Harm Reduction Micron Filtering Mega Thread and FAQ

[polyboss]

Sorry I never replied to your question in the other thread. I meant to, but I lost track.

How much do your hydromorphone pills weigh? From my experience with 110mg pressed fentanyl pills (M30s/blues), the binders will completely clog up a 0.45um filter if you don't pre-filter in some way. You can use multiple 0.45um filters if you like, just try to guage the pressure you're feeling on the filter membrane and stop before it's too late.

Unfortunately, you kind of have to learn the "touch" for this point by trial and error, but essentially, you shouldn't have to squeeze down on the plunger all that hard. It's better to use an extra 50¢ filter than lose a $?? shot, right? Regardless, prep everything over a plate or other solid surface in case the filter explodes.

One way to pre-filter without losing much is to use a thin-gauge insuling needle (like a 30g) to strain off the solution from the top, after you've stirred the powder in water and let it fall to the bottom. It will clog before letting in any massive chunks of binder, keeping them out of your micron filters.

But a RYO cigarette filter works better; soaking and re-soaking the filter can recoup most of the losses in strength IME. If I understand right, the cotton dental roll should be a lot better than the pellets, more like the cig filter (denser/firmer). I'd cut about 1/8" off the roll and use that as a starting point if you decide to pre-filter this way.

IMHO, the 0.45um filters are essential for anyone filtering solutions that are relatively particulate-heavy. It is quite a bit slower to clog up than a 0.22um filter, so there's much less pressure in general and it's less likely to burst. They are quite good on their own, too, and even filter out a fair amount of bacteria.

With black tar heroin, I don't pre-filter at all. I cook up ~0.5g and draw the solution into a 25g 5/8" tuberculin syringe, then I front-load into a 3ml Luer lock barrel. I screw on the 0.45um filter (needle attached) and push the solution through into the front of another barrel. Then I screw the 0.22um filter on that and push it through into the barrels we're going to shoot with.

Even with the tar (let alone pills), a 0.22um would clog up much faster and make the whole procedure more nerve-racking. The 0.45um is quite different and I can even reuse one of them 10+ times (5-6 grams) before swapping it out. (The filters are not ruined after one use or even several, as long as you're going in one direction and not letting them sit forever between uses.)

I've never tried drawing the solution *up* through the filter except once, experimentally, and it didn't seem very good. I'd recommend just pushing it through, FWIW. You can use an insulin syringe to draw up the solution and spray it into the 3ml barrels if you like (as I do), or you can stick the needleless tip of the 3ml barrel into the solution and draw it up direct.

Hope this answers most of your questions, let me know if some are still unanswered. Good luck! It's definitely 100% worth the effort.

EDIT: And no, 25mm is what you definitely want for pills. That is basically the standard-issue size, though the 13mm worked for 0.1g BTH shots and would be ideal for ECP single servings.

You can flush the filters with water to make sure there's no solution stuck in there. Personally, I always flush the 0.45um with 1/4-1/3 the amount of H20 that I used to cook the shot. This is also good because it cools down the solution (though you won't use heat for pills) and gets particulates to fall out again AFAICT.

With the 22um filter, I don't usually flush with water, I pull the plunger out of the back of the barrel and push it down to basically flush it with air pressure, which clears out quite a bit of trapped solution IME.

Using air pressure is a good idea here, won't that force it a bit too hard though?

 

[JTemperance]

Using air pressure is a good idea here, won't that force it a bit too hard though?

I haven't had a problem with it.

Usually I leave some air in the barrel with solution it it, which helps. I'll also pull the plunger back on an empty barrel afterwards and screw it onto the filter, which flushes it with more pressure but rarely (if ever) ruptures the membrane.

