Method Fentanyl - Questions & Discussion

[Rhizomorph1]

lmao what are you talking about, there is no vomiting - what are you gonna do eat opiates or shove them up your ass? Also lets be honest, virtually no one is going to survive 10 times the lethal dose of any opiate - you can easily make the same claim about SN, that there might be some "rare outliers" but somehow its ok to take SN but not opiates?

Buying from reputable DNM vendors with hundreds of customer reviews and testimonies virtually nullifies the risk of getting sold shitty product. Buying some mystery powder from a random crackhead in an alleyway is dangerous and unreliable. It's pretty much only low level street dealers who put filler into their product anyway, DNM vendors wouldn't have much of a business if they were doing things like that.

By your same logic how can you be sure that SN you're buying is real? It's not like suicidal people can leave a review to confirm that it was as described. SN isn't a product from pharmaceutical or medical industries either, its even more unregulated than Opiates - At least with illegal opiates there are market & social pressures which create accountability and carry ramifications for vendors. I doubt the unregistered factory in Xinjiang which produces a mystery powder and labels it as SN gives a singular fuck about the purity of their product - its not like they are held to any accountability anyway.

Unfortunately we live in an age where attaining SN for the average person is harder than obtaining opiates, suggesting that people just take meto + SN is super unrealistic today, maybe pre 2020 that this was the case but not anymore. Ordering SN is also arguably even more dangerous than ordering opiates from DNM's. There is a surplus of people on sasu receiving welfare visits and facing other problems associated with attempted importations from overseas SN sources - this isn't a problem with readily available domestic opiates in every single country.

People should always do their own research, never trust what anyone tells you online - every CTB method carries risks and a chance of failure, its up to the individual to asses their risk tolerance and make their own decisions - never let anyone tell you what to do

Strawman fallacy.

Re-read my comment I addressed much of what you wrote. Regarding the "logic" you keep pointing towards I'm just going off data. Drugsdata.net includes dark net. Sample libraries from the FTIR spectrometer I used to operate. Coroners reports include ROA, etc. etc. I don't really have the energy to put much more in ultimately. Vomiting does happen and I can verify it personally from using heroin a few years ago, witnessing others vomit from multiple ROAs, and again *data*. It's common knowledge amongst opioid users that *especially naive users* typically vomit. Especially in doses and I quote "10 times the lethal limit".

Not to mention opioids have a huge binding affinity for the chemoreceptor affinity zone in the medulla, which is the brain's primary mechanism for stimulating nausea (intended to detect toxins).

Yes, plenty of people opt to stick drugs in their ass to bypass this. Again. Stuff I have personally witnessed and as a drug researcher, i have included in studies where a decent proportion of people in some studies did in fact use drugs rectally; to avoid nausea or other reasons.

The comparison between opioids and SN is moot when you apply Bayesian frameworks to how we assess and compare validity scientifically. The sheer volume of metrics including the fact that doctors (PPH) vouch for SN and not opioids adds to the substantive weight of the Bayesian framework a-priori. Sure, for face value you could say they're equal. But that's an unfair assessment of divergent validity. This face value approach doesn't really add up to the sheer volume of meta analyses and data at large.

We need solid empirical metrics and when the metrics are not perfectly comparable, we absolutely need sound scientific decision making criteria. Life and death shouldn't be left to face value extrapolations of unstandardized comparative detail. Thus, Bayesian methodology:

Bayesian methods naturally weight evidence according to certainty.
For example:
Poll A: 10,000 respondents
Poll B: 200 respondents
The larger poll has a narrower uncertainty interval, so it receives more weight in the posterior estimate.

The basic idea is: posterior ∝prior x likelihood

where:
Prior = what you believe before seeing the data.
Likelihood = how likely each data source would be if a given hypothesis were true.
Posterior = our updated belief after considering all sources.

The assessment you're making is skipping the "likelihood" step by bypassing the data sources altogether.

If it would help add substantive value to the Bayesian framework I put forth, I can share the drugs data report, energy control data from the dark net, coroners report data, or even data from the old organization I used to work for where we did drug testing from the community (some of the data I collected). This would hopefully illustrate the % concentration errors from expected samples, exipients in the drug supply, etc. as well as death reports, opioid-induced TBI reports, toxicology, neural pathways for nausea, pharmacokinetics & dynamics sections from textbooks, etc. I won't do it all at once since it's a lot. But pick a subject you disagree with and I can forward you the specific data regarding the specific subject you're inquiring about.

TL;DR please take some time to read the subject lines of each sentence of my comment. you're already re-assuming in your statement "let's be honest nobody is going to survive 10 times the amount" that the drug does in fact contain 10 times the amount. This is the strawman. I won't waste my time repeating what I already wrote about the issue here as it bypasses the referents I put forth about the drug supply.

I fall back to my original statement and simply reassert that it remains leveraged by the power of research and empirical method as opposed to face-value interpretation. (I.e., the philosophical-scientific notion of hitchen's razor supports my claim, until otherwise stated)

Take care. I mean no harm ultimately and am happy to just chalk up any negative feelings to misunderstanding or agree to disagree. My only goal is clarifying misinformation so people who are suffering can make an informed decision. I trust you have the same good intention, so I respect you and mean no harm. The intention we both share is the important piece to keep in mind to avoid any negative feelings. The last thing either of us need is any fighting. Please interpret my directness as mere logos and nothing personal or spiteful! Wishing you well regardless