richard_smith237

But in the context of your comments 'levied at' MangoKorat - your comments are incorrect... yet you have repeated them when others have corrected you.

They can't be bothered to lower themselves to the ridiculous levels of such discussions... Especially when threads such as this turn into an anti-vax circle jerk of misinformation... I'm only here to see what extent and extremes some posters will go to when denying scientifically proven fact.... So far we have: - Pathogenic viruses do not exist - Viruses cannot be isolated - Vaccines are not necessary - Antibiotics are not necessary - Herd Immunity is flawed - mRNA vaccine is not a vaccine - Polio Vaccine had no impact - Measles Vaccine had no impact

I definitely agree. This rejection seems to occur only in the context of Covid/vaccination refutation, which, in a way, is tacit admission that this is a taboo issue. I don't recall there being the same stringent requirement for other societal issues (e.g. nobody says one needs to be a firearms expert to formulate an opinion on gun control…). As someone who is clearly capable of forming intelligent, well-reasoned arguments, it’s evident you possess the ability to assimilate complex information, interpret it thoughtfully, and articulate your perspective with clarity. Your approach demonstrates that a deep and meaningful discussion doesn't require formal credentials - only critical thinking, curiosity, and a willingness to engage with ideas on their merit. Unfortunately, not everyone shares that capacity. It becomes painfully obvious when some resort to parroting content from anti-vaccine websites or recycling deeply flawed opinions, mistaking repetition for reason and ideology for insight. Their contributions lack the intellectual rigour needed for genuine discourse, revealing not just a gap in knowledge, but a troubling absence of the cognitive tools required to bridge it.

Simply not true. Where do you copy this garbage from ?

Simply no true. Where do you copy this garbage from Sir? "a circle is not a circle" - you simply reject any data that does not fit your delusional agenda. Such fundamentally flawed thinking cannot be argued with.... All I have to do in response to your comments is state... "not true, not true, not true"... As such, this isn’t a discussion - it’s an idiot show - the only only real contributor for educated debate from the “anti-vaxx” perspective is rattlesnake... The rest of you, yourself included, are just parroted nonsense masquerading as a “debate.” Every word you type can been debunked so many times, it’s practically begging for its own obituary. You’ve managed to create a sad little circle jerk of idiocy. Posts such as your have turned this thread into a group therapy session for the willfully ignorant.

I have... Its just 'part of the system' here... The last couple of times was turning from the middle lane when there was a stationary object in the 'turn lane'... so I had no choice. It was an impossible discussion... no flexibility on their part. - One time I paid 200 baht as I didn't want to hand over my licence !! - Another time, I just said ok, give me an official ticket - they waved me on !! Another time I'd forgotten to renew my tax... I argued with the officer, until I got out, check my tax disc and laughed, I saw that he was right, I don't know why I had a different date in my head. - I gave him 100 baht and drove off... he was still negotiating for 200 baht as I was driving off !!! I think its all part of the game of living here - that said, its been a long time since I've been stopped or pulled over (especially in Bangkok) - the BiB just seem disinterested in driving foreigners here in Bangkok... (in the day time at least)... Perhaps because experience has taught them that 'nearly all' follow the law, where as in other areas (such as Pattaya, Phuket etc) experience has taught them that foreigners are an easy target as they DUI more readily and may often not have the valid documents etc.

And why would I have a problem with that? I drive totally legally in both the UK and Thailand. Again - wholly correct - I'm not sure why sungod is trying to attack you from such a flawed perspective given his ignorance of the regulations and your situation. That said: many police officers here do not actually know the exact laws themselves, training is poor and regulations are often passed through a peer network from policeman to policeman - thus there are plenty of legacy errors with their understanding. Thus: Even though its legal to drive here on a UK License due to reciprocal agreements (for example), I would still recommend that tourists also have an IDP which removes any ambiguity should a 'lesser informed' police officer be operating a check-point etc - it just saves hassle.

That doesn't actually state what length of driving license you will get if renewing an expired 5 year license (after +1 or +3 years).

Seems you came up short on understanding the Ops point. Can we assume you speak Khmer then ?

https://www.dlt.go.th/en/two-year-license. It's not the easiest website to navigate but eventually you'll find the right page. It doesn't say anything about which length of licence you get IF you are renewing after expiry. It only goes so far as to state IF you need to do just a theory exam (+1 year expiry) or the Theory and Practical exam (+3 years expiry) - & none of that is relevant to someone 'using their home licence' to obtain a Thai license. Thus: I may be missing something - perhaps a screen shot of what you are reading can clear this up ?

