Hi folks. A friend of mine (not me) says he is going to inject DMT. This guy’s going to do it... because he is fucking retarded. So, since this moron is going to do this... I was wondering which ROA would be more likely to give this dude health complications, and in what ways: IM or IV? Yeah, I know, they are both dangerous as fuck and can kill you in various ways. I just want details on what ways those are. Hell, maybe I can talk him out of it with all the gory details.

What are the comparative cons? Details in comparison are what I’m seeking here. And remember, don’t just say “equally bad”. Or if you do, explain in detail why that is. Detailed Information is imperative here. If this guy is going to be talked out of this, it will only be by detailed and accurate horror, not vague warnings. And honestly, if one is worse than the other.... then I’d appreciate being able to at least make it less likely my friend will die.

Thank-you. I am sorry for bringing this garbage before you.

IM risk as follows: non sterile injection can lead to infection, leads to abscess, can lead to further complications if not treated. There is also such a thing as a sterile abscess which is related to luck and large volume injections. One can also end up placing the needle into a small vein or artery by accident, leading to consequences below.

IV risk: non sterile injection can lead to phlebitis. More importantly can lead to infection in the venous system which can manifest itself as infective endocarditis, which can be a disaster due to further consequences. Venous infections can also lead to pulmonary infection/abscess. In addition, if enough insoluble particulate matter is injected into a vein, you can cause a small pulmonary embolism as can an air bubble. You could also be dumb and accidentally inject into an artery, in which case the consequences could be worse, including cerebral infection and stroke if you were unlucky.

In summary, IV has the potential to cause greater serious consequences compared to IM. Hoewever you should be clear that both can lead to serious illness and sepsis.

IM and IV experiences would differ greatly in onset, duration and intensity.

Don't inject something parenterally that you have made yourself. It's not a good idea. My 2 cents.

IV can also cause endocarditis, an infection of the heart lining and can be very hard to treat, especially if antibiotic resistant.

IV infection CAN be more serious, but IM infection (skin abcess) is likely. While a skin abcess may sound like no big deal, they can cause sepsis and possible loss of limb , are disfiguring and incredibly painful.

If he does decide to go through anyway, please make sure he will take all the necessary precautions.



Also you can check this guide from WHO on safety practices when injecting:

http://apps.who.int/iris...70FE8D287BD54?sequence=1

(page 17-39 of pdf)

The treatment for endocarditis is IV antibiotics for like seven weeks. Hospitals won't let IV drug users go home with an IV or a central line in their arm for obvious reasons. So that means either a very long hospital stay or go home and don't get treated. I'm an ICU nurse and have seen more than one IV drug user go home against medical advice only to come back to the hospital in an ambulance because they were too sick to get there themselves. I remember one patient had three limbs amputated because the infection went systemic and they couldn't get the infection under control. Her feet and hands were literally rotting off. Needless to say she ended up in the morgue.

In-hospital mortality rate for endocarditis is 15-20%. Even if successfully treated during hospitalization one year mortality rate is about 40%. This is something not to be messed with.

Making a sterile homemade IV solution is extremely difficult and I personally would never attempt it.

Thank-you all. So what I'm gathering is: IV is less likely to cause complications than IM, but the complications that may arise are more severe from IV than from IM (though both are severe and easily potentially lethal)?

Thank-you again. I will refer my friend to your responses. Hopefully they will rethink this.

That's an Interesting conclusion you draw from the information provided.
I don't think there is any information which suggests Iv is less likely to cause complications.
Anecdotally, I would say the opposite.

Actually, anecdotally and experientially, I'd say just the opposite. I've seen hundreds of cases of abscesses and even more accidental artery shots with IM forevery case of endo or other complications with IV. IF-IF all precautions are taken, IV is the safest ROA there is for many substances.

In theory. Do not take this post as a recommendation to shoot DMT. In fact, it sounds tremendously stupid knowing the extraction TEKs available. Even if done to the highest standard available to you, I'm guessing that doesn't include a pharmaceutical grade lab. Don't do it.

Interesting null.
My experience has been the opposite to yours.
Seen plenty of infective endocarditis, not a couple. Seen plenty of botched up cubital fossae due to subcutaneous abscesses. Not pretty. Seen a couple of pulmonary abscesses as well. In comparison, I've seen less than a handful of intramuscular abscesses due to injection.

Make no mistake, I would sooner IM a substance (if it's known to not cause muscular irritation/inflammation), than IV a substance. Better still, I would choose to do neither.