SN Successful and Unsuccessful

[angie]

Witnessed sn in person if you wang to add (non member)
SPOILER// SN



9am 12 hr release anti inflammatory, 1 meto & Morphine

3:00pm 3x meto, 10mg diazapam 1x sevredol (morphine 4 hr slow release) taken

3:30pm SN DRANK (very slowly like a trickle speed over a few minutes)

3:45pm hyper salivating but no V+

4pm obvious weakness and pallor especially on lower extremities. Couldn't quite decide position of laying so helped into a comfortable place and spoken to etc, seemed very relaxed once reassurance was given that I was still there.

4:15pm breathing was more exaggerated but unconscious.

4:15-6pm unconscious and occasionally a whimper like that of someone dying naturally. Comfort given, settled and asleep. Reflexes diminished

6–6:15pm 10 final reflex breaths and head tilted peri arrest, no reflexes at all, bradycardia, grey skin

6:15pm Time of Death. Checked with stethascope, feeling for pulses and reflexes. All diminished

Disclaimer: This is what I observed and is not representative of everyone. Any views expressed here are solely observational and I am neither encouraging or coaxing anyone to try the same. You should like all of us seek help in any situation by calling a charity, seeing your Dr or going to the emergency room, A&E etc. Also I would like to add that the subject had liver problems and was anorexic as well as dehydrated. This can have an effect on symptoms and time like anyone, metabolism is different for all with many things to factor in. Any opinions expressed by myself are solely my own and not representative of anyone or anything else. I don't recommend you try this at home.

A helpfull list of information for a lot of people .
I think there is a wide variance on the way peoples bodies react to the Sn .some seem more peacefull than others .

 

[Sideswipe]

Thank you for sharing this with us.
Now the more I read, the more I'm questioning sn method. This seems too long for me. Do you think from 4,15 to 6,15; was the person in any pain? Can you even feel pain while you are unconscious?

Checking reflexes is quite literally that. Checking for responses to pain and stimuli like eye reflex, corneal reflex. Pinching of tender areas and knuckling the chest. No reflexes indicates no pain. The subject was not paralysed so would have responded to pain stimuli wether to the cornea or the chest

 

[angie]

Thank you for sharing this with us.
Now the more I read, the more I'm questioning sn method. This seems too long for me. Do you think from 4,15 to 6,15; was the person in any pain? Can you even feel pain while you are unconscious?

I agree it seems long but we will never know if they were in pain or not .Have to just go with it or not .

 

[TimeToBiteTheDust]

Good job! Thanks a lot

 

[hadenough]

thank you, hadenough, for your lists, especially for the scientific/news reports. i've added gambardella, Karangel25, and tearygirl to my own "successes" doc; Divine Trinity, Kaluk, and X-Kid to my "failures" doc. couldn't find your info re Divine Trinity's attempt. couldn't even find a trace of Mortalscreensaver's attempt, so haven't added them -- do you have a link?


i definitely agree that a large grain of salt is required, but offer some minor contrasts:

aside from having one's name crossed out and never logging on again, what criteria are feasible for non-confirmed successes? like all (?) content on this site that isn't e.g. peer-reviewed/well-sourced data, i guess veracity is left to the credulity of the reader. before listing the attempts in my documents, i've strengthened the disclaimer and reminded readers not to expect others' experiences to match their own (should they attempt with SN) thanks to your feedback.

i don't agree that the endeavour is altogether futile though. dismissing potentially dead members' last-moments documentation as "futile" seems a bit harsh, considering that all confirmed successes start off as unconfirmed "successes". (admittedly, confirmed cases are rare.)

[FWIW, i can only speak for myself, but maintaining these lists/documents is not fun or rewarding. i'm maintaining mine because i'm extremely grateful to members who share their experiences, because my belief in members' honesty is greater than in members' dishonesty, and because i believe that the combined method details and experiences are more helpful than harmful to other members. but i might be completely misguided and would like to know if that's the case! since i'm naive, gullible, not insightful, etc. i'd truly appreciate anyone letting me know how/why an individual account or the documents as a whole are more harmful than helpful, more likely to be false than true, disrespectful, indignifying, etc., so i can delete individual accounts or the whole documents entirely. i sincerely enjoy being corrected (learning) and never want to put out information with a negative net impact for any reason... but i mess up often.]

thanks for sharing your POV and time. [EDIT: double-posted]

Link to Divine Trinity:

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/first-ever-sn-documentation.29734/page-4#post-543612

Couldn't find a link for Mortalscreensaver but will check again and post the link when I find it.

Perhaps we could compile a complete list from both our posts to give the most definitive version of successes and failures

 

[squirtsoda]

I get the whole credibility thing as much as anyone, but where or how else could we have access to anything remotely specific enough to give us an idea of SN success/failure. The reason I personally believe the successes more than I disbelieve them is because it's quite distinct from a general "I'm killing myself now, k byeeee". It's very specific, the people submitting the information are listing their regimens. Now, the last part and the most important part is whether it was absolutely successful. I have an argument based on a previous comment stating if someone failed and was banned they might not come back on here. Let's say that situation happened, and the individual had a stay in the psych ward due to a serious suicide attempt. I find it highly unlikely their life magically got turned around by sitting in some group therapy and sitting at a table reading some magazines, they're gonna be right back on here and I know I would be too, had I been a member prior to my last non-SN attempt. I mean look at the ban appeals thread with all the failed attempts. In the case of lying for attention (not that I'd directly accuse anyone of that, I just know it absolutely happens), CTB via SN just doesn't seem to fit the bill...? Those types of cases are usually some sort of shocking method where the individual is making it look like they're trying to inflict as much pain upon themselves as possible because they think that's what they deserve. At least that's what I was taught in university. I'm just saying I personally have some faith in the list that was put together here. The author knows it's assumed successful, and I think everyone reading it understands that, but I certainly would not dismiss it is futile, I wouldn't call it anywhere near futile.

