption (method) at its core

and that's all I was trying to say in this post.

 

[vitbar]

Thing is a lot of methods are 100% if the person has 100% knowledge, ability, conviction, etc. The studies are about real people and the percentages can't be treated as the chance of any individual's attempt succeeding. The odds being 50% doesn't mean you are flipping a coin every time you try that method.

 

[virgilwalks]

Opioid addiction and overdoses - serious issue in America. Separate issue the % " efficacy" of intentionally using oral dosing prescription opioids like hydromorphone to ctb isn't necessarily accurate as quoted. As others observed - there is also a not small risk of surviving with brain damage. oral dosing of prescription opioids also isn't necessarily a quick outcome.

Given the tremendous problem of death from F overdoses it does make you wonder how more people who say they want it can't get it.

 

[Rhizomorph1]

Anyone can lie on the Internet and say they have a background in this or that. Why should we believe you?

No offense, but people come to the site for a reason.

You repeat the phrase "I can't in good faith recommended" so how about not in good faith. Are you saying that every single paper that has been published and article published about someone dying from the drug is false?

I am asking are you saying that this drug is not deadly?
you say you don't wanna give advice on the matter because you want any given individual to have an informed opinion. Whether or not you would recommend opioids as a method is technically advice/an opion.

Again, anybody can lie on the Internet, so forgive me if I doubt your "background" because from what a large enough number of people have told me is that SN is painful and even worse in reliability than opioids. what do you say to this?

you say the reason for unreliability is just too much variance in people and administration, guess work, and risk of injury and pain, correct?
One more thing I would like to say to that is part of what I just wrote, and what you just cited is people's own miscalculations, or inexperience. I would like that to be specified.

OK, if I've got that, and I believe you and your background,

you're not saying that means the drug is unlethal?
You're not saying unreliability translates to that the drug is not killer?

Because I don't think and I don't know if you're aware, how many people will get you confused.
you can paint me as a cautionary tail, which is such a rude and passive aggressive way to speak to me, but

saying you're being truthful: at least don't leave people confused on what you mean. You, with your educated background, are not saying that unreliability = unlethality (that the drug isnt a killer?)

thank you.

also, please find me a real articles in scientific research papers that prove the unreliability of what you're saying. Don't get mad at me, this is the Internet, and I will need you to prove or fact check the information that you are saying before I can respect it.

But obviously the question I post to you before is the most important because I don't want people to suffer the confusion that I see some of them suffering of not understanding you correct.

You can assume an "at your own risk" attitude, but at least let people make that decision if nothing else.

oh yeah, also, the one hour thing is just silly.

Talk to any actual opioid addict (outside this forum) as I have and it's just fucking common knowledge that a definitely lethal overdose takes minutes, and happens to the unsuspecting. you don't have to be a specialist or have a degree to know that, it's just common knowledge. I would say for myself just an hour to be safe.

I don't know where the oxygen to your brain stuff comes from. Papers would be nice. that's all I can say.

and I think most people would hit " considerably high over the lethal dose threshold" anyway, as it's incredibly easy to.

I'm not calling you a liar, at least I don't want to, but at the very least you're talking about some very specific circumstances, you studied at your profession because you don't have to be a super scientist nerd to be familiar with the rest of the stuff or know people who have personal experiences, example, my uncle.

This is why I want you to specify what you're saying to anybody like I mentioned before.

But the one hour thing and lethal dose thing is just ridiculous as I just outlined.

i'm sorry, but just one final thing to add.

I think you're assuming that this stuff isn't incredibly easy to see for most people.
Or maybe it's just me who's figured it out, but I actually went to back over your comment and reread it slow slowly. Everything you're saying is stuff I already know about and to avoid, and that I thought I was explaining to people in this post.

You talk about naïve populations, and again maybe it's just me who understands it and figured it out, but I think you're unaware of just how many people can already see what you're warning against.

I mean to be a regular user or addict of opioids you need to already be familiar with a lot of very specific and dangerous stuff to get there, and obviously by then you need to watch out for tolerances.
I'm sorry. I apologize for misunderstanding you. You are just talking about unreliability.

But I think you are misunderstanding me a little. Because in this post, at least I thought I was explaining to a lot of people what the danger of the unreliability was: naivety/being uneducated/inexperienced and the variance in the drug trade right now if you don't know what to look for.