 

[mixnmatch80]

My question is which filter media types are acceptable for filtering Buprenorphine pills with Bacteriostatic water (.9% benzyl alcohol)? It seems the .22um 25mm PVDF are the best & the .22um 25mm PES are the next best from what I've read in this thread & my own experience. I do a batch of #39, 8mg pills at once with a 30 ml bottle of Bacteriostatic water (that lasts several months). It usually takes me 3-4 of the PVDF filters & 5 of the PES filters to complete the batch. The Whatman filters are out of sight expensive & hard to find so I use the off brand ones. Sometimes, like now, I can't find the PVDF or PES in the .22um 25mm size. Is it ok to use PFTE (never tried before) when the PVDF & PES aren't available?

 

[JTemperance]

My question is which filter media types are acceptable for filtering Buprenorphine pills with Bacteriostatic water (.9% benzyl alcohol)? It seems the .22um 25mm PVDF are the best & the .22um 25mm PES are the next best from what I've read in this thread & my own experience. I do a batch of #39, 8mg pills at once with a 30 ml bottle of Bacteriostatic water (that lasts several months). It usually takes me 3-4 of the PVDF filters & 5 of the PES filters to complete the batch. The Whatman filters are out of sight expensive & hard to find so I use the off brand ones. Sometimes, like now, I can't find the PVDF or PES in the .22um 25mm size. Is it ok to use PFTE (never tried before) when the PVDF & PES aren't available?

IIRC, the PFTE filters come in hydrophilic and hydrophobic versions – only the first kind will work for your purposes. Otherwise, nylon has always been good to me.

 

[polyboss]

My question is which filter media types are acceptable for filtering Buprenorphine pills with Bacteriostatic water (.9% benzyl alcohol)? It seems the .22um 25mm PVDF are the best & the .22um 25mm PES are the next best from what I've read in this thread & my own experience. I do a batch of #39, 8mg pills at once with a 30 ml bottle of Bacteriostatic water (that lasts several months). It usually takes me 3-4 of the PVDF filters & 5 of the PES filters to complete the batch. The Whatman filters are out of sight expensive & hard to find so I use the off brand ones. Sometimes, like now, I can't find the PVDF or PES in the .22um 25mm size. Is it ok to use PFTE (never tried before) when the PVDF & PES aren't available?

Biomed scientific sells good .22um pvdf filters on Amazon.

I haven't had a problem with it.

Usually I leave some air in the barrel with solution it it, which helps. I'll also pull the plunger back on an empty barrel afterwards and screw it onto the filter, which flushes it with more pressure but rarely (if ever) ruptures the membrane.

Ahh sweet, I've tried it and it works well. No rupture that I know of, I think I'd here a pop and the particles would come out if that were so

 

[mixnmatch80]

IIRC, the PFTE filters come in hydrophilic and hydrophobic versions – only the first kind will work for your purposes. Otherwise, nylon has always been good to me.

Are you referring to just the PFTE filters needing to be hydrophilic or all the filter membranes (PES, PVDF etc.)? I'm just trying to clear things up for myself. I read that you can make PFTE filters more hydrophilic by filtering them with isopropyl alcohol first. I've been filtering Bup's for many years (learned straight from the guy who started this thread, Captain H-In his first post he recommends using PVDF filters for Bup/Sub's) & I never even realized whether they were hydrophobic or hydrophilic. I went back & looked at some of my previous most recent orders & checked. Some of my most recent were PVDF hydrophobic and some were PES hydrophilic. Through my experience, the PVDF hydrophobic membrane filters work better than the PES hydrophilic filters. All the same size of .22um & 25mm. I only have to use 3 PVDF filters vs 5 PES filters for the same amount of pills. They don't clog as easily & seem to flow better while still catching all the crap.

 

[mixnmatch80]

Biomed scientific sells good .22um pvdf filters on Amazon.

Ahh sweet, I've tried it and it works well. No rupture that I know of, I think I'd here a pop and the particles would come out if that were so

Thks for the heads up, I see them on Amazon. They are listed as BioMed .22um PVDF hydrophobic filters. Do you think that matters vs them being hydrophilic? It appears PVDF filters are naturally hydrophobic but I know you can buy them either way.

