19 minutes ago, quake said:

Cash is always king.

Good luck with the cashless society.

The biggest thief,  uses a keyboard now days. 

Good luck buying your next, car, motorcycle, computer etc with cash.... 

Always amused by the Cash-is-king comment....      then we read the news of someone getting robbed !!!

Yep - Had UK fraudulent payments made on my UK Card a few times.

They always return the money. 

They know where and on what device the money was used (even know if its a Mac or PC etc or other sales mechanism).

Also in Thailand - myself and my Wife: 

The notification of use always pops up and if its fraudulent, we contact the bank (always get the money back, or rather, not deducted). 

I reckon it happens at least once per year - more commonly to my Wife for some reason.

I think its mostly from online payments.

We use Credit Card payments for everything - and the reason we do is because of the protection they offer.

5 hours ago, thjames007 said:

Another word of caution. VFS is brutal to deal with!   They have no problem rejecting applications for any reason.  And since they answer to no one they don't care (they are not the UK government they are just an agent). So make sure everything is don't 100% correct.  They don't care if you leaving in June. They only care about themselves!!! 

True - but it’s in their interest to make sure you have everything on order….

… so they usually ask for more than is required. 
 

My Wife has dealt with them a lot for various Schengen visas over the years & knows the requirements in detail.

They always try to get her to buy extra insurance etc & threatens my wife that she’ll be rejected if she doesn’t go with the insurance on their list (we have good insurance already - never an issue).

36 minutes ago, connda said:

Hey honey, Come get some Uzbek lovin' baby. 

Really ????   That’s pretty offensive…. Who’d want Malcy’s sloppy seconds ??? 🥸

3 minutes ago, Magictoad said:

It doesn't work for me. I HAVE TO FIND A PLACE OR AUTHORITY who can check my passport for a fee.

What is the place in Bangkok where I would go if I wanted a new passport?

Shouting (captials) is not going to give you the answer you want.

IF you wanted a new passport from Thailand, you would have to go to VFS - they only process the submission of documents, they do no such thing as verification. 

If you have real concerns you 'could' contact the British Consulate and explain your situation to them - its possible they can check it.

.... But, your question is 'extremely vague' - what exactly do you want to check about your passport ? 

Do you need some verification that your writing on the last page has not voided the document ?

And.. by the last page, do you mean the 'Emergencies' page where you list your ICE Contacts (in case of emergency), or did you write on a different page ?

6 minutes ago, kwak250 said:

Many thanks and we could say we are going to stay at our parents in the UK if that is needed
Would we need to show any form of income as we do not work but have savings 

Show everything you can - Proof of funds (savings), house ownership (documents need to be translated into English).

You will need an 'invitation letter' from your parents, addressed from their house, saying that you will both stay there for the duration of your visit (you can write this letter yourself, from you, but the address needs to be listed as your UK address).

6 minutes ago, kwak250 said:

Would my wife need an interview to show how she can support herself or would a certain sum of money in her bank account work?

An interview is very unlikely - solid documentation is key.

6 minutes ago, kwak250 said:

Trying to make it as easy as possible without her getting refused a visa with such little time

Many thanks

Get everything you can...  You can also 'fast track' at VFS - which wont actually make the visa process itself any quicker, but you will get 'dedicated assistance' at VFS and a quicker appointment time.

https://visa.vfsglobal.com/tha/en/gbr/super-priority-visa

13 hours ago, still kicking said:

On 5/5/2025 at 6:48 AM, Gottfrid said:

A helmet might have saved him

B/S

While I’ve no doubt Gottfrid will feel compelled to argue - his default reaction to anything I say - I actually agree with his point that a helmet might have saved the rider’s life.

Reports from the scene are notoriously unreliable, often built more on hearsay than hard facts. It’s entirely plausible the pickup didn’t run over him but struck the rider, with a resulting head impact being the fatal blow—a helmet could have made the difference. We simply don’t know.

So, I wouldn’t be calling BS on the helmet issue - it’s moot.

What isn’t moot is anyone riding without a helmet is a fool... and in this incident the contractor cut corners, the pickup driver was clearly following too closely, and the motorcyclist wasn’t wearing basic protection. A trifecta of idiocy with a tragically predictable result.

As is so often the case in Thailand, fatal crashes aren’t caused by one catastrophic error, but a chain of avoidable mistakes - where had just one person acted responsibly, a life might have been spared.

On 5/6/2025 at 9:12 PM, Emmey said:

Thank you for your response. We visited Rajavithi Hospital but one of the nurses said they don't accept foreigners. Any other suggestion will be duly appreciated.

Please don't accept no for an answer - particularly from low level staff...  Their response may come from misunderstanding through communication, or a larger misunderstanding in general. 

It maybe that their answer is nothing more than an assumption.

If possible, ask to see someone more senior and ensure you can get a 'sit down' with a doctor - someone who can actually make an official decision rather than a dismissive cannot... 

... in doing so, you may also get some good advice and recommendation as to where you can go and secure the services of a good obstetrician (OBGYN).