 

[SpaceForGrace]

I get the whole credibility thing as much as anyone, but where or how else could we have access to anything remotely specific enough to give us an idea of SN success/failure. The reason I personally believe the successes more than I disbelieve them is because it's quite distinct from a general "I'm killing myself now, k byeeee". It's very specific, the people submitting the information are listing their regimens. Now, the last part and the most important part is whether it was absolutely successful. I have an argument based on a previous comment stating if someone failed and was banned they might not come back on here. Let's say that situation happened, and the individual had a stay in the psych ward due to a serious suicide attempt. I find it highly unlikely their life magically got turned around by sitting in some group therapy and sitting at a table reading some magazines, they're gonna be right back on here and I know I would be too, had I been a member prior to my last non-SN attempt. I mean look at the ban appeals thread with all the failed attempts. In the case of lying for attention (not that I'd directly accuse anyone of that, I just know it absolutely happens), CTB via SN just doesn't seem to fit the bill...? Those types of cases are usually some sort of shocking method where the individual is making it look like they're trying to inflict as much pain upon themselves as possible because they think that's what they deserve. At least that's what I was taught in university. I'm just saying I personally have some faith in the list that was put together here. The author knows it's assumed successful, and I think everyone reading it understands that, but I certainly would not dismiss it is futile, I wouldn't call it anywhere near futile.

I agree. There is something to be said about the level of deliberate planning and engagement that SN requires.

 

[squirtsoda]

I agree. There is something to be said about the level of deliberate planning and engagement that SN requires.

And then to add, it's just purely factual that these doses of 20g+, most of the time using an antiemetic cause methemoglobinemia, and at blood levels over 70% is very much lethal. It takes much less than 20g to accomplish that for any body weight. Obviously if you vomit it all up to quickly you're shit out of luck, but anecdotally a lot of the vomiting can be tied to some people having a strong aversion (known or unknown) to drinking salty liquids. Why not try drinking some seriously salty salt water (just double check you're not having too much, don't want to jump the gun) to test. Using deductive reasoning from my perspective, I just don't find it that unlikely for this to work, and work pretty easily. The science makes sense, and a lot of people can drink seriously salty liquids without a problem.

 

[Terminally ill]

Student Leaves Website Message Before Suicide

An Omsk University student took a lethal dose of sodium nitrite in a campus building on Friday, before writing on his profile page on the Russian social network site VKontakte that he was going to take his own life "voluntarily" due to...

sputniknews.com

Here is another article on a SN death

 

[jgm63]

In my opinion, no criteria via posting is suitable in the absence of confirmation - not for something like this. That's why the ledger is futile. The criteria for a non confirmed success is ascertained by us here on SS : "Oh, she said she was dizzy and that she'd log off? And now her name is crossed off? Put her in the successes list."



The issue is that these lists acknowledge that the criteria for a non confirmed success is exactly the same as a failure: IE: Everyone who succeeded got dizzy and laid down. And so did everyone who failed. If they weren't banned minutes/hours after the testimonial, which they most often are, we use their login absence as confirmation of success - but anecdotal claims here suggest most failed attempts are due to being found and taken to hospitals and wards which lead to absences, anyway. We have no way to ascertain success from failure unless we deductively reason by the confirmation of failure: failures cannot be determined unless the individual tells us he failed. But most of these lists that categorize 'successes' do not follow from that deduction at all: They are literally a ledger of people saying, "I'm dizzy, I'm going to lay down." And being banned. They are often banned without the opportunity for a failure criteria. l'm not arguing the utility of those bans -- I get it. I understand why it's done. But documenting the 'succeses' of these events requires a context we don't have.

I mean, don't let me stop you. This is all just my opinion.



Honesty isn't the issue (although in a few cases I do think it could be). It's that we have no way to attain a failure criteria which is necessary to deduce success. The lack of ways to confirm the 'succeses' is the problem, not the honesty of the 'failure' accounts. The fact that this is all anecdotal and at the mercy of honesty/perception is secondary.

You make a good point: As imperfect as this all is, you see it as more beneficial than not. I can understand that. After all, including info on failure is substantive and adds something to the knowledge bank, even if the 'successes' list doesn't. Fair enough. The testimonials of failure have been valuable info for me and I know people appreciate what you're doing, so don't take my opinion too seriously.

I'd like to offer my views on why I believe the "success" dataset has significant value….
This is based on some beliefs and assumptions, which are explained, however I believe those assumptions have some merit.

As we know, the "success" cases can be questioned, since they were not "observed", and we don't have confirmation of the successful outcome.

So it's possible that some percentage of the success cases are "mislabelled" and are really "failure" cases.
Those cases may fit into one of the following :

"Success" mislabelled cases :

A) Attempt failed, but member never reports back
A.1) Not capable of reporting back due to serious disability following SN ingestion
A.2) Other reasons

B) Attempt failed, but member hasn't reported back yet

If we assume there are some cases of A.1), then there should also be less severe cases, where people have significant lasting damage, but are still able to report back. However, the failure cases that have been reported don't seem to have any lasting damage.
For us to believe there are cases of A.1), we have to assume an "all or nothing" situation, where you either recover with no lasting damage, or you end up severely disabled such that you are unable to report back. This seems unlikely.
The absence of reported cases of lasting damage, and the unlikeliness of the "all or nothing" scenario means the number of instances of A.1) is likely to be very low or zero.
(However, we can't fully rule out possible "one off" cases of A.1) occuring).

From what I've observed on this site, the openness and willingness to share information is high.
Info sharing is part of the culture and has a recognised and understood importance.