I myself am choosing nitazenes because if for some reason you were to try to buy fentanyl on purpose right now you will not get it, and THAT's from my experience (read dome of my threads) in the danger as well as highs are similar.

again, let me know if I was doing a poor job of explaining it, but that's all I really meant by them not being reliable: I thought everyone else can see it. Can't they?

in any case, the factors of unreliability you were talking about, aren't things uncontrollable by humans or something unchangeable at its core. Such as things like the tide of the oceans, or something being flawed with a contraption (method) at its core

and that's all I was trying to say in this post.

The connotations of your writing sounds fairly disgruntled so I'm going to enforce a boundary that I don't spend much time engaging with unfriendly people. I invite you to try rephrasing some of what you wrote to be more clear and collaborative so I can better address your concerns.

I'd like to keep my identity anonymous but if you're that pressed for proof, I can send one of the mods my researchgate profile to verify my degree, research affiliation, and authorship on a few papers. For transparency's sake (you could have just asked instead of ridiculing me right out the gate... Have my posts not made it clear I'm an open book?)

Alongside my degree I worked as a harm reduction specialist with street entrenched and drug using populations. I've conducted handfuls of interviews with people who use any common street drug; I've delivered naloxone and known a handful of clients who died to opioids. I don't need to justify myself further; if you'd like to label me opioids naive, go ahead, but then we have different frameworks for what that means in which case, I can't communicate with you and won't waste our time. For practical reasons, I'm assuming both of us are opioid-literate moving forwards to avoid the redundant semantics that are being raised here...

If you'd like to discuss the veracity of claims I've made or want original sources, I'd be happy to do so if the goal is just that. After all "the facts are always friendly" - Carl Rogers. But I ask that you (a) establish whether your aim is to discuss my accreditation or (b) is actually to discuss the evidence? I refuse to have the two erroneously conflated. And (c) to perhaps consolidate your queries into a more concise format as, being direct and honest with you, your writing reads as a bit disjointed.

All in all whether you agree with me or not, you could do without the patronizing tone; I am personally choosing to see both our perspectives and backgrounds as equal.

Thanks in advance & take care.
-R

 

[Caribbean Sky]

The connotations of your writing sounds fairly disgruntled so I'm going to enforce a boundary that I don't spend much time engaging with unfriendly people. I invite you to try rephrasing some of what you wrote to be more clear and collaborative so I can better address your concerns.

I'd like to keep my identity anonymous but if you're that pressed for proof, I can send one of the mods my researchgate profile to verify my degree, research affiliation, and authorship on a few papers. For transparency's sake (you could have just asked instead of ridiculing me right out the gate... Have my posts not made it clear I'm an open book?)

Alongside my degree I worked as a harm reduction specialist with street entrenched and drug using populations. I've conducted handfuls of interviews with people who use any common street drug; I've delivered naloxone and known a handful of clients who died to opioids. I don't need to justify myself further; if you'd like to label me opioids naive, go ahead, but then we have different frameworks for what that means in which case, I can't communicate with you and won't waste our time. For practical reasons, I'm assuming both of us are opioid-literate moving forwards to avoid the redundant semantics that are being raised here...

If you'd like to discuss the veracity of claims I've made or want original sources, I'd be happy to do so if the goal is just that. After all "the facts are always friendly" - Carl Rogers. But I ask that you (a) establish whether your aim is to discuss my accreditation or (b) is actually to discuss the evidence? I refuse to have the two erroneously conflated. And (c) to perhaps consolidate your queries into a more concise format as, being direct and honest with you, your writing reads as a bit disjointed.

All in all whether you agree with me or not, you could do without the patronizing tone; I am personally choosing to see both our perspectives and backgrounds as equal.

Thanks in advance & take care.
-R

you yourself sound fairly disgruntled. All that was going on was that I was worried for other people who may have confused what you said.

I believe all that you were discussing was unreliability, and not that the method wasn't any less lethal than believed to be.

Of course, all I aim is that the evidence is correct, facts are friendly, or whatever. I'm not an unfriendly person. I just don't want people to be confused (like has been witnessed.) People come for this site for a reason, of course.

I wish you had read the entirety of my post, or at least the last bit.

I realized I had read you wrong. And from your reply just now, I think I was right about you misunderstanding me as well.
All you were talking about was unreliability. Nothing else.

(please don't call people cautionary tales; that's patronizing, just saying :) )

And in fact, I think my point of this post was to explain that unreliability, really. (the concern in experience and market trends, think I was trying to help people avoid that if possible)
Maybe other people don't see it as easily as I do, though (you talked about naivety)
Because to me, it seems like a really easy thing to understand and avoid.