6 minutes ago, sandyf said:

On 5/7/2025 at 2:26 PM, richard_smith237 said:

C-Section is more common in Thailand by at least 10-20% than it is in the West, i.e. UK and Europe, USA

That in itself is no justification for say it is a preferred method of delivery.

My niece is an Obs & Gny surgeon and C sections are her thing. She is extremely busy and it has nothing to do with preference, problems arise for a variety of reasons with many down to lifestyle.

Alongside the more common problems there is an increasing number of babies that are growing above the safe size for the Thai pelvis plus both mental health and substance abuse issues are on the increase.

You cannot always take stats at face value.

Very true... (cannot always take stats at face value) - I'm sure the reason for the increased percentages of C-sections here compared to the west are medically elective and more related to cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD) and generally younger maternal age (under-developed pelvic bones)... which of course distorts the stats, particularly as Thai females are generally smaller.

Nevertheless - its long been known that C-Sections are more common in Thailand than they are in many or our western nations - the stats highlight exactly the same, no matter how you want to look at them.

Sheryl of course has far more medical experience than I, though I'm surprised she contradicted my comment given the amount of medical professionals I know who have commented on the 'unnecessarily high number of c-sections in hospitals here'.... that said - my sources of information are only: National Stats, and anecdote from a handful of Doctors I'm friends with (dinners / socialising etc - so lots of topics arise).

MalcolmB would have argued that C-Sections are more common, If I had mentioned they are less common - so anything he writes is purely fabricated to generate discourse because he's been accused by me way to many times of being a troll and he that doesn't sit well with his childish ego - anything he writes can simply be written off.

4 minutes ago, LOG54 said:

(surprisingly on the snaps police seems to help cleaning ???,)

Looking for anything of value they can 'half inch' ???  

On 5/6/2025 at 6:11 AM, Red Phoenix said:

Five recent papers show vaccine COVID vaccine harms outweigh any benefits

Don't worry. The FDA, CDC, and Congress are never going to apologize for their mistake. One of these papers has already been rejected by 6 journals without even reading the paper!

All show vaccine harms outweigh benefits.

Source: https://kirschsubstack.com/p/five-recent-papers-show-vaccine-covid

You think parroting a stack of papers counts as intellectual firepower. I'll take your five and raise you ten, because this sad little game you’re playing is laughably easy. You toss out studies like confetti, convinced that sheer volume somehow substitutes for substance, as if burying people in footnotes will mask your hollow argument.

Here's the reality: you don't understand what you're citing. You don’t present reasoned, concise information - you flood, you overwhelm, hoping no one notices you're just parroting whatever supports your fragile, prefab worldview. It’s not research; it’s regurgitation. Lazy, uneducated, and transparent.

All you’re doing is clumsily stitching together scraps you barely comprehend in a vain attempt to prop up your agenda - one that crumbles the moment it’s exposed to real scrutiny....

I'll do exactly the same below: 

1. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

Journal: New England Journal of Medicine (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: This pivotal Phase III trial reported 95% efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with a favorable safety profile.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2036242

2. Effectiveness and Safety of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in Real-World Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal: New England Journal of Medicine  (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: Analysing 58 studies, this meta-analysis found that two doses of COVID-19 vaccines were over 85% effective in preventing infection, with severe adverse events being very rare.

https://idpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40249-021-00915-3

3. Safety of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Journal: Infectious Diseases of Poverty  (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: This review of 14 randomized controlled trials involving over 73,000 participants concluded that COVID-19 vaccines have acceptable safety profiles, with most adverse events being mild and transient.

https://idpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40249-021-00878-5

4. Evaluation of the Safety Profile of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Rapid Review

Journal: BMC Medicine (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: This rapid review highlighted that while some adverse events occur, they are generally mild and self-limiting, supporting the overall safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-021-02059-5

5. A Comprehensive Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines Journal: PubMed

Journal: PubMed (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: This analysis found that all vaccines studied had efficacy exceeding 70%, with mRNA vaccines reaching up to 94.29%, and that most adverse reactions were mild and tolerable.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34365034/

6. Comparative Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines in Phase III Trials: A Network Meta-Analysis

Journal: BMC Infectious Diseases (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: This network meta-analysis compared various vaccine platforms, confirming that mRNA vaccines had the highest efficacy and acceptable safety profiles across different populations.

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-023-08754-3

7. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

Journal: New England Journal of Medicine (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: Further analysis reaffirmed the vaccine's efficacy in preventing severe COVID-19 illness and alleviated concerns about potential vaccine-enhanced disease.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2036242

8. Moderna Study Shows Immune Response in Older Adults for a Combo Flu and COVID-19 Shot

Journal: Journal of the American Medical Association (Not formally peer-reviewed (or unclear)

Summary: A study involving 8,000 participants aged 50 and older found that a combination mRNA flu and COVID-19 vaccine induced strong immune responses, with side effects being mild and similar to those of existing vaccines.

https://apnews.com/article/flu-covid-combination-shot-moderna-vaccine-c627a5db5ad784335268ee6dbcb5e600

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm705152a1.htm

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34968370/

9. CDC Reports on COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Children Aged 5–11 Years

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)  (Not formally peer-reviewed (or unclear)

Summary: The CDC's monitoring indicated that side effects in children were common but mild, supporting the vaccine's safety in this age group.

https://time.com/6133317/covid-vaccine-kids-safe

10. Local Research Study Confirms COVID-19 Vaccine Safety

Source: Med Center Health  (Not formally peer-reviewed (or unclear)

Summary: A local study involving 4,825 patients reported that most individuals experienced no or only mild side effects, reinforcing the vaccine's safety profile.

https://www.wku.edu/mediarelations/2021/september/sept15/survey_dn.pdf

https://medcenterhealth.org/local-research-study-confirms-covid-19-vaccine-safety

On 5/6/2025 at 6:45 AM, rattlesnake said:

"Not peer-revieeeeewed!!!", bleat the sheep.

