Shooting multiple pills without a micron filter

[biggerstronger]

surprisingly some viruses and most all bacteria are larger than .22 microns so it should make it much safer however the water soluable fillers can't be filtered out like talc.

 

[phr]

^fucking shit thank you so much phrozen!!!1 i'm gonna read that tomorrow! do you have any comparative studies on coffee filters vs cotton though?
i'm pretty much sure most viruses can make through a 0,22 though.

The nasty viruses(HIV, Hepatitis) are much smaller than .22.

No, I don't have anything comparing cotton vs. coffee filters.

 

[hfrs]

You really only need to use the Whatman Puradisc (aka Wheel Filter) that is 1.0 um. The 0.22 um filter clogs too easy and the majority of scientific opinion is that any particle under 1 micron is insignificant (the FDA and USP do not consider any particles less than 1 micron when discussing turbidity and safety).

This is absolutely not true at all. The 0.1's and 0.2's will at least sterilize, although they will not remove all particles. It is extremely important to remove all particles from solution, if not they will travel to the lungs and retinas, leading to talc-granulomas (as well as others caused by silicates, microcrystalline cellulose and other excipients) and things like retinal detachment and vitreous hemorrhage (due to talc emboli). These are NOT trivial problems and have been known and studied since the 70's. They are also NOT limited to those who shoot pills- the identical problems are seen in people who inhale tablets- though I've never seen a report of any of the eye problems in the snorting population.

I think if you are doing these occasionally, then not using a wheel filter is fine,

This forum is about harm-reduction, and a statement like this is really careless and false. It is never safe to inject particles into your blood, ever.

 

[narutokun]

^so are coffee filters any better than cotton for someone who doesn't have micron filters available?

 

[MobiusDick]

This is absolutely not true at all. The 0.1's and 0.2's will at least sterilize, although they will not remove all particles. It is extremely important to remove all particles from solution, if not they will travel to the lungs and retinas, leading to talc-granulomas (as well as others caused by silicates, microcrystalline cellulose and other excipients) and things like retinal detachment and vitreous hemorrhage (due to talc emboli). These are NOT trivial problems and have been known and studied since the 70's. They are also NOT limited to those who shoot pills- the identical problems are seen in people who inhale tablets- though I've never seen a report of any of the eye problems in the snorting population.




This forum is about harm-reduction, and a statement like this is really careless and false. It is never safe to inject particles into your blood, ever.

There is no such thing as a particle free solution. Everything has a size. But I will give you some FDA and USP data which discuss particle size and the effects each range has when I get back to the office.

A 1.0 um filter will filter out ALL bacteria. Viruses are smaller than 1 micron, but many are larger than 0.22 microns and the main concern with tap water and a relatively clean iv setup is bacteriological and fungal in origin (HIV is around 0.1 micron). Virus particles can rarely live outside the body for more than a few days (yes some can live a few weeks but not AIDS or Hep C), so unless you are using blood contaminated items (or sexual secretion contaminated items), this is not the main issue.

If you think that any injection is ever particle free, you do not understand the biology and chemistry of iv injections well. Only particles over a certain size collect in the veinioles and capillaries. The others are consumed by macrophages by phagocytosis and pinocytosis. The lungs, kidneys and retinae are particularly susceptible.

MobiusDick

 

[phr]

There is no such thing as a particle free solution. Everything has a size. But I will give you some FDA and USP data which discuss particle size and the effects each range has when I get back to the office.

I'm interested in this as well.

Only particles over a certain size collect in the veinioles and capillaries. The others are consumed by macrophages by phagocytosis and pinocytosis.

What size?

 

[narutokun]

The others are consumed by macrophages by phagocytosis and pinocytosis.

That doesn't help much since we have no enzymes to break non-organic talc compounds, silicoids, etc.

 

[narutokun]

btw, my question still stands, is coffee filter better than tight rolled up cotton for backloading?

 

[MobiusDick]

This is absolutely not true at all. The 0.1's and 0.2's will at least sterilize, although they will not remove all particles. It is extremely important to remove all particles from solution, if not they will travel to the lungs and retinas, leading to talc-granulomas (as well as others caused by silicates, microcrystalline cellulose and other excipients) and things like retinal detachment and vitreous hemorrhage (due to talc emboli). These are NOT trivial problems and have been known and studied since the 70's. They are also NOT limited to those who shoot pills- the identical problems are seen in people who inhale tablets- though I've never seen a report of any of the eye problems in the snorting population.




This forum is about harm-reduction, and a statement like this is really careless and false. It is never safe to inject particles into your blood, ever.

That is providing you do the heat and cool technique and let the particles fall to the upside down top of the syringe. Shooting a syringe full of large particles is not what I meant as being OK. If you can come up with a visually turbidity free solution, there is no harm that is likely to come from occasional use. If you have a habit, always use a wheel filter.

MobiusDick

 

[MobiusDick]

Also coffee filters are not good filters. Use a real Whatman filter (or equivalent) instead. You can order these from many places on the net. Perhaps anyone who knows where to get wheel filters and filter paper without a Fisher or VWR account cam post a site. I get everything from Fisher but have an educational account. You may be able to set something up with them, but I would think it may require a good cover story.

MobiusDick

 

[MobiusDick]

And to quote WS Burroughs, "If an air buble could kill you, there would not be a junky alive today." Actually it takes about 10 ccs of air to cause any possible risk.

MobiusDick

 

[narutokun]

^I don't live on the USA, I have no idea of what the stuff you were talking about what's wheel filters and whatman filters??

 

[MobiusDick]

This is absolutely not true at all. The 0.1's and 0.2's will at least sterilize, although they will not remove all particles. It is extremely important to remove all particles from solution, if not they will travel to the lungs and retinas, leading to talc-granulomas (as well as others caused by silicates, microcrystalline cellulose and other excipients) and things like retinal detachment and vitreous hemorrhage (due to talc emboli). These are NOT trivial problems and have been known and studied since the 70's. They are also NOT limited to those who shoot pills- the identical problems are seen in people who inhale tablets- though I've never seen a report of any of the eye problems in the snorting population.




This forum is about harm-reduction, and a statement like this is really careless and false. It is never safe to inject particles into your blood, ever.

I teach a course in Drugs of Abuse to pharmaceutical sciences graduate students as well as medical students that are interested in mechanisms of action of the drugs of abuse, addictionology and the pathophysiology of drugs of abuse.

Here are some data that anyone can access. I have other references, but you will need online journal access or The Drug Abuse handbook (one of the major texts used in the class.)

This is from The University of Aberdeen School of Pharmacy and I will quote part of the article:

"Both the size of the particles and the number present in injections are important. In the microcirculation of the body the smallest vessels are the capillaries, which are approximately 8 microns in diameter. Next are the terminal arterioles which are between 20 and 50 microns. The more particles there are and the bigger they are, the greater the risk to health. Consequently, there are limits placed on the particulate content of commercially made injectables. The British Pharmacopeia stipulates that for large volume parenterals (fluids for intravenous administration, over 100ml), there should be no more than 1000 particles per ml over 2 microns and of these no more than 100 per m should be over 5 microns.(1) There is no limit given in the BY for small volume parenterals. Obviously, the injections prepared by IDUs will contain greater numbers of particles than those made commercially because of the presence of insoluble adulterants in street drugs and diluents in pharmaceuticals and because the IDU is not preparing injections in an aseptic environment. For an IDU's filter to be effective it must reduce the particulate content of the injection to a level that presents a lower risk of harm. It must be acceptable to the user, so must not remove the drug and has to be quick and easy to use. The data presented here are results from the initial part of this study, which investigated the effectiveness of various filters on reducing particulate count and size range of injections made from tablets. The ongoing work is looking at the effect of the filtration methods on amount of drug in injections. It is hoped that work will be able to be done using street heroin, liaisons are currently underway with the Home Office and the police to arrange provision of samples. "(2)


1)l. Limit Test For Particulate Matter. British Pharmacoepia 1993, Volume 2, Appendix X111. London, HMSO.

2)Investigation into the Effectiveness of Filters for use by Intravenous Drug Users Jennifer Scott, Christine Bond, Emily Kennedy and Arthur Winfield
The Robert Gordon University, School of Pharmacy, Aberdeen
*University of Aberdeen, Department of General Practice
1997

You can get to these data on the following link http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/scott01.htm

Frizzell's Handbook of Pathophysiology also has some good information

Here is another link that is a Medscape article http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410784_3 which states in it

"The particle size of the foreign bodies found in our patient were too large to be explained on the basis of inhalation as the port of entry, since particles exceeding 5 mm in size are not able to pass through the alveolar-capillary barrier.[10] " This reference (10) is one of the best articles on the consequence size of particles. (Sorry I cannot remember my password for this journal, but I will look it up and get the exact reference.)

MobiusDick

 

[MobiusDick]

^I don't live on the USA, I have no idea of what the stuff you were talking about what's wheel filters and whatman filters??

These are available all over the world. I use Whatman as they are one of the largest manufacturers of filter paper and wheel filters.

I am assuming you know what filter paper is. Wheel filters are the street term for the Whatman Puradisc or equivalent, which is a filter that usually varies in size from 0.22 microns to 1.0 microns. The liquid you want to filter is placed in the syringe (with a removable needle) and PUSHED not pulled into another syringe. Then the needle is screwed on the syringe and used. If you want all bacteria and particles that are large enough to do damage, then a 1.0 micron filter is fine. If viruses are involved (and if you are using tap water, they almost never are. It is only when you are using unclean /used iv tools that may have been contaminated by another person that you would need to worry about viruses.) then a 0.22 micron filter will remove a lot of viruses although HIV is only filtered out using a filter that is less than 0.1 micron (and I have not seen many and they are very expensive.)

The reason that a 1.0 micron filter is preferable usually is that the smaller filters clog too easily with the drugs commonly used on/from the street, and the expense for most people is an issue. The smaller the filter the more expensive they are.

MobiusDick

 

[narutokun]

^i'm familiar with the backloading method, it's the fastest way to filter for me, thing is i do it with cotton. i know what a filter paper is i guess... i just don't know what's a wheel filter, is it the same as a coffee paper filter? that's all i have access to

 

[fizzacyst]

Thats what the wheel filters look like. It is a piece of filter paper sealed inside a plastic wheel about the size of the filter paper disc. On one end of the filter are Leur-lok type threads so that you can screw it onto the end of a syringe (Like the BD brand) the way you can a needle. The entire wheel unit is sterile and packed in a plastic blister much like a syringe is.

getpinz.com sells them. They are a little expensive, but I dont know if you'll come across them cheaper than that. I don't know why it would be against the sourcing rules to post this since it might stop someone from doing their self serious bodily harm... but edit if you need to.

 

[narutokun]

^oh i see! damn I didn't even know such thing existed tbh. i only use bd's syringes it sounds so nice that kind of filter.. it's a shame i can't get them where i live they don't sell them here.. well thanks for the info though! interesting stuff
are they reusable?

 

[LinZ-E]

i don't see why you wouldn't be able to post the site for filters considering it is all regarding 'harm reduction'....SEPs and sites to get clean syringes/needles have been posted in the past as well.

i have seen wheel filters on the 'bay as well - can get pricey there, though.

 

[narutokun]

so like are they re-usable or something?

 

[fizzacyst]

No, not reusable. You'll end up getting them clogged really quick, and bacteria and crap will start to grow in there. You would probably damage the filter over time as well, it has extremely fine pores.