The records on the success/fail sheets are mostly from members who "publicise" their attempt, eg via goodbye threads.
I believe those members tend to be people who would make the effort to report back in the event of failure.
Members can and do return to the site (creating a new account if needed), and tell us what happened.
However, there may of course be cases where this doesn't happen, but I don't believe that would be common or typical.

I would suggest that the number of records on the sheet that are instances of case A.2) is likely to be fairly low, although we don't know what the numbers are.

Regarding case B) : failed, but haven't reported back yet
At any moment there may be a few recent "apparent successes" that are actually "not yet reported" failures.
Most failures probably get reported within a month or less.
At the time of writing, the cases listed on the sheets cover a time range of about 1.5 years, so any recent "not yet reported" failures are unlikely to be "statistically significant".

Based on the above reasoning, I'm inclined to believe that the majority of the "success" cases were genuinely successful.
I accept that an unknown percentage could have been failures where the person chose never to report back, but I don't feel that is likely to be a very common occurrence considering the cases being documented are of people who are willingly sharing information on their attempt, so I believe the numbers of such cases would be low.

I think the usefulness of the success list has been underestimated by some.
I believe the list has significant value, although clarification should be added to avoid misrepresentation.
A starting point could be to use the term "believed successful", reserving the term "successful" for the confirmed cases.
This can simply be explained at the top of the document.
A few paragraphs could be added to discuss possible scenarios (such as those above) that might apply for the "believed successful" cases.
This analysis could be included in an attached document to justify the use of the term "believed successful".

Of course, it would be far more desirable to have plentiful data from fully controlled observations.
However, that's not a reason to devalue the data that we do have available at present, provided we apply a few caveats when interpreting it.

It may also be worth noting that for the failed cases where people have reported back, we observe that most of them are due to medical intervention (being discovered or calling an ambulance themselves).
If some portion of the "success" cases are in fact failures, it is possible (perhaps likely even ?) that a similar pattern may apply, and most of those may be due to medical intervention.
So, a high proportion of the "mislabelled successes" (the number of which is not known, but is suspected to be low) may be failures caused by medical intervention.

The cases of medical intervention highlights the need for a certain amount of determination to undergo a degree of discomfort without calling an ambulance for SN to be a suitable method for any particular person. It also highlights the importance of not being discovered within a certain time window.

As a general comment on SN reliability, we should note that all "observed" SN cases so far have been successful.
There are additional successful observed cases that haven't been added to the success sheet yet.
One is from @Sideswipe observing a non-member (we may add this to the sheet soon).
The details of another case can't be revealed for privacy reasons, so won't be added to the sheet, however it was a successful and confirmed SN attempt.
So in total, there are 9 observed successful cases from this site.
The peaceful pill handbook states that 10 cases have been observed, and all were successful.
So in total, there are 19 "observed" cases so far, all of which have been successful.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Just reading the comments of @JSauter and @jgm63 and @squirtsoda.

I appreciate that @JSauter points out that we cannot know much if anything for certain about what is asserted. I would add that anyone can be on a forum for months, engender trust and belief, and act out a ctb scenario. Catfishing and trolling are harsh realties of this technological age.

So is disinformation. I add a caveat to @jgm63's acceptance of the PPH claims of observed SN reliability. With every new edition, info in the PPH changes regarding methods and ratings, with no data, no references to external sources, etc. Locations for attaining N become outdated but are not removed. There's just so much that stinks about PPH, and it's tempting to plug one's nose and keep relying on it because there are no other reliable sources. One is willing to overlook a lot when in desperate need. Such need makes one vulnerable to manipulation, and manipulators know it. I have suffered for plugging my nose in the past, and my experience and observations say PPH is not a trustworthy source, but just accurate enough to keep going back. I don't know the author's motives and I don't have to. I only have to know the smell of bullshit means there is bullshit; nothing pleasant has the same smell.

What I value about the OP on this thread is the symptoms listed. They dispel the myth that SN is a peaceful method. We want it to be, we want a poor man's N so much. But the body is not pro-choice but pro-health. It is going to fight to reject toxins, and to protect and heal from assaults. The document gives guidance so that one can have realistic expectations of what may occur during and after an attempt. One can prepare themselves for what is coming, and not be caught off guard. One can know that if they survive, they can recover, and there is peace in that.

I refer to this thread and the other success/failure thread often. I recommend them to others. I am wary of bullshit, but I don't allow the documentation to convince me of anything more than symptoms and recovery. I don't seek confirmation bias that validates my wishes. I seek to know what's going to suck, and how badly, so that I can decide if I can face all the aspects of the method and, if yes, how can I best prepare.

Done pontificating now. If I'm not done, I'll go find another thread to preach on. Seems to be my thing tonight, and if I'm honest, not a rare occurrence. Trying to not be an ass on top of it, but I'm not always successful. I'm a bit less on the loving and supportive end of the human nature spectrum today, to put it self-kindly.

 

[jgm63]

Just reading the comments of @JSauter and @jgm63 and @squirtsoda.

I appreciate that @JSauter points out that we cannot know much if anything for certain about what is asserted. I would add that anyone can be on a forum for months, engender trust and belief, and act out a ctb scenario. Catfishing and trolling are harsh realties of this technological age.

So is disinformation. I add a caveat to @jgm63's acceptance of the PPH claims of observed SN reliability. With every new edition, info in the PPH changes regarding methods and ratings, with no data, no references to external sources, etc. Locations for attaining N become outdated but are not removed. There's just so much that stinks about PPH, and it's tempting to plug one's nose and keep relying on it because there are no other reliable sources. One is willing to overlook a lot when in desperate need. Such need makes one vulnerable to manipulation, and manipulators know it. I have suffered for plugging my nose in the past, and my experience and observations say PPH is not a trustworthy source, but just accurate enough to keep going back. I don't know the author's motives and I don't have to. I only have to know the smell of bullshit means there is bullshit; nothing pleasant has the same smell.

