Help SN is the only essential ingredient?

[bananaolympus]

so the benzos and painkillers are just for the sn side effects and dying more comfortable? so just fast then drink the mg according to your weight and do not vomit and thats it?

 

[TheHolySword]

Chances are you are going to vomit. Most everyone does, you'll be very lucky if you don't. Technically SN is the only thing required since it's the poison that will kill you but there are recommendations and methods that attempt to help increase your chances. I would advise making an active plan with preparations, going into it with a simple mindset will lead to mistakes.

 

[Amarajoy]

Chances are you are going to vomit. Most everyone does, you'll be very lucky if you don't. Technically SN is the only thing required since it's the poison that will kill you but there are recommendations and methods that attempt to help increase your chances. I would advise making an active plan with preparations, going into it with a simple mindset will lead to mistake

The sn Bible says the other items are not necessary.

It is a very large dose of poison we ingest. I do question the necessity of antiemetics. People are throwing up either way and still managing to get enough poison in and on stat dose is anyone really waiting long enough for meto to truly be effective?

From the many case studies on here I hope we can draw better conclusions since obtaining the other items can be difficult and other factors such as inability to take certain medications. By all means if you can follow the protocol go for it but I tend to think you are drinking a copious amount of poison. It should knock you out pretty quickly. So I am personally leaning toward use of sn only. I don't think I will tolerate the other meds and they will prevent me from accomplishing the task. I would prefer to follow protocol but probably not going to happen.

 

[TheHolySword]

The sn Bible says the other items are not necessary.

It is a very large dose of poison we ingest. I do question the necessity of antiemetics. People are throwing up either way and still managing to get enough poison in and on stat dose is anyone really waiting long enough for meto to truly be effective?

From the many case studies on here I hope we can draw better conclusions since obtaining the other items can be difficult and other factors such as inability to take certain medications. By all means if you can follow the protocol go for it but I tend to think you are drinking a copious amount of poison. It should knock you out pretty quickly. So I am personally leaning toward use of sn only. I don't think I will tolerate the other meds and they will prevent me from accomplishing the task. I would prefer to follow protocol but probably not going to happen.

Not everyone is going to have the same accessibility and availability and that's fine. I know there's been some debate on ae usage but people also misunderstand that they are not 100% effective vomit preventers. Yes, SN is the only requirement (as I said in my original comment). Yes, you drink a large amount of it. But that doesn't mean you or anyone should go into this with the mindset that it's a poison and you just need to drink it and it's that simple. Lack of preparation leads to mistakes which leads to failures. SN is absolutely survivable. Also pretty quickly isn't exactly true, SN generally takes longer than other methods that knock you out, but it varies person to person. Dont go into this thinking you're gonna be lights out, it can take a bit (I've heard as low as 30 and as high as a couple hours) for you to pass out and a lot can happen in that time.

 

[Amarajoy]

Not everyone is going to have the same accessibility and availability and that's fine. I know there's been some debate on ae usage but people also misunderstand that they are not 100% effective vomit preventers. Yes, SN is the only requirement (as I said in my original comment). Yes, you drink a large amount of it. But that doesn't mean you or anyone should go into this with the mindset that it's a poison and you just need to drink it and it's that simple. Lack of preparation leads to mistakes which leads to failures. SN is absolutely survivable. Also pretty quickly isn't exactly true, SN generally takes longer than other methods that knock you out, but it varies person to person. Dont go into this thinking you're gonna be lights out, it can take a bit (I've heard as low as 30 and as high as a couple hours) for you to pass out and a lot can happen in that time.

Do you have case reports you can cite of sn being survivable?

The longest I saw was strawberry panic. I believe she was alert for about 40-45 minutes. I don't know what she took in her protocol.

As I said in my original comment I am not suggesting anyone skip the protocol but, yes, sn is a poison and to suggest not following the protocol results in failure reads like fear mongering. There are cases on the website of people successfully ctb that forego aspects of the protocol and the sn Bible itself says nothing but sn is necessary. P only used meto and was gone in about 30 minutes. I have not read any cases of it taking two hours. There are also risks of using the other parts of the protocol and each individual has to decide for themselves. This was not a personal attack. For me, I cannot get a hold of the other items and there is much personal risk for me in taking them. I would hope to get some support about my personal case. But your comment just made me feel anxious about a method I was starting to feel pretty confident in.

 

[skylight7]

The video of her doesn't show if her attempt was successful or not or if she was taken to a hospital and saved. Does anyone know?

 

[Fate]

The sn Bible says the other items are not necessary.

It is a very large dose of poison we ingest. I do question the necessity of antiemetics. People are throwing up either way and still managing to get enough poison in and on stat dose is anyone really waiting long enough for meto to truly be effective?

From the many case studies on here I hope we can draw better conclusions since obtaining the other items can be difficult and other factors such as inability to take certain medications. By all means if you can follow the protocol go for it but I tend to think you are drinking a copious amount of poison. It should knock you out pretty quickly. So I am personally leaning toward use of sn only. I don't think I will tolerate the other meds and they will prevent me from accomplishing the task. I would prefer to follow protocol but probably not going to happen.

Without AE, you'll vomit excessively. Yes, people can still vomit with AE, but the vomiting is lessened.

 

[Amarajoy]

Without AE, you'll vomit excessively. Yes, people can still vomit with AE, but the vomiting is lessened.

I haven't seen any cases where the vomiting is lessened with AE. Do you have any cases you can share?

 

[ThatStateOfMind]

I will say, there have been cases where people just use SN or don't use AEs. It can work. It's definitely riskier, since it does aid in not throwing up too soon, but still very possible.