I think I was also trying to explain that most if not, all of the unreliability did not in fact lay with the method or any of its chemical components at its core.
(I myself have mastered IV techniques and im not a nurse)

People are so easily offended at this forum, and that worries me because I think it affects the output of information when all most people are doing is seeking it, they don't have degrees or are experts, or just don't wish to in most cases give advice on how to CTB lol!

Some things of course I instantly knew was wrong or incorrect in reference to your post and didn't wanna argue. But again, then I realized I misunderstood what you said.

Can I apologize for misunderstanding you? and I hope you understand that you probably misunderstood me.

You can tell me if I did it badly but all I think I was trying to do when I wrote this post was explain to people that the unreliability was an non-difficult something to avoid, but maybe that's just the case for me.
I had also mentioned that about the fact of people dropping like flies unsuspectingly that you had to get to being a user or addict (of opiates) first and entering that dangerous situation for that to be likely even, and then you have to think about tolerances at that point (dont imagine anyone has an sn tolerance lol)

I don't need evidence or proof or fact check for anything you have said anymore, so don't worry about it.

Only thing now is in my worry for other people that

this method is clarified as still very lethal, but perhaps a bit unreliable, and while I personally understand what you mean by unreliable now and have mastered that myself that other naïve people might risk themselves
(sn prob would have been faster for me atp than now, but I also think that's partially my fault; I had knowledgeable people assisting me not on this forum and I pushed them away but that's ofc not important.)

Thank you and no hard feelings?

 

[Rhizomorph1]

you yourself sound fairly disgruntled. All that was going on was that I was worried for other people who may have confused what you said.

I believe all that you were discussing was unreliability, and not that the method wasn't any less lethal than believed to be.

Of course, all I aim is that the evidence is correct, facts are friendly, or whatever. I'm not an unfriendly person. I just don't want people to be confused (like has been witnessed.) People come for this site for a reason, of course.

I wish you had read the entirety of my post, or at least the last bit.

I realized I had read you wrong. And from your reply just now, I think I was right about you misunderstanding me as well.
All you were talking about was unreliability. Nothing else.

(please don't call people cautionary tales; that's patronizing, just saying :) )

And in fact, I think my point of this post was to explain that unreliability, really. (the concern in experience and market trends, think I was trying to help people avoid that if possible)
Maybe other people don't see it as easily as I do, though (you talked about naivety)
Because to me, it seems like a really easy thing to understand and avoid.

I think I was also trying to explain that most if not, all of the unreliability did not in fact lay with the method or any of its chemical components at its core.
(I myself have mastered IV techniques and im not a nurse)

People are so easily offended at this forum, and that worries me because I think it affects the output of information when all most people are doing is seeking it, they don't have degrees or are experts, or just don't wish to in most cases give advice on how to CTB lol!

Some things of course I instantly knew was wrong or incorrect in reference to your post and didn't wanna argue. But again, then I realized I misunderstood what you said.

Can I apologize for misunderstanding you? and I hope you understand that you probably misunderstood me.

You can tell me if I did it badly but all I think I was trying to do when I wrote this post was explain to people that the unreliability was an non-difficult something to avoid, but maybe that's just the case for me.
I had also mentioned that about the fact of people dropping like flies unsuspectingly that you had to get to being a user or addict (of opiates) first and entering that dangerous situation for that to be likely even, and then you have to think about tolerances at that point (dont imagine anyone has an sn tolerance lol)

I don't need evidence or proof or fact check for anything you have said anymore, so don't worry about it.

Only thing now is in my worry for other people that

this method is clarified as still very lethal, but perhaps a bit unreliable, and while I personally understand what you mean by unreliable now and have mastered that myself that other naïve people might risk themselves
(sn prob would have been faster for me atp than now, but I also think that's partially my fault; I had knowledgeable people assisting me not on this forum and I pushed them away but that's ofc not important.)

Thank you and no hard feelings?

No hard feelings

I'm sure we've both misunderstood aspects of each other. Such is the case with online communication; we miss out on body language, intonation, and other communicative cues.

I have a high tolerance for uncertainty and a pretty solid self esteem so I'm fairly unbothered. I encourage you to do the same; don't let this stress you out or worry you. You're (and *our*) ease of mind and emotional security is the most valuable takeaway.

I hope whatever we're both going through we can find some peace, patience, and ease of mind. Arguing semantics should really be the least of priorities for anyone who finds themselves in the slough of stress and pain on this site

I'm going to look past it now & try to address the underlying queries you have.