 

[polyboss]

Thks for the heads up, I see them on Amazon. They are listed as BioMed .22um PVDF hydrophobic filters. Do you think that matters vs them being hydrophilic? It appears PVDF filters are naturally hydrophobic but I know you can buy them either way.

It would make sense that hydrophobic just retains less water in the filter? either way you put water through and particles stay in the filter. I've tried it with IM ketamine and have had no problems, still hits well no product is wasted.
After some research I found that you need to prewet hydrophobic filters with alcohol to filter aqueous solutions, not sure if the alcohol remains affects injection quality tbh.

What I do know is that it filters dyes as advertised.
"Due to the hydrophobic property of produced filters, the dye molecules would be absorbed on the surface of the filter, which led to high removal efficiency."Nature

 

[JTemperance]

Are you referring to just the PFTE filters needing to be hydrophilic or all the filter membranes (PES, PVDF etc.)? I'm just trying to clear things up for myself. I read that you can make PFTE filters more hydrophilic by filtering them with isopropyl alcohol first. I've been filtering Bup's for many years (learned straight from the guy who started this thread, Captain H-In his first post he recommends using PVDF filters for Bup/Sub's) & I never even realized whether they were hydrophobic or hydrophilic. I went back & looked at some of my previous most recent orders & checked. Some of my most recent were PVDF hydrophobic and some were PES hydrophilic. Through my experience, the PVDF hydrophobic membrane filters work better than the PES hydrophilic filters. All the same size of .22um & 25mm. I only have to use 3 PVDF filters vs 5 PES filters for the same amount of pills. They don't clog as easily & seem to flow better while still catching all the crap.

Weird... I only remember ever seeing hydrophilic & hydrophobic versions with PFTE, not PVDF or PES or any other filter materials.

Most of my orders have been done through Amazon, though. I've bought 0.13+0.25mm x 0.22+0.45um filters with PVDF, PES, & nylon membranes from several different generics. But never PFTE, -phobic or -philic, and never a genuine Whatman. (FWIW, the brand quality has varied but all 3 membranes have worked well, IME; surprisingly, nylon seems best suited to my needs.)

I don't have a great grasp of the issue in theory. Mainly, I just saw people's complaints about buying the wrong kind of PFTE that didn't work for their drugs.

Using isopropyl alcohol is something I've never heard of, but all pretty interesting... I've never heard of the isopropyl thing but it makes sense t Do you always pre-wet your filters with alcohol? If not, could they be genuinely hydrophobic if they still work with your solutions? (Assuming they are H2O-based, not benzos dissolved in PG or something else.)

 

[polyboss]

Weird... I only remember ever seeing hydrophilic & hydrophobic versions with PFTE, not PVDF or PES or any other filter materials.

Most of my orders have been done through Amazon, though. I've bought 0.13+0.25mm x 0.22+0.45um filters with PVDF, PES, & nylon membranes from several different generics. But never PFTE, -phobic or -philic, and never a genuine Whatman. (FWIW, the brand quality has varied but all 3 membranes have worked well, IME; surprisingly, nylon seems best suited to my needs.)

I don't have a great grasp of the issue in theory. Mainly, I just saw people's complaints about buying the wrong kind of PFTE that didn't work for their drugs.

Using isopropyl alcohol is something I've never heard of, but all pretty interesting... I've never heard of the isopropyl thing but it makes sense t Do you always pre-wet your filters with alcohol? If not, could they be genuinely hydrophobic if they still work with your solutions? (Assuming they are H2O-based, not benzos dissolved in PG or something else.)

I don't usually prewet, but I saw on a few different sources that you need to. Yet Here I see that "water breakthrough pressure" must be achieved and then hydrophobic micron filters works fine. Essentially it's just hard to push an aqueous solution through without fucking up the filter, i tried isopropyl tn and it seemed to go easier.

