Method SN purity below 95%? Here’s a Protocol that Could Solve it

[IwantHappiness]

(this is not pro-suicide. SaSu is a pro-choice community)

Hi. We've been told that, for CTB, the required SN purity is 95%, although it's not clear how this number was calculated.
This was back in the days, when SN was easy to buy. Now things are different and not everyone can find and buy new SN all the time if, for example your SN purity is below 95%.

This thread aims to solve this problem, in my opinion.

Lets say your SN, at production date, was atleast 97% pure. You already know of the conversion into nitrAte, so now you have a doubt...but I think everything is fine and Im explaining why:

Standard dose is 25 grams.

To illustrate: 25 grams of SN at 95% purity is equivalent to the following amounts at 100% purity:

- 100% --> 23.75 g

- 95% --> 25 g

- 90% --> 26.4 g

- 85% --> 27.9 g

- 80% --> 29.7 g


My point: even if the SN is below 95%, I can simply increase the amount to achieve the same effective purity.

Now...we need to remember something very important, PPH lists VSED as a CTB method, bad way to die, but it works, not peaceful? Ok but it works. Thanks to this fact I created a new SN protocol/regimen that allows purity BELOW 95% to work. VSED for 48 hours is doable. After this time the human body is weak and cannot get rid of the new extra dose of SN, also, the body is thirsty and will absorb anything. Hence the following protocol:

-day 1 00:00 hours start VSED for 48 hours

-day 3 00:00 hours take pills as usual, you already know this part

-day 3 01:00 hours take SN dose based on the grams I wrote above, depending of course on your SN purity. Put dose in a cup and add little water, just enough to dissolve SN

Prepare 3 SN drinks, just to make sure, you already know this part too.
Maybe this protocol is not as peaceful as the original one but it allows to use SN with purity below 95%. Who really wants to die does not care about an additional discomfort, correct?

Any insights would be greatly appreciated, thank you in advance.

 

[U. A.]

although it's not clear how this number was calculated.

Are you a biochemist? If not then this quote might apply just as well to all of this. I've thought of this too but how can we know that the other ingredients (or byproducts of degradation) don't impede efficacy via their interfering with the process?

There's also the physiologically tolerable amount to consider; ethanol (alcohol) is lethal at a much lower volume than, say, water—but drinking twice as much alcohol at half strength isn't liable to kill you very easily by just "drinking more" because the body has limits to its fluid capacity (to be clear this is a shitty example; it's just to illustrate the point that more isn't always necessarily the answer. It may be in this case, but do you want to find out the hard way?).

 

[mjolnir]

It's not as if some kind of randomized clinical trial is possible to determine the lethal dose, so just as we discovered that cigarettes increase the risk of lung cancer (forgive the analogy) by monitoring them without intervention and observing their effects over time, the same applies to any substance. We don't have the answer, and anything that deviates from the current consensus considering the consequences is inadvisable.