Isn't it increasing your chance to vomit if you go way over the lethal dose? It's been a long time since I researched this but I remember that especially with concentrated powder form, it is just added risk to take a gigantic dose. I guess there is the question of purity though. Sorry for awkward quoting you, this is more a response to the person asking why you didn't take "full amount".
Physically I'm much better. Thank you. Supposedly that's the same brand as the stuff I have but I don't know honestly. I'm no expert.
Stans regimen and the PPH state the amount to be 25g so that's what I guess I'd refer to as a full dose. My understanding is that the idea is for the body to be overwhelmed quickly so you lose consciousness faster. I think the urge to vomit is going to be there regardless.
Thanks for the kind words. I really appreciate it. It's fine for people to question things, and I think to be fair this is a touchy subject at the moment. I'm not upset by any of the comments here. Wasn't great at the time but I had other things to worry about anyway.I read the whole thread too and i think its amazing that after a near death expirience and having lost all willing to live, you still find in your heart the kindness to share such a sad private expirience and to have such level of respect and patience with a bunch of bullies strangers that don't care a f about it. Just wanted to let u know that your efforts to be the bigger person weren't unnoticed. And im so sorry that life has brought u to a point of no return. I wish that genuine people like u wouldn't have to ctb, since they are so rare and so necessary in this wicked world. But still respect your decision and hope that no more pain or disappointment ever touch you again. Good luck op
I am really terrible at maths and science, you're much more capable than me. I am 210 pound female. I cannot work out how many grams of SN I need to ctb. If you could let me know I would be so grateful.
So you are 95 kg. So it would be 180 x 2 x 95 then divide by 1000. That's 34 grams.
What would be your alternative then?
.
Hey no problem. I probably overreacted. Sorry I get kinda nervous and defensive sometimes. I'm not a toxicologist or mathematician either, I'm just trying to make an approximate estimatation based on LD50.I am neither a toxicologist nor a biologist, I was just curious if you had more specific grounds for your calculus. I'm sorry if my message was interpreted as aggressive, that was really not my intention.
Still, if I had to make an educated guess, I'd assume it should rather be modeled with something closer to a normal distribution (because rodents would be orders of magnitude more likely to die with doses "around" LD50 than they are likely to die with doses around, say, LD50 * 0.5, implying 0.5 * LD50 << LD25). Which also means that LD100 wouldn't even make sense from a statistical standpoint (and AFAIK, this is the reason why LD50 or LD99 are commonly used in toxicology, not LD100: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_dose#Units_and_measurement).
Sure, there are other approximations as you pointed out. I also reckon LD would not be completely proportional with the body mass and is indeed probably not strictly translatable from rodents to humans.
Though I think 2 * LD50 highly overestimates the minimal dose for achieving high probability of death (which is fine in this specific instance because death is the intended effect). It's just that you wrote "to make it 100%" which picked my interest. I was wondering if there were specific studies that empirically determined such result.
TLDR, that was just some nitpicking from me
Thanks for the table, that's very insightful. I think your observation makes a lot of sense. I could well imagine that the regression would highly depend on the substance.
. Most people are so used to being judgemental and passive-aggressive that I cannot blame you for (mis)interpreting my message as an attack.
No worriesAlso, after reading my first response again, I have to admit I was a little "cold". I should have expressed myself differently, sorry. It's already hard to understand people's intents IRL, online it's even more nightmarish
it's all goodDitto. Quoting another thread "Also, just know and trust the brands that have had a reliable purity in the past(such as IC).
Sorry if my question has an obvious answer but, from the threads I read - and even within PPH - I would assume that I needed 25g of SN to have a good chance of CTB. But by those calculus you did, it tells me the correct dosage is 18g (I am ~50kg, probably a bit less right now, but will eventually weight myself to be sure, as my weight tends to be very volatile in a short period of time).
This product has already been tested and is absolute bunk I do believe they did use reagent.
I get that, but how do we know for sure that's what he used? I guess in the end we can never be 100% sure.