 

[mixnmatch80]

Weird... I only remember ever seeing hydrophilic & hydrophobic versions with PFTE, not PVDF or PES or any other filter materials.

Most of my orders have been done through Amazon, though. I've bought 0.13+0.25mm x 0.22+0.45um filters with PVDF, PES, & nylon membranes from several different generics. But never PFTE, -phobic or -philic, and never a genuine Whatman. (FWIW, the brand quality has varied but all 3 membranes have worked well, IME; surprisingly, nylon seems best suited to my needs.)

I don't have a great grasp of the issue in theory. Mainly, I just saw people's complaints about buying the wrong kind of PFTE that didn't work for their drugs.

Using isopropyl alcohol is something I've never heard of, but all pretty interesting... I've never heard of the isopropyl thing but it makes sense t Do you always pre-wet your filters with alcohol? If not, could they be genuinely hydrophobic if they still work with your solutions? (Assuming they are H2O-based, not benzos dissolved in PG or something else.)

I always pre-wet my filters regardless of the filter membrane & whether hydrophilic or hydrophobic with sterile water first. I heard that tip on some harm reduction websites & it seems to help. I used to use Bacteriostatic static water to pre filter but it's cheaper to save that & just use sterile water (been boiled & cooled). Like you, until you pointed it out & I researched it, I thought the choice between hydrophilic or hydrophobic was just for the PFTE filters & the others are always either one or the other but I guess they make both kinds for each. According to what I read, as a general rule they are normally one or the other but they do make both for each. PES are generally hydrophilic. PVDF are generally considered slightly hydrophobic but I think work the best. I ordered some PFTE hydrophobic filters so I'll find out when I get them if they need to filter with isopropyl alcohol like websites claim or if sterile water suffices. What brand of Nylon do you use?

 

[JTemperance]

I always pre-wet my filters regardless of the filter membrane & whether hydrophilic or hydrophobic with sterile water first. I heard that tip on some harm reduction websites & it seems to help. I used to use Bacteriostatic static water to pre filter but it's cheaper to save that & just use sterile water (been boiled & cooled). Like you, until you pointed it out & I researched it, I thought the choice between hydrophilic or hydrophobic was just for the PFTE filters & the others are always either one or the other but I guess they make both kinds for each. According to what I read, as a general rule they are normally one or the other but they do make both for each. PES are generally hydrophilic. PVDF are generally considered slightly hydrophobic but I think work the best. I ordered some PFTE hydrophobic filters so I'll find out when I get them if they need to filter with isopropyl alcohol like websites claim or if sterile water suffices. What brand of Nylon do you use?

Do you pre-wet them with isopropyl alcohol ever? That would be enlightening on the whole issue of -philic vs. -phobic membranes.

Right now, I'm using 0.45's from Biomed Scientific and 0.22's from LabZhang, both #100 tubs and both perfectly OK. I guess I like Biomed a little better but I'm not sure why. Otherwise, KSTech and Linktor/Labfil are still making #20 & #25 packs that I've bought in the past. IIRC one of them (I'm not sure which) was a step down in quality though still usable.

But I think the ones from Allpure Biotechnology are my all-time favorites, sold (then as now) in units of #20 & #100. They felt sturdier to me in their construction and shape, and therefore less likely to explode or crack, I thought. And instead of blanks color-coded seemingly at random, theirs were all an opaque clear with the specs nicely printed on the wheel.

I used to always flush my filters with water before use (having learned of it here, in all likelihood) but gave it up this past year. IIRC, it was intended to minimize the loss of drug solution to the filter, but I didn't notice much impact on that. Whenever using the 0.45um filter, I flush it afterward with water (usually 30% of the previous amount), which should recover anything lost, I figure.

With the 0.22um filter, I "flush" it using air when I'm done filtering. Without disconnecting the filter, I pull the plunger back and yank it out of the barrel (with a *pop*). Then, I jam it back in and press slowly, forcing liquid out of the membrane all the way down. There's much more air pressure this way vs. a plain vacuum, to the point that it often sprays out a foam of solution (not pretty).

