He didn't devellop anything wow...how dare you reply to him like that in absence of fact? You're just trying to scare amphetamine users out of using amphetamines. Is this what this site has become? [...] What you do here is unfair. You take advantage of his current mindstate to advance your own anti-drug agenda.
You've also accused myself and others of making "baseless assumptions" about OP. I'm not sure where this outrage is coming from. OP already made it clear he's in rehab for an addiction to amphetamines, and that he's cheating their tests. He's stated he gets extremely high blood pressure, tachycardia, an irregular heart rhythm and chest pains from his amp use, and that it appears to be getting worse. He rightly queried whether this behaviour could be dangerous and having an effect on his health. Subsequently, he posted this:
OOps
I came up with a brilliant idea: IV 300 mg bupropion with 1000 mg amphetamine in the same solution, not even 48 hours after the serious chest pains. WWWWHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHH
The result of which was that he called an ambulance. In response to this, I wrote a densely referenced summary of research discussing the risks and potential cardiovascular harms OP may be exposing himself to, both acutely and long-term, from that degree of stimulant abuse.
Delivering science-based harm reduction advice doesn't make me "anti-drug," and certainly not anti-stimulant, given my own predilection for such drugs. I am, however, concerned about OP's health and self-confessed risk factors, and trying to generate an informed perspective so he can (hopefully) enhance his choices - which is exactly the kind of advice Bluelight was set-up to provide. At no point have I made any attempt to judge OP for what he's doing (and nor would I).
Conversely, you've twice said you believe advice here should be based on science, harm reduction, and not 'grandma' language:
I don't encourage the OP to take toxic doses. I advocate knowledge, research and safe use of drugs, in safe doses.
Yet you continue to serve us with anecdotes based on your own singular experience:
I've had 175 heart rate on 5,000 different occasions, I can't even count the amount of times that what the op describes occurred to me...thousands of times over a decade and my health is better than ever.
You've also said:
As far as the OP is concerned, there is no evidence that he took a toxic dose.
Despite him telling us, after posting about experiencing tachycardia, chest pains and a BP of 199/101 - and that his sensitivity to his dosing regime is increasing - that he IV'd another 300mg bupropion and 1g of amphetamines less than 48 hours later. This is self-evidently highly risky behaviour.
However you've described him as being 'paranoid' because of his concerns, and then rather callously claimed that negative outcomes from abuse should be chalked up as some kind of Darwinian game:
You're just not comfortable with the idea that a drug can be a tool of natural selection.
You've also, rather bizarrely, attempted to equate the pro-adaptive effects of intensive cardiovascular exercise with prolonged stimulant abuse:
I'm not sure you understand what using amphetamines implies in terms of physical effects. That energy doesn't come out of nowhere, the body has to work harder to produce it, and all those effects are a direct result of a sped up metabolism. The same fricken thing occurs if you run 40km: Your heart rate is 175, skipping beats, maybe not beating exactly as it should...and the heart rate doesn't go down for a while. NORMAL.
Much of the harm from abuse of stimulants like amp/meth stems from the physiological effect of the prolonged catecholamine cascade (among a variety of specifically drug-induced mechanisms) as was discussed in my earlier post, and not merely superficial similarities in peak heart rate.
Furthermore, athletes don't undertake '40km marathons' daily, and nor do these marathons last 24-72+ hours, as is the case with many amp/meth sessions and as OP has attested to. To attempt to equate the two is plainly asinine and suggests your agenda here is simply to argue for the sake of it.
Your continued input shows surprisingly little concern for OP and others in his situation, and perhaps rather more for your own patently contrarian worldview which you seek to pass off as 'scientific' and HR-based when what you tend to write demonstrates the opposite.