What I value about the OP on this thread is the symptoms listed. They dispel the myth that SN is a peaceful method. We want it to be, we want a poor man's N so much. But the body is not pro-choice but pro-health. It is going to fight to reject toxins, and to protect and heal from assaults. The document gives guidance so that one can have realistic expectations of what may occur during and after an attempt. One can prepare themselves for what is coming, and not be caught off guard. One can know that if they survive, they can recover, and there is peace in that.

I refer to this thread and the other success/failure thread often. I recommend them to others. I am wary of bullshit, but I don't allow the documentation to convince me of anything more than symptoms and recovery. I don't seek confirmation bias that validates my wishes. I seek to know what's going to suck, and how badly, so that I can decide if I can face all the aspects of the method and, if yes, how can I best prepare.

Done pontificating now. If I'm not done, I'll go find another thread to preach on. Seems to be my thing tonight, and if I'm honest, not a rare occurrence. Trying to not be an ass on top of it, but I'm not always successful. I'm a bit less on the loving and supportive end of the human nature spectrum today, to put it self-kindly.

As explained above, I believe @JSauter overstated the extent to which we cannot trust the data. If you disagree then perhaps you can point out what you believe are the main flaws in my analysis.

I don't see the incentive typically being very high for people to fabricate stories about taking SN. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but if it did, I would expect it to be an uncommon occurence, since I don't see there being much to gain for most people.

Even under a worst case scenario, a significant percentage of the data gathered here will be valid.
If there were any significant things we needed to know about the SN method then those would have likely appeared in the data we've gathered.

The PPH states : "Note of Caution: At the time of publication (Sept 2019) Exit has only had detailed monitored accounts of nitrite deaths of 10 people. This is far too few to be certain that unexpected and unexplained failures using this salt may not possibly occur, The RPA table uses * to indicate some uncertainty."
This seems fair enough. There are various cases where the PPH names certain methods as unreliable. The PPH seems to take a balanced view from my limited observations. I'd be concerned if the PPH appeared to contradict the data we've gathered, but that doesn't seem to be the case. In my view, if we wish to criticise the PPH then we should deal in specifics rather than cast generalised aspersions.
Anyhow, we could easily discard the PPH from my analysis, without affecting the main conclusions.

It's known that SN isn't as peaceful as N.
But it appears to be more peaceful than some methods.
Yes, in many cases there appears to be discomfort with SN, but the discomfort level doesn't seem that bad to me.
In some accounts for "failed" attempts, people have stated that there was not much discomfort. Some stated there was no discomfort/pain.

 

[Terminally ill]

http://www.mm2018shpa.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/079-Johannesen-M-Sodium-nitrite-not-your-cure-all-remedy.pdf

This unsuccesful person remained unconscious for 24 hours and not dead although he was not found? And such a low level of Methaemaglobin for someone attempting after reading a website dedicated to euthanasia . :( What could have happened, this is scary :(

 

[jgm63]

http://www.mm2018shpa.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/079-Johannesen-M-Sodium-nitrite-not-your-cure-all-remedy.pdf

This unsuccesful person remained unconscious for 24 hours and not dead although he was not found? And such a low level of Methaemaglobin for someone attempting after reading a website dedicated to euthanasia . :( What could have happened, this is scary :(

Well we know nothing about the protocol they followed.....
How much SN did they take in how much water ?
Did they fast before hand ?
Did they mix it with orange juice, or consume alcohol beforehand ?
Did they use an antiemetic ?
Did they use an antacid ?
etc etc etc......

Perhaps they followed a "poor" protocol.....

@Terminally ill : Please note, we have been patiently answering your many ongoing questions for quite a while now....
However, at this point you have been given access to a vast body of knowledge on the topic.
You should be "one of us" at this point. Highly educated on the subject, and able to teach others.....

If you still can't reach a comfort point at this stage with SN as a method, then perhaps it's not for you....

 

[Terminally ill]

Yes, I feel overwhelmed. I guess maybe taking a break from the site might help me with overthinking and deciding.Thank you

 

[jgm63]

Yes, I feel overwhelmed. I guess maybe taking a break from the site might help me with overthinking and deciding.Thank you

No method is perfect.
Each has its pros and cons.
I agree it can get heavy going trying to weigh up all the information.....

 

[seafarer]

Pros and cons...weigh them up then decide what you think is best for you I latched on to SN quite quickly and then read every post for the last 1p0 pages on this site so I have been quiet since my post when I did a blood test with SN. Just got to keep reading most answers have lreafy been posted to most questions anyone could have. Just got to keep reading and thinking.

 

[jgm63]

Pros and cons...weigh them up then decide what you think is best for you I latched on to SN quite quickly and then read every post for the last 1p0 pages on this site so I have been quiet since my post when I did a blood test with SN. Just got to keep reading most answers have lreafy been posted to most questions anyone could have. Just got to keep reading and thinking.

The google docs created by @notjustyetagain are probably the single "richest" source of information, in terms of weighing up reliability, peacefulness, etc...

 

[Indieblue]

It was a long read... since i am not a native speaker. My eyes sore from lack of sleep but i think it was worth it. Thank you for the imformation. But can i ask you a question? Does regiment mento means self starvation hours?

Edit: nevermind, i read a post and figurednit out :)

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

As explained above, I believe @JSauter overstated the extent to which we cannot trust the data. If you disagree then perhaps you can point out what you believe are the main flaws in my analysis.