All mainstream media - bleat the anti-vax prophets - because obviously, thousands of doctors and scientists spent decades studying medicine just to lie to Facebook uncles with Wi-Fi and a grudge.

17 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

20 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Sorry - not biting tonight…. This endless silliness is…. Well, just endless silliness !!! 

 

You see, @TallGuyJohninBKK, this is what I meant when I said (and I see you have wisely followed the advice):

 

Your best option is to do what the other sophists of this forum do in such cases, which is to drop out of the discussion entirely, wait for it to get buried, and start posting your talking points in another thread in a couple of days or so.

 

A competent sophist knows when to back off. "Not biting" here means avoiding finding oneself in the uncomfortable position of having to face very inconvenient facts… which only honest people are able to do.

You've clutched at my lack of response as if it's some kind of rhetorical victory, and thats rather un-clever of you, I expect better (though not from the other clowns), that flawed grasp at relevance betrayed just how hollow and brittle your position really is.

You know perfectly well that I'm more than capable of dismantling your nonsense piece by piece. That I chose not to engage this time isn't some triumph for the cesspit of mediocrity that the brain-dead anti-vax theatre wallows in...

This time I simply sat out and didn't bite, choosing not to waste oxygen and participate in this mind-numbing carousel of anti-vax idiocy. Silence, in this case, wasn’t concession - it was boredom mixed in with a large dose of contempt.

You've mistaken disengagement for defeat, but in reality, my disengagement is simply a testament to how utterly tedious and beneath me this whole anti-vax exchange is becoming thread after mind-numbing thread.

7 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

22 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Arguably a combo of the both, or either…

But let’s spend the next 5 pages arguing over whether a helmet would have saved him or if the pickup might not or might have been the actual cause of fatality….

 

Lets delve right into the pedantic details with a degree of neuroticism some example with such finesse…. 😴

Looks like you had to be a part of a discussion you as well. Does that mean you fit the narrative for your last row?

Nope... even to those operating with half a functioning brain cell would identify that I was trying to bring an end to the cretinous loop of repetition...

...But no - true to form, you couldn't resist lurching into the mess, as if the world desperately needed yet another half-baked opinion from your intellectual scrapyard.

... though, here's the good news: you really don’t need to try to start arguments. With the sheer density of nonsense you spout, they’ll continue to land at your feet like gifts from the gods of imbecility.

7 hours ago, BritManToo said:

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Some are ridiculing such a device because it looks stupid - I bet the fat belly of  those who pass judgement looks worse !!!! It’s not as if these items are being worn around shopping malls & in restaurants! 

Why would you assume we're all overweight and unfit?

All the people I interact with are extremely fit cycling 25km a day or more.

Nope...  and based on your response I'd also assume that 'some' have poor reading comprehension !!

<<Some are ridiculing such a device because it looks stupid>>

Now... if you were to open your mind and not get locked into doubling down on your opinion to save face you may understand the points being made to support such a product....    It'd even make a difference for you when cycling.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

 

A word on virologist Dr. Robert Redfield, who served as the director of the CDC during the Covid crisis, who claims that reports of so-called "Long Covid" are actually a cover-up for mRNA vaccine injury?

 

Since leaving his federal government position at the end of President Donald Trump’s first term in January 2021, Redfield has focused on treating patients in his medical practice.

He explains in the interview that his surgery is flooded with patients who have been led to believe they have “Lond Covid.”

However, he notes that the vast majority of those patients are actually suffering from an injury caused by the Covid mRNA “vaccine” they received.

 

https://slaynews.com/news/ex-cdc-director-long-covid-mrna-vaccine-injury/

Sorry - not biting tonight…. This endless silliness is…. Well, just endless silliness !!! 

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Basic physics tells me if your neck muscles relax during sleep, and your throat closes up a bit, widening your nose aperture will do nothing to help.

A lot of you quoting basic physics in lieu of simple biology when it’s clear you know nothing of either !!!  

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

NO ... as basic physics tells me, you can't squeeze more air through a small tube, simply because the the opening may be a wee bit larger at one end.

Your basic physics is correct - your basic understanding of this product is not.

The difference is astonishing.

it’s definitely one of those ‘don’t knock it until you’ve tried it’ things….

Don’t judge from a position of ignorance.

Try ‘opening each of your nostrils wider) (pulling open with thumb & finger on each side then breathing through your nose - you’ll immediately notice the difference)