---

I wrote somewhere else about the probabilities of dying to opioids, accounting for variable such as daily use, the coroner's report statistics on opioid deaths, and taking probability theory into account to calculate the risk of dying for daily opioid users vs. one time users trying to die by suicide.

When accounting for these different variables, there are very different pharmacodynamic profiles and risk assessments that need to be done. The entire risk (risk being the odds of dying; ignore the negative connotations) formula is different. Comparing the overdose crisis deaths ("people dropping like flies") to ctb purposes is conflating apples with oranges, pharmacologically speaking.

I have no solid research directly on this off the top of my head (no studies have studied opioid suicides directly), so you are inferring as much as I am (thus the "lack of recommending in good faith; I could recommend anything I want in bad faith/lack of evidence but this goes against my ethics). But the best research we can infer from are the handfuls of stats on opioid related injuries (TBIs, etc.), the fact that regular opioid users who don't follow through with recovery have an average 7-year mortality rate, and the statistics on aggregate drug poisoning suicide attempts (which I linked research to in this thread I wrote up: https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/a-caution-about-drug-poisonings-ods-and-cutting.144879/).

The pharmacokinetics of opioids are also well-documented as varying wildly. Corroborating with a research article is unnecessary for the same principle of common knowledge used in e.g., the judicial system. You're welcome to read any intro to pharmacology textbook or other pharmakon describing the pharmacokinetics & dynamics of opioids. Or better yet, just open up the PPH's section on opioids to hear it firsthand from a physician who is an avid supporter of the right to die.

Inferring from all this (pharmacological profile + coroner's stats on opioid deaths in regular users), we can infer that the reliability is *probably* somewhere in the middle. At the end of the day, skeptics can always come along and say "well in my anecdotal experience..." Or "well there's no direct study exploring the disaggregated lethality if opioids in opioid-naive samples who are attempting suicide".

But, the argument I've set forth appears to have convergent validity, face validity, external validity, and a few other scientific metrics of sound construct/methodology. It's as scientific as it gets. It involves a bit of inferring from peripheral sources, but will be more predictive than other perspectives since it aligns the closest with the information we have. Anecdotes and the skeptical positions laid out before will witness less predictive validity nonestheless as they are inherently unscientific.



Feel free to critique these types of validity as you see fit. For example, the major issue I think you're alluding to is the issue of internal validity (lack of primary controlled studies demonstrating internally-corroborated causal pathways). I don't think it is necessary or plausible in this context and wille explore how I've approached this issue ethically:

I can in good faith state the reliability as moderate as in the face of some negligible scientific uncertainty from the lack of primary studies, the harm that comes from being wrong about stating a high reliability (e.g., permanent injury, emotional and financial cost to persons, etc.) is far greater than the harm from stating a moderate reliability (seeking access to perceived greater reliable methods? Marginally reduced access based upon the aforementioned uncertainty principle?).

The uncertainty principle can be ethically overturned as a result. High validity with the exception of internal validity combined with a net lower harm from broadcasting the reliability of moderate = best practice is to state it is moderate. I will continue to state the reliability as moderate at best, with the information available. Perhaps with a disclaimer that the evidence gathered is inferential/lacking in internal validity (but still substantiated based on both external research & documented pharmacology in human subjects).

TL;DR: the estimate is multiply substantiated, and it's limitations are considered in terms of ethics and best-practice communication. (Read up on clinical best-practice if you're not familiar; there's a whole other field of knowledge translation and implementation science that covers the limitations, communications, and implementations of research/knowledge)

Hope this clarifies a bit.
Take care.

 

[Caribbean Sky]

No hard feelings

I'm sure we've both misunderstood aspects of each other. Such is the case with online communication; we miss out on body language, intonation, and other communicative cues.

I have a high tolerance for uncertainty and a pretty solid self esteem so I'm fairly unbothered. I encourage you to do the same; don't let this stress you out or worry you. You're (and *our*) ease of mind and emotional security is the most valuable takeaway.

I hope whatever we're both going through we can find some peace, patience, and ease of mind. Arguing semantics should really be the least of priorities for anyone who finds themselves in the slough of stress and pain on this site

I'm going to look past it now & try to address the underlying queries you have.

---

I wrote somewhere else about the probabilities of dying to opioids, accounting for variable such as daily use, the coroner's report statistics on opioid deaths, and taking probability theory into account to calculate the risk of dying for daily opioid users vs. one time users trying to die by suicide.