My disagreement was with using PPH as support for your analysis. As I would in an academic conversation, I cautioned against standing on the shoulders of this giant, or even in viewing it as one. Putting weight on a weak surface leads to collapse of the surface and damage to the source of the weight, in this case, the person attempting a successful ctb.

Yes, in many cases there appears to be discomfort with SN, but the discomfort level doesn't seem that bad to me.

That is your subjective perspective, and so, based on your subjective interpretation of the data, SN may be a good choice for you.

In some accounts for "failed" attempts, people have stated that there was not much discomfort. Some stated there was no discomfort/pain.

I caution against confirmation bias. "Some" denotes selecting the accounts with which one is comfortable with, and placing the extremes as outliers. There is equal potential, not odds, for outliers and norms to occur to the unique individual who engages with the method. One can decide to have a surgery based on a high success rate, but may end up in the category of failures. Risks must be acknowledged to make a personal decision. "Some" is deceptive, because it gives unmerited weight to justifying a decision to move forward with the method. As a "teacher" of the method (see below) and therefore influential, I find this to be dangerous.

In my view, if we wish to criticise the PPH then we should deal in specifics rather than cast generalised aspersions.

I take issue with the word aspersions. I criticized as such:

With every new edition, info in the PPH changes regarding methods and ratings, with no data, no references to external sources, etc. Locations for attaining N become outdated but are not removed.

You pointed out that Nitschke referenced Exit International. I concede that. But the handbook overall invites one to rely on it because the author is a doctor, which implies valid authority. I find in the SN section no studies, no external references. As such, Nitschke claims to be a giant and stands on his own shoulders. He makes money from lectures and books. He makes the guide desirable by placing limits on access. In short, he seeks to influence. OTC medicine commercials use actors in lab coats to play on the human propensity to give added weight to the claims of authority. Sales go up. (Source: Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion)

I don't see the incentive typically being very high for people to fabricate stories about taking SN. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but if it did, I would expect it to be an uncommon occurence, since I don't see there being much to gain for most people.

Narcissists, psychopaths, and sociopaths aside, I strongly recommend the The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies. Just because you are unaware of disinformation and hidden agendas does not mean they don't exist. They're hidden for a reason. This forum is highly visible and politicized. From the Offtopic thread Manipulation Tactics:

That's a great list. I'd like to add The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies. Should the link stop working one day, here's the same text on Pastebin. The blog posting contains the following five topics (copied from the article):

1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Finally...

@Terminally ill : Please note, we have been patiently answering your many ongoing questions for quite a while now....
However, at this point you have been given access to a vast body of knowledge on the topic.
You should be "one of us" at this point. Highly educated on the subject, and able to teach others.....

If you still can't reach a comfort point at this stage with SN as a method, then perhaps it's not for you....

As @Terminally ill stated on another SN thread:

No, I am just paranoid and try to look at things without a confirmation bias attitude just because I am desperate.

I have looked at all of @Terminally ill's posts. They regularly bring new data to see if the elements of the method stand up to questioning instead of blindly accepting popular opinion and validating the method for their personal consumption by jumping on a bandwagon and everyone gulping together. The act is personal, as is the decision.

@jgm63, I'm not sure who is included in this "us" and "we" you speak of. The entire quoted post reeks of cult manipulation techniques: shaming, invitations to drop reason and autonomy in exchange for inclusion, invited to reach the next level as a "teacher," reference to cult literature as a vast body of knowledge, the dangling carrot of the bliss of the SN Kool-aid, and speaking from a position of authority to make an example of them should others dare to consider them an example worth following. With a gentle little love bomb at the end.


I have not tip-toed in this post. Nor have I made ad hominem attacks. I have addressed specific statements and argued against them. I have placed and practiced boundaries. I ain't sending out love here because it has not been inspired. I send respect, and I demonstrate it with directness and honesty

 

[jgm63]

My disagreement was with using PPH as support for your analysis. As I would in an academic conversation, I cautioned against standing on the shoulders of this giant, or even in viewing it as one. Putting weight on a weak surface leads to collapse of the surface and damage to the source of the weight, in this case, the person attempting a successful ctb.



That is your subjective perspective, and so, based on your subjective interpretation of the data, SN may be a good choice for you.




I caution against confirmation bias. "Some" denotes selecting the accounts with which one is comfortable with, and placing the extremes as outliers. There is equal potential, not odds, for outliers and norms to occur to the unique individual who engages with the method. One can decide to have a surgery based on a high success rate, but may end up in the category of failures. Risks must be acknowledged to make a personal decision. "Some" is deceptive, because it gives unmerited weight to justifying a decision to move forward with the method. As a "teacher" of the method (see below) and therefore influential, I find this to be dangerous.



I take issue with the word aspersions. I criticized as such:



You pointed out that Nitschke referenced Exit International. I concede that. But the handbook overall invites one to rely on it because the author is a doctor, which implies valid authority. I find in the SN section no studies, no external references. As such, Nitschke claims to be a giant and stands on his own shoulders. He makes money from lectures and books. He makes the guide desirable by placing limits on access. In short, he seeks to influence. OTC medicine commercials use actors in lab coats to play on the human propensity to give added weight to the claims of authority. Sales go up. (Source: Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion)



Narcissists, psychopaths, and sociopaths aside, I strongly recommend the The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies. Just because you are unaware of disinformation and hidden agendas does not mean they don't exist. They're hidden for a reason. This forum is highly visible and politicized. From the Offtopic thread Manipulation Tactics:




Finally...



As @Terminally ill stated on another SN thread:



I have looked at all of @Terminally ill's posts. They regularly bring new data to see if the elements of the method stand up to questioning instead of blindly accepting popular opinion and validating the method for their personal consumption by jumping on a bandwagon and everyone gulping together. The act is personal, as is the decision.