Here's an article that might be of interest, authored by Sterifilt-affiliated researchers. They looked at a few relevant questions, like "to what extent does heat affect a solution's strength?" and "how great in quantity/size are the particulates left by different filters? and "does rinsing a used filter with water succeed in recovering more?" Only one drug in one formulation was tested - morphine in a high-dose CR capsule like Skenan (which is commonly injected in France) - so it's not definitive by any means but it's still interesting.

Personally, I was a little surprised by the results they got with a post-filter rinse: "To examine whether more morphine can be recovered by rinsing wheel filters after filtration, these were rinsed using 0.3 mL of extra water. For the cold preparation, rinsing resulted in a slightly higher morphine content (57% versus 51% without rinsing). For the lukewarm technique, the total quantity of morphine recovered was not significantly higher after rinsing [87% instead of 86%]."

Much less than a previous study reported, as they discuss: "As mentioned, the virtually complete extraction by Mclean et al. [22], using both a hot and a cold technique, is probably due to a high initial volume (they used 3 mL), a relatively low morphine dosage (60 mg) and a long contact time (5 min). They also experienced quite some loss inside wheel filters (about 36% of the initial 3-mL solution), but a rinse with 1 mL was successful to obtain most of the initial drug. In our study, a rinse with 0.3 mL of water was not able to do so."

So what explains it? Do you really need 1ml, or at least more than 0.3ml, to clear a wheel filter? (They didn't specify their wheel filter's diameter in this study, AFAIK.) Or is it something else, like solution temperature or membrane type? (Theirs was PES.) Or is it just technique or what?

I just looked at the cited study and, in that study, they actually used CR morphine tablets and not capsules, since it was conducted in Australia where MSContin was injected most. Could that make the difference in how much drug is retained?

In the cited study, unfiltered solutions of one 60mg pill, cold and hot, contained 56mg & 59mg. If put straight through a 0.45um wheel filter with no pre-filtration, they gave back 34mg [60%] & 41mg [70%] after one pass. With the hot solution but not the cold, they tested the effect of a 1ml rinse and found it raised the total to 52mg [88%].

I'll sign off and leave you with this pretty encouraging takeaway (from same as above): "Commercial syringe filters (0.45 and 0.22 μm) produced a dramatic reduction in particles but tended to block unless used after a cigarette filter. Morphine was retained by all filters but could be recovered by following the filtration with one or two 1 ml washes. The combined use of a cigarette filter then 0.22 μm filter, with rinses, enabled recovery of 90% of the extracted morphine in a solution which was essentially free of tablet-derived particles."

 

[mixnmatch80]

Do you pre-wet them with isopropyl alcohol ever? That would be enlightening on the whole issue of -philic vs. -phobic membranes.

Right now, I'm using 0.45's from Biomed Scientific and 0.22's from LabZhang, both #100 tubs and both perfectly OK. I guess I like Biomed a little better but I'm not sure why. Otherwise, KSTech and Linktor/Labfil are still making #20 & #25 packs that I've bought in the past. IIRC one of them (I'm not sure which) was a step down in quality though still usable.

But I think the ones from Allpure Biotechnology are my all-time favorites, sold (then as now) in units of #20 & #100. They felt sturdier to me in their construction and shape, and therefore less likely to explode or crack, I thought. And instead of blanks color-coded seemingly at random, theirs were all an opaque clear with the specs nicely printed on the wheel.

I used to always flush my filters with water before use (having learned of it here, in all likelihood) but gave it up this past year. IIRC, it was intended to minimize the loss of drug solution to the filter, but I didn't notice much impact on that. Whenever using the 0.45um filter, I flush it afterward with water (usually 30% of the previous amount), which should recover anything lost, I figure.