When accounting for these different variables, there are very different pharmacodynamic profiles and risk assessments that need to be done. The entire risk (risk being the odds of dying; ignore the negative connotations) formula is different. Comparing the overdose crisis deaths ("people dropping like flies") to ctb purposes is conflating apples with oranges, pharmacologically speaking.

I have no solid research directly on this off the top of my head (no studies have studied opioid suicides directly), so you are inferring as much as I am (thus the "lack of recommending in good faith; I could recommend anything I want in bad faith/lack of evidence but this goes against my ethics). But the best research we can infer from are the handfuls of stats on opioid related injuries (TBIs, etc.), the fact that regular opioid users who don't follow through with recovery have an average 7-year mortality rate, and the statistics on aggregate drug poisoning suicide attempts (which I linked research to in this thread I wrote up: https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/a-caution-about-drug-poisonings-ods-and-cutting.144879/).

The pharmacokinetics of opioids are also well-documented as varying wildly. Corroborating with a research article is unnecessary for the same principle of common knowledge used in e.g., the judicial system. You're welcome to read any intro to pharmacology textbook or other pharmakon describing the pharmacokinetics & dynamics of opioids. Or better yet, just open up the PPH's section on opioids to hear it firsthand from a physician who is an avid supporter of the right to die.

Inferring from all this (pharmacological profile + coroner's stats on opioid deaths in regular users), we can infer that the reliability is *probably* somewhere in the middle. At the end of the day, skeptics can always come along and say "well in my anecdotal experience..." Or "well there's no direct study exploring the disaggregated lethality if opioids in opioid-naive samples who are attempting suicide".

But, the argument I've set forth appears to have convergent validity, face validity, external validity, and a few other scientific metrics of sound construct/methodology. It's as scientific as it gets. It involves a bit of inferring from peripheral sources, but will be more predictive than other perspectives since it aligns the closest with the information we have. Anecdotes and the skeptical positions laid out before will witness less predictive validity nonestheless as they are inherently unscientific.

View attachment 156944

Feel free to critique these types of validity as you see fit. For example, the major issue I think you're alluding to is the issue of internal validity (lack of primary controlled studies demonstrating internally-corroborated causal pathways). I don't think it is necessary or plausible in this context and wille explore how I've approached this issue ethically:

I can in good faith state the reliability as moderate as in the face of some negligible scientific uncertainty from the lack of primary studies, the harm that comes from being wrong about stating a high reliability (e.g., permanent injury, emotional and financial cost to persons, etc.) is far greater than the harm from stating a moderate reliability (seeking access to perceived greater reliable methods? Marginally reduced access based upon the aforementioned uncertainty principle?).

The uncertainty principle can be ethically overturned as a result. High validity with the exception of internal validity combined with a net lower harm from broadcasting the reliability of moderate = best practice is to state it is moderate. I will continue to state the reliability as moderate at best, with the information available. Perhaps with a disclaimer that the evidence gathered is inferential/lacking in internal validity (but still substantiated based on both external research & documented pharmacology in human subjects).

TL;DR: the estimate is multiply substantiated, and it's limitations are considered in terms of ethics and best-practice communication. (Read up on clinical best-practice if you're not familiar; there's a whole other field of knowledge translation and implementation science that covers the limitations, communications, and implementations of research/knowledge)

Hope this clarifies a bit.
Take care.

That absolutely clarifies, thank you
essentially that's what I was saying: high unreliability occurs in a one time user wishing to use opioids as poison.

As you sort of stated before ive had careful research and experience to prepare me and trust myself
and like I also said I think I was more astute and an understanding of all factors discussed here might have come easier to me.

Honestly the reason I made this post was basically to explain to anybody that the method's unreliability doesnt come from something at the method's core: its not like stuff such as cutting or self-drowning which are nearly impossible at their cores because of human biology and SI.

Nothing like that. I wanted to make people aware that's what was meant when talking about 'recommending' this as a way to ctb because the drug is in fact very lethal

To clarify and help remind people of their options with a huge sticky disclaimer (which needs to be applied to anything here lol)

cause misinformation or people straight up getting confused causes them to feel lost about their options, ive seen it (which probably feels shitty) and actually in turn can cause people to do something dangerous and stupid cause they have wrong info.

i cant account for anybody with making this post and I hope that's clear if it wasnt before.

I hope this post is still helpful and thank you again for help clarifying, Rhizo.