@jgm63, I'm not sure who is included in this "us" and "we" you speak of. The entire quoted post reeks of cult manipulation techniques: shaming, invitations to drop reason and autonomy in exchange for inclusion, invited to reach the next level as a "teacher," reference to cult literature as a vast body of knowledge, the dangling carrot of the bliss of the SN Kool-aid, and speaking from a position of authority to make an example of them should others dare to consider them an example worth following. With a gentle little love bomb at the end.


I have not tip-toed in this post. Nor have I made ad hominem attacks. I have addressed specific statements and argued against them. I have placed and practiced boundaries. I ain't sending out love here because it has not been inspired. I send respect, and I demonstrate it with directness and honesty

As already mentioned, my previous analysis doesn't rely heavily on the PPH, so I still stand by the main conclusions even if we were to agree to exclude the PPH from the discussion.

Regarding confirmation bias, I'll give that some thought.
I may try to add greater balance to some of my statements.

For all I know you may have certain valid areas of criticism of the PPH, however I feel we should be specific about what those criticisms apply to, and act accordingly to the case in hand, unless we are just broadly discrediting the work.

This is not the first time @Terminally ill has posted something to the effect of "why did this person fail with SN ?".
He has been given good examples before of factors to consider, and should have been in a position to apply his own reasoning to the matter at this point, by considering those same factors in this context.

Keep in mind that it's possible to read into some things too much...
As you know, certain "figures of speech" are used for economy of expression.
When I wrote : You should be "one of us" at this point. Highly educated on the subject, and able to teach others.....
I was trying to convey the concept that at this point they have likely read about as much as us on the topic, since we have already given them all of the "best" links we have on the matter. The use of quotation marks hint at the non-literal meaning. So I was suggesting that at this point, perhaps he would also be answering SN questions for newer members on the forum who have just signed up. I was simply trying to convey that idea in less words, to conserve energy after a long night of typing answers to various things....
Saying that this sounds like a cult (etc) is a bit silly in my view. It would be different if such a narrative became a recurring theme, but that's not the case here....

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

@jgm63, it took effort to write my post, and I recognize and appreciate your effort to read and engage with it. It is a respectful, thoughful, and intelligent discussion, which I value. We challenged and criticized one another's assertions, and one's responses to challenges and criticism reveal much about them. You reveal it is a worthy and edifying pursuit to engage in conversation with you.

As already mentioned, my previous analysis doesn't rely heavily on the PPH, so I still stand by the main conclusions even if we were to agree to exclude the PPH from the discussion.

I acknowledge my first post was unclear, and that I made a general response to three authors. I did not agree nor disagree with the conclusion of your analysis, only the use of one source to support it. My apologies for the unintentional provocation.

Regarding confirmation bias, I'll give that some thought.
I may try to add greater balance to some of my statements.

I appreciate that you did not take my statements as a personal attack and may have found something in them that served you.

For all I know you may have certain valid areas of criticism of the PPH, however I feel we should be specific about what those criticisms apply to, and act accordingly to the case in hand, unless we are just broadly discrediting the work.

I caution against the use of "we." It is a practice of mine to separate myself from the word and rephrase so that I may better understand the speaker's point of view. As such, I read the statement as: "I feel I should be specific about what those criticisms apply to, and act accordingly to the case in hand, unless I am just broadly discrediting the work."

For myself, I know that I addressed the SN entry in PPH, and applied it more broadly to the entire publication. I am not suggesting to throw out the baby with the bathwater, there is ostensible value in the publication, but I provided evidence to support my assertion that the bathwater, and some of the babies in it, are quite dirty. The work is discredited for me. If it is not discredited for you as well, I have no problem with that. I am no hero, and you may not even require rescue. What is poison to one may be nutritious for another. If the PPH is gluten, then I have Celiac's disease and you are free to consume without experiencing my symptoms.

This is not the first time @Terminally ill has posted something to the effect of "why did this person fail with SN ?".
He has been given good examples before of factors to consider, and should have been in a position to apply his own reasoning to the matter at this point, by considering those same factors in this context.

I always feel defensive at the word "should." I experience it as negating and condemning. I again rephrase to better hear your point of view: "When I have been given good examples before of factors to consider, I was then in a position -- the only possible position -- to apply my own reasoning to the matter at this point, by considering those same factors in this context. If I took a different position, I caused offense (suffering) to others. I was wrong and need to protect others from suffering by returning to, and remaining within, the bounds of the only possible position."

Keep in mind that it's possible to read into some things too much...
As you know, certain "figures of speech" are used for economy of expression.
When I wrote : You should be "one of us" [....]

An ice cream truck driver offers me a free ice cream cone. He is crying! He says he has lost his puppy. Oh no! He asks if I like puppies, too. Yes!!!!! He asks if I would like to help him find his poor puppy, who may be hurt. Oh my gosh, yes! Well, then come on into the van and let's go do that together. Hmmm, I feel uncomfortable. But it's possible I'm reading too much into it. Someone once cautioned me against that. And I sure do like ice cream and puppies and being one of "us" by going together. And I really, really feel lonely and isolated an unaccepted, so I want to be "one of us" in a group, too. Maybe there's a cult that will welcome me. But cults are bad, so maybe SS will welcome me. Hey, maybe he'll drive me to an internet cafe once the puppy is safe! Okay sure, Mr. Ice Cream Man, let's go!

Saying that this sounds like a cult (etc) is a bit silly in my view. It would be different if such a narrative became a recurring theme, but that's not the case here....

I'm going to repost the entire quote here for reference:

@Terminally ill : Please note, we have been patiently answering your many ongoing questions for quite a while now....
However, at this point you have been given access to a vast body of knowledge on the topic.
You should be "one of us" at this point. Highly educated on the subject, and able to teach others.....