With the 0.22um filter, I "flush" it using air when I'm done filtering. Without disconnecting the filter, I pull the plunger back and yank it out of the barrel (with a *pop*). Then, I jam it back in and press slowly, forcing liquid out of the membrane all the way down. There's much more air pressure this way vs. a plain vacuum, to the point that it often sprays out a foam of solution (not pretty).

Here's an article that might be of interest, authored by Sterifilt-affiliated researchers. They looked at a few relevant questions, like "to what extent does heat affect a solution's strength?" and "how great in quantity/size are the particulates left by different filters? and "does rinsing a used filter with water succeed in recovering more?" Only one drug in one formulation was tested - morphine in a high-dose CR capsule like Skenan (which is commonly injected in France) - so it's not definitive by any means but it's still interesting.

Personally, I was a little surprised by the results they got with a post-filter rinse: "To examine whether more morphine can be recovered by rinsing wheel filters after filtration, these were rinsed using 0.3 mL of extra water. For the cold preparation, rinsing resulted in a slightly higher morphine content (57% versus 51% without rinsing). For the lukewarm technique, the total quantity of morphine recovered was not significantly higher after rinsing [87% instead of 86%]."

Much less than a previous study reported, as they discuss: "As mentioned, the virtually complete extraction by Mclean et al. [22], using both a hot and a cold technique, is probably due to a high initial volume (they used 3 mL), a relatively low morphine dosage (60 mg) and a long contact time (5 min). They also experienced quite some loss inside wheel filters (about 36% of the initial 3-mL solution), but a rinse with 1 mL was successful to obtain most of the initial drug. In our study, a rinse with 0.3 mL of water was not able to do so."

So what explains it? Do you really need 1ml, or at least more than 0.3ml, to clear a wheel filter? (They didn't specify their wheel filter's diameter in this study, AFAIK.) Or is it something else, like solution temperature or membrane type? (Theirs was PES.) Or is it just technique or what?

I just looked at the cited study and, in that study, they actually used CR morphine tablets and not capsules, since it was conducted in Australia where MSContin was injected most. Could that make the difference in how much drug is retained?

In the cited study, unfiltered solutions of one 60mg pill, cold and hot, contained 56mg & 59mg. If put straight through a 0.45um wheel filter with no pre-filtration, they gave back 34mg [60%] & 41mg [70%] after one pass. With the hot solution but not the cold, they tested the effect of a 1ml rinse and found it raised the total to 52mg [88%].

I'll sign off and leave you with this pretty encouraging takeaway (from same as above): "Commercial syringe filters (0.45 and 0.22 μm) produced a dramatic reduction in particles but tended to block unless used after a cigarette filter. Morphine was retained by all filters but could be recovered by following the filtration with one or two 1 ml washes. The combined use of a cigarette filter then 0.22 μm filter, with rinses, enabled recovery of 90% of the extracted morphine in a solution which was essentially free of tablet-derived particles."

I haven't tried prefiltering with isopropyl alcohol yet. I read that it makes filters more hydrophilic but if you do so you should follow the isopropyl alcohol with sterile water to rinse out the alcohol from the wheel. Do you filter subs, sub films or bup pills & how many do you typically do at a time? Do the .45 filters filter enough of the filler particles (like talc) out? I always thought .22 filters were suggested to filter enough of the filler particles out. It sounds like you recover more with a post filter rinse. I've never done so & don't know how I would be able to. I filter #39, 8 mg bup pills at once with 30 ml of Bacteriostatic water. I use 3 different 10 ml syringes with 13 pills in each & 10 ml's of Bac water in each to filter. I shake the syringes vigorously several times & let the pills dissolve for at least an hour in the syringes prior to filtering. Afterwards, the wheel filters are so jam packed with all the chalky white fillers that if I were to try to force water through them afterwards with a post rinse, it would probably either bust the filter or just push some of the fillers through. You must filter less pills to be able to do a post filter rinse? I just did a #39, 8 mg pill batch using BioMed PVDF hydrophobic .22 um, 25 mm filters. It would have taken only 4 filters but one was a dud & the chalky white filler crap went straight through the filter immediately with about 2 drops worth contaminated my batch so I had to use an additional filter to finish & then used 2 more to double filter what I had because it was pretty cloudy from the dud filter letting through the fillers. That is an interesting study. The problem is it was done with MS Contin (CR). I wish it was done with a regular release pill. I think it's difficult to interpret the results since it was with a controlled release pill. I think it likely retains less drug beings it's CR. Also it takes more than .3 ml to clear a wheel filter. I know when I prefilter mine with sterile water, it doesn't start coming out until about 1-1.5 ml's with .22um 25mm filters. Have you ever used a cigarette filter first then filtering with .22um wheel filters followed up with a rinse like they described which removed all particles & retained 90%? I would think that if it wasn't a CR formula it would retain even more. For me this may be an option to be able to do a post rinse & perhaps retain more drug since the cigarette filters would take away the biggest particles & the wheel filter wouldn't be as jammed up allowing a post filter rinse.