100% agree - wholly valid comments... my experience is exactly the same.

Standing up to the police when you are wrong will only make matters worse,and in the case of the Op it can back fire. "And believe you are right" was my clarifier - in this context, the Op knew he was in the wrong - taking the hit and remaining polite was the only course of action.... That said: had there been more resistance, i.e. a lawyer on hand etc, he may not have faced the issue of having to spend a night in jail. One 'grey area' that may or may not have worked in the Ops favour is IF he has a Home Driving License (in English). I'm not sure if the DUI limit for foreigners driving on their home license is 0.05% BAC or the stricter 0.02%.

Interesting - good info: The regulations may have been updated since I renewed my expired 5 yr DL after 1 year expiry and was only issued a 2 year DL - or, as you say, maybe I was unlucky. Do you have a link to that information - it would be a useful resource (I can't find such information on the DLT webpage). If you are correct - after obtaining a 5 year license, any renewal will be to another 5 year license, no matter how long the previous license has been expired for - thats not as I understand it, and I'd be happy to be wrong as this would be much better.

I completely agree... with the ease of getting a Thai Driving license there is no reasonable excuse for a long term foreigner not to have one, I'll go as far to suggest its stupid not to do so. As for 'Tourists' - I'd advise any tourist visiting and wishing to drive on their home license to obtain an IDP, this simply removes any ambiguity - there's no point arguing the law with the BiB at a police check-point.

In the context used by MangoKorat - its a perfectly reasonable statement. If you can communicate, maintain composure, remain polite and believe you are right - its perfectly acceptable to maintain your stance. Maybe you are one of those who does not have a 'spine to stand up for yourself'.

I did exactly what he needs to do in September last year. Old 5 year licence was 4 years expired. Did the theory and practical tests. 5 year licence in my pocket. You were lucky then - DLT officer made a convenient mistake, thats all. Previously, my license had expired by 1 year and 1 day... (for some reason I was a year off on renewal) and was attempting to renew 1 day after expiry (1 day after my Birthday) to effectively get 6 years. I was issued with just a 2 Year Temp Driving License, and renewed to 5 years after that. I'm guessing - different DLT offices apply the rules differently, or even individual DLT officers - and of course, its busy, its boring work, mistakes will be made, sometimes in our favour.

Please read my post fully - I stated that I am not resident. As far as I know I do not need a Thai licence unless I stay longer than 12 months. Its 'somewhat of a grey area' and never enforced... But, it is my understanding that 'if you are on a 'resident visa'... (i.e. A Non-Immigrant Visa) a Thai license is needed. If on a Tourist Visa / Visa Exempt etc (or other non-resident visa / entry) then its ok to drive on your home license IF in English Language or accompanied by an IDP if its not in the English Language. Its also argued that a Tourist using their home license (IDP combo) can drive up to 90 days, again this is a grey area, unenforced and strongly debated on this forum as concise factual information is quite slim.

You'll get a 5 year licence but you'll have to do the theory and practical tests. I did this last year. No he won't... a 2 year Temporary License is first issued... then upon renewal a 5 year Full License is issued. As the Ops previous 5 year license has expired for more than 12 months - he will need to 'start over'.

Well that's not a provisional licence in the way that we know it - which is for learners. To be able to drive on your own in Thailand, you need to have passed a test. Learners don't actually get a licence. As I wrote - avoiding semantics... What is referred to as a Provisional Licence is the 2 year temporary license. Thats all you need to understand. Agreed - IF the op had a License from his home country (that is in the English Language) then he can legally drive here (its argued by some that an IDP is also required and I don't want to get into that circular debate), but that also depends on the Ops Visa status - if he is on a resident visa (non-Imm) then he should have a Thai License. As you point out - IF his home country license from 'some countries' (i.e in English language) then he can easily obtain a Thai License - First he would be issued with a 2 year Temp license (he'd still be over the DUI limit with one of those). As mentioned - do not get hung up on the 'semantics' - You will get a 2 year Temporary license, thats all thats referred to when the word Provisional is used in this context.

I missed that - shunning ALL vaccines as well as antibiotic.... The probability that without 'anti-biotics' and vaccines that you would still be alive today is extremely slim. The World Today Without Antibiotics or Vaccines would be far less populated.. . Current world population (2025