If you still can't reach a comfort point at this stage with SN as a method, then perhaps it's not for you....

And my assertions in response:

@jgm63, I'm not sure who is included in this "us" and "we" you speak of. The entire quoted post reeks of cult manipulation techniques: shaming, invitations to drop reason and autonomy in exchange for inclusion, invited to reach the next level as a "teacher," reference to cult literature as a vast body of knowledge, the dangling carrot of the bliss of the SN Kool-aid, and speaking from a position of authority to make an example of them should others dare to consider them an example worth following. With a gentle little love bomb at the end.

First, indoctrination utilizes recurring themes of the cult and of cult practices. I'm not accusing you of indoctrination, only pointing out that your argument is flawed.

There are repeating themes on SS that can easily lead to non-critical acceptance of certain things as irrefutable, reinforced by group inclusion and acceptance. With no disrespect to Stan or the ostensible value of his work, on SS, his guide is the holy bible, and he is a savior. A "vast body of knowledge" ostensibly validates the bible. @Terminally ill questions that. The SN method becomes a ritual, and we all partake with the goodbye posts that inspire this thread, making the threads as much if not more about the method than the memorial of a fellow human and community member. When someone posts on this forum they want to do the method differently, the guide is quoted -- it only lacks chapters and verses. Stan has been imagined as meeting on the other side those who have used the method, and of having crashed the site at his death. Those who embrace the method and the bible are embraced, loved, and praised. Those who use the method and succeed, ascend and provide hope for a peaceful passing. Shaming gets people back in line with the group philosophy. People who question the philosophy, the bible, and the savior are shamed and negated. I have my own thread journaling my own way of doing the method and doing my due diligence; not a single person who vigorously upholds the Word of Stan has participated or PM'd me, but independent and autonomous thinkers and doers have.

This is (some of) the narrative and recurring theme.

 

[jgm63]

@jgm63, it took effort to write my post, and I recognize and appreciate your effort to read and engage with it. It is a respectful, thoughful, and intelligent discussion, which I value. We challenged and criticized one another's assertions, and one's responses to challenges and criticism reveal much about them. You reveal it is a worthy and edifying pursuit to engage in conversation with you.



I acknowledge my first post was unclear, and that I made a general response to three authors. I did not agree nor disagree with the conclusion of your analysis, only the use of one source to support it. My apologies for the unintentional provocation.




I appreciate that you did not take my statements as a personal attack and may have found something in them that served you.



I caution against the use of "we." It is a practice of mine to separate myself from the word and rephrase so that I may better understand the speaker's point of view. As such, I read the statement as: "I feel I should be specific about what those criticisms apply to, and act accordingly to the case in hand, unless I am just broadly discrediting the work."

For myself, I know that I addressed the SN entry in PPH, and applied it more broadly to the entire publication. I am not suggesting to throw out the baby with the bathwater, there is ostensible value in the publication, but I provided evidence to support my assertion that the bathwater, and some of the babies in it, are quite dirty. The work is discredited for me. If it is not discredited for you as well, I have no problem with that. I am no hero, and you may not even require rescue. What is poison to one may be nutritious for another. If the PPH is gluten, then I have Celiac's disease and you are free to consume without experiencing my symptoms.



I always feel defensive at the word "should." I experience it as negating and condemning. I again rephrase to better hear your point of view: "When I have been given good examples before of factors to consider, I was then in a position -- the only possible position -- to apply my own reasoning to the matter at this point, by considering those same factors in this context. If I took a different position, I caused offense (suffering) to others. I was wrong and need to protect others from suffering by returning to, and remaining within, the bounds of the only possible position."



An ice cream truck driver offers me a free ice cream cone. He is crying! He says he has lost his puppy. Oh no! He asks if I like puppies, too. Yes!!!!! He asks if I would like to help him find his poor puppy, who may be hurt. Oh my gosh, yes! Well, then come on into the van and let's go do that together. Hmmm, I feel uncomfortable. But it's possible I'm reading too much into it. Someone once cautioned me against that. And I sure do like ice cream and puppies and being one of "us" by going together. And I really, really feel lonely and isolated an unaccepted, so I want to be "one of us" in a group, too. Maybe there's a cult that will welcome me. But cults are bad, so maybe SS will welcome me. Hey, maybe he'll drive me to an internet cafe once the puppy is safe! Okay sure, Mr. Ice Cream Man, let's go!



I'm going to repost the entire quote here for reference:



And my assertions in response:



First, indoctrination utilizes recurring themes of the cult and of cult practices. I'm not accusing you of indoctrination, only pointing out that your argument is flawed.

There are repeating themes on SS that can easily lead to non-critical acceptance of certain things as irrefutable, reinforced by group inclusion and acceptance. With no disrespect to Stan or the ostensible value of his work, on SS, his guide is the holy bible, and he is a savior. A "vast body of knowledge" ostensibly validates the bible. @Terminally ill questions that. The SN method becomes a ritual, and we all partake with the goodbye posts that inspire this thread, making the threads as much if not more about the method than the memorial of a fellow human and community member. When someone posts on this forum they want to do the method differently, the guide is quoted -- it only lacks chapters and verses. Stan has been imagined as meeting on the other side those who have used the method, and of having crashed the site at his death. Those who embrace the method and the bible are embraced, loved, and praised. Those who use the method and succeed, ascend and provide hope for a peaceful passing. Shaming gets people back in line with the group philosophy. People who question the philosophy, the bible, and the savior are shamed and negated. I have my own thread journaling my own way of doing the method and doing my due diligence; not a single person who upholds the Word of Stan has participated or PM'd me, but independent and autonomous thinkers and doers have.

This is (some of) the narrative.

Get stuffed.
^^ That was a joke........