 

[nznity]

Miss ya man...

 

[eBagger]

I haven't IV'd in years, and I'm much more health conscious these days. I used to IV Subutex/Suboxone/Zubsolv 5-10 years ago but I'm pretty much over it. I recently have a bunch of rigs laying around for a cats insulin, and the cat uses the same gauge and half cc syringes I used to use back in the day, and I'm curious if I'm down to get a little lifted one weekend, if Micron Filtering a zub would pretty much make it harm-free. I mean I've been watching videos about micron filtering and it can even filter out the color and the tiniest of shit, so it'd be little particle free which I assume is most of the risk associated with embolism and stroke and stuff like that. Anybody have an opinion or some scientific facts on this?

 

[cdin]

I haven't IV'd in years, and I'm much more health conscious these days. I used to IV Subutex/Suboxone/Zubsolv 5-10 years ago but I'm pretty much over it. I recently have a bunch of rigs laying around for a cats insulin, and the cat uses the same gauge and half cc syringes I used to use back in the day, and I'm curious if I'm down to get a little lifted one weekend, if Micron Filtering a zub would pretty much make it harm-free. I mean I've been watching videos about micron filtering and it can even filter out the color and the tiniest of shit, so it'd be little particle free which I assume is most of the risk associated with embolism and stroke and stuff like that. Anybody have an opinion or some scientific facts on this?

it will never be "harm free" but it will be as the most you can do. whether that is enough re the subs is beyond my experience. the injection act itself always carries risks from puncture.

 

[eBagger]

it will never be "harm free" but it will be pretty close. the injection act itself always carries risks from puncture.

But whats the risk from puncture? If you use new needles, and you alcohol wipe the skin, what could go wrong? Assuming you make sure you are in a vein, I suppose an abscess could still form, but if you do everything right it seems close to harm free, as you said.

 

[cdin]

But whats the risk from puncture? If you use new needles, and you alcohol wipe the skin, what could go wrong? Assuming you make sure you are in a vein, I suppose an abscess could still form, but if you do everything right it seems close to harm free, as you said.

It will still destroy your veins over time from the manual puncturing, which has downstream effects on your circulatory system and blood delivery. Plus it’s no fun when you’re like me and they gotta PIC like you for medication

Took me couple decades to learn - harm reduction is not harm elimination. Daily drugs, especially via IV admin have long term implications.

 

[deficiT]

Nope, still a particularly dangerous habit to get into. I would just take the meds as they are designed to be taken. The minor buzz you might get is not worth dying for, believe me.

 

[negrogesic]

I haven't IVed anything in over a decade. I actually found the post where I unceremoniously said, "yeah fuck this I'm never injecting anything again unless its in an ampule/vial". The post was part of a thread about o-dsmt, which I had been injecting the night before.

That said im still covered in scars from it. It is pretty damaging to the body. I'm still not above technically, I just vowed to not inject anything that wasn't 1) in a vial or ampule 2) veterinary grade or 3) expired. Which pretty much rules out everything.