 

[yellowraincoat225]

I haven't seen any cases where the vomiting is lessened with AE. Do you have any cases you can share?

I don't know why you need a case for this, lessening vomiting is literally what antiemetics are proven to do, if they weren't tested and proven to prevent/lessen vomiting, it wouldn't be suggested or prescribed at all in the first place, and anyway sn+ae for suicide is so under researched that any statistics you uncover for ctb specifically won't be entirely reliable.

 

[Fate]

I haven't seen any cases where the vomiting is lessened with AE. Do you have any cases you can share?

Well AE works to prevent or reduce vomiting. There are plenty of cases where it has done its job. Why so specific picking the middle ground? I've done paracetamol OD like 10 years ago so I know the excessive vomiting that occurs. I've also taking nicotine without ae, and nicotine with AE. (Liquid nicotine) Without ae, I was constantly dry reach vomiting (Vomiting reflex without the liquid since my stomach was practically empty, a little bit of liquid but 99% was dry reaching), and with AE. With ae there was still some dry reach vomiting (Reflex), but it was significantly lessened.

Literally the definition of an AE is "Prevents or reduces vomiting". Reducing is the exact same as lessening. "An antiemetic is a medication that prevents or reduces nausea and vomiting. ". Its hard to get a study on something that "Reduces" something since it is hard to predict how the person would cope without it and mimicing the exact environment, where as you can make a study, get the patient to drink something that'll force them to vomit, and have patients on the other end of the study that have taken AEs to see how well AEs perform. But asking for a specific study about AEs "Reducing vomiting", rather than "Preventing vomiting", is impossible to record, and you'd know this.

And as the other user suggested, there are no public available statistics of SN with/or without AEs. So what statistics are you after?

 

[Amarajoy]

I don't know why you need a case for this, lessening vomiting is literally what antiemetics are proven to do, if they weren't tested and proven to prevent/lessen vomiting, it wouldn't be suggested or prescribed at all in the first place, and anyway sn+ae for suicide is so under researched that any statistics you uncover for ctb specifically won't be entirely reliable.

Yes, antiemetics are for preventing nausea and vomiting. Whose to say if a person is vomiting meto reduced the amount of vomiting? Vomiting is vomiting and I've not seen anyone vomit less with meto. Correct me if I'm wrong with case studies please. If I'm vomiting I consider my ae a failure.



"In adults, metoclopramide remains indicated for prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV), radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and delayed (but not acute) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and for symptomatic treatment of nausea and vomiting including that associated with acute migraine (where it may also be used to improve absorption of oral analgesics)' [3]. No specific recommendations and restrictions for critically ill patients were provided."

Should we stop prescribing metoclopramide as a prokinetic drug in critically ill patients? - Critical Care

Regulatory agencies in North America and Europe recently re-evaluated the safety of metoclopramide. This re-evaluation resulted in recommendations and restrictions in order to minimise the risk of neurological and other adverse reactions associated with the use of metoclopramide. In the ICU...

ccforum.biomedcentral.com

Side Effects

Along with its needed effects, a medicine may cause some unwanted effects. Although not all of these side effects may occur, if they do occur they may need medical attention.
Check with your doctor immediately if any of the following side effects occur:

Incidence not known

• Chills
• clay colored stools
• dark urine
• difficulty with breathing
• difficulty with speaking or swallowing
• dizziness or fainting
• fast or irregular heartbeat
• fever
• general feeling of tiredness or weakness
• headache (severe or continuing)
• inability to move the eyes
• increase in blood pressure
• increased sweating
• itching, skin rash

• lip smacking or puckering
• loss of appetite
• loss of balance control
• loss of bladder control
• mask-like face
• muscle spasms of the face, neck, and back
• nausea
• puffing of the cheeks
• rapid or worm-like movements of the tongue
• seizures
• shuffling walk
• sore throat
• stiffness of the arms or legs
• stomach pain or tenderness
• swelling of the feet or lower legs
• tic-like or twitching movements
• trembling and shaking of the hands and fingers
• twisting movements of the body
• uncontrolled chewing movements
• uncontrolled movements of the arms and legs
• unusually pale skin
• vomiting
• weakness of the arms and legs
• yellow eyes or skin"

Metoclopramide (oral route)

www.mayoclinic.org

As can be seen from that list all the symptoms of sn can also be caused by meto. Meto itself can also increase risk of nausea and vomiting.

Well AE works to prevent or reduce vomiting. There are plenty of cases where it has done its job. Why so specific picking the middle ground? I've done paracetamol OD like 10 years ago so I know the excessive vomiting that occurs. I've also taking nicotine without ae, and nicotine with AE. (Liquid nicotine) Without ae, I was constantly dry reach vomiting (Vomiting reflex without the liquid since my stomach was practically empty, a little bit of liquid but 99% was dry reaching), and with AE. With ae there was still some dry reach vomiting (Reflex), but it was significantly lessened.

I don't think we can compare this to sn.

Literally the definition of an AE is "Prevents or reduces vomiting". Reducing is the exact same as lessening. "An antiemetic is a medication that prevents or reduces nausea and vomiting. ". Its hard to get a study on something that "Reduces" something since it is hard to predict how the person would cope without it and mimicing the exact environment, where as you can make a study, get the patient to drink something that'll force them to vomit, and have patients on the other end of the study that have taken AEs to see how well AEs perform. But asking for a specific study about AEs "Reducing vomiting", rather than "Preventing vomiting", is impossible to record, and you'd know this.

Cases in here do not show reduced vomiting.

And as the other user suggested, there are no public available statistics of SN with/or without AEs. So what statistics are you after?

Cases in here would be the only thing available.