Well I'm certainly impressed at the length and detail of your response.
I'm not sure that I really agree with many of the points made, or perhaps at present I don't have the intellectual patience to consider the points you've made with the necessary depth needed, although I believe there is validity in having that "fixed cost" mindset, since some things can just be made overly complicated in my view, and my built-in spiritual "energy conserver" forbids me from going into such depth where I feel the payoff may not be warranted.
Sorry to be a killjoy in that respect.....

I accept that "vast body of knowledge" may have been something of an exaggeration, although since such things are relative, it is neither right nor wrong.
I was more hinting at the fact that spread around in various places, a fair bit of accumulated knowledge has been built up on this site. That is not just from Stan's guide, but the data collected by @Neville1 @notjustyetagain @Quarky00 plus some posts by myself about antiemetics, and doubtless others that I've forgotten/overlooked (apologies if you are reading).

Although many of your points are potentially valid, I feel you might be overusing them a little.
Something like "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".

I think you may be "splitting hairs" a little.
I'm certain there are cases where many of the points you raise are entirely valid and fully apply to the situation, but I'm not overly convinced this situation is one of those times....
However, that is just my overall sense, and if I invested more energy into thinking about your points I might partially change my view on some aspects....

EDIT : But I suppose I can see how the "one of us" wording might raise some concern, so perhaps part of what I've written above is wrong based on that....

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

@jgm63

Thanks for the laugh.


Although many of your points are potentially valid, I feel you might be overusing them a little.
Something like "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".

I think you may be "splitting hairs" a little.
I'm certain there are cases where many of the points you raise are entirely valid and fully apply to the situation, but I'm not overly convinced this situation is one of those times....
However, that is just my overall sense, and if I invested more energy into thinking about your points I might partially change my view on some aspects....

Since you acknowledged in the first paragraph and in the quoted text that you are at present not actively engaging with my statements, I leave your feelings and overall senses within you and not within me. Nothing here to induce self-doubt or introspection. I have no need to change your point of view, your yard is just fine, no one asked me to relandscape it. I've got my own yard to tend and it's plenty of work.

If you ever choose to engage with my assertions and continue the conversation...and I am still alive (hah!)...I'll be glad to resume it.

 

[jgm63]

@jgm63

Thanks for the laugh.


Although many of your points are potentially valid, I feel you might be overusing them a little.
Something like "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".

I think you may be "splitting hairs" a little.
I'm certain there are cases where many of the points you raise are entirely valid and fully apply to the situation, but I'm not overly convinced this situation is one of those times....
However, that is just my overall sense, and if I invested more energy into thinking about your points I might partially change my view on some aspects....

Since you acknowledged in the first paragraph and in the quoted text that you are at present not actively engaging with my statements, I leave your feelings and overall senses within you and not within me. Nothing here to induce self-doubt or introspection. I have no need to change your point of view, your yard is just fine, no one asked me to relandscape it. I've got my own yard to tend and it's plenty of work.

If you ever choose to engage with my assertions and continue the conversation...and I am still alive (hah!)...I'll be glad to resume it.

Sure, or otherwise we can meet up sometime in heaven for a game of chess or something (I'm rubbish at it but wouldn't mind learning to play properly "at some point", perhaps I'll put it on my "post bucket list").

 

[hadenough]

One of the reasons I made this list was to highlight the truth about SN. I have used the term "assumed successful" because we really don't know if that is correct. The criteria is being banned and not returning under the same name. Some people may report taking it but we have no sure way of knowing. For that reason I excluded cases where the amount taken and regimen had not been mentioned. I ignored the posts that did not go into detail and just said "I took it."

BPDME did not post that he/she had taken it but reappeared under a new name recently to say he/she failed 3 months ago. It is possible that some of the "assumed successful" have survived and for one reason or another have not come back to report it.

Perhaps the "unsuccessful" are more informative, I can't see them pretending to have taken it when they haven't and a fair few mention the same side effects, making their reports more plausible. These cases highlight that it is not the "panacea" it's sometimes made out to be. For some people it was uncomfortable in some way, for some even painful. As all we can go on is anecdotal evidence these cases may inform us of what to expect. I have sometimes felt that SN is almost beyond criticism; some people want to push this method without considering the negatives. A news article I have posted mentioned that one child in China poisoned with SN by their teacher is brain dead and being kept alive. There was another post of a scientific journal article mentioning brain damage caused but SN but I have been unable to find it again (if anyone could point me in the right direction I would appreciate it). I am not saying that this is a bad way to CTB or a good way, just another method that has its positives and negatives and give readers a better understanding of what could happen.

 

[Otter]

M

http://www.mm2018shpa.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/079-Johannesen-M-Sodium-nitrite-not-your-cure-all-remedy.pdf

This unsuccesful person remained unconscious for 24 hours and not dead although he was not found? And such a low level of Methaemaglobin for someone attempting after reading a website dedicated to euthanasia . :( What could have happened, this is scary :(

maybe they took a large quantity of mind altering drugs with it

 

[EmptyArms]

Sure, or otherwise we can meet up sometime in heaven for a game of chess or something (I'm rubbish at it but wouldn't mind learning to play properly "at some point", perhaps I'll put it on my "post bucket list").

You two are just adorable. I loved reading this . I had a little chuckle at your intellectual jostling. All good natured stuff.

 

[jgm63]

You two are just adorable. I loved reading this . I had a little chuckle at your intellectual jostling. All good natured stuff.

LOL, pleased to have provided some entertainment. Perhaps we'll sell tickets next time....

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

You two are just adorable. I loved reading this . I had a little chuckle at your intellectual jostling. All good natured stuff.

I haven't been patted on the head and had my efforts so minimized since I grew tall enough for the big kid rides.