Xorkoth's empirical observation about the track-record of DOxs stands.
Most important this isn't an attack on Xorkoth. I respect Xorkoth and have benefited from his contributions. I simply disagree with the claim DOX chemicals are safer than NBOMe chemicals. Xorkoth's observation of DOX's history misinterprets the data. We aren't looking at how long the chemical was available we are looking at the number of people using the chemical vs fatalities. Luckily DOX chemicals never gained popularity outside of our esoteric hobby. NBOMe chemicals achieved much wider distribution through the web.
The popularity of NBOMe chemicals is decreasing. Despite this if you look on the darknet hundreds of listings offering NBOMe chemicals remain. DOX chemicals are much less available on the same sites. This suggests in NBOMe chemicals short existence far more people were exposed and risked the associated dangers.
Now lets look at search data from Google and compare how much the average person researched DOX and NBOMe.
Those examples demonstrate few people were researching DOX in comparison with NBOMe. This further supports my claim NBOMe chemicals experienced much wider distribution. Now consider the fatalities associated with DOX over the same time.
Nonfatal and fatal DOB (2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromoamphetamine) overdose.
A fatal poisoning involving Bromo-Dragonfly.
Second Victim Dies After Taking Designer Drug In Konawa
A Fatal Intoxication of 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-Chloroamphetamine: A Case Report
“Moment of madness”: rare drug implicated in student death
Now infer the number of fatalities we could expect if DOX chemicals were distributed as much as NBOMe chemicals were distributed.
*This data excludes older reports of fatalities and reports of near-fatal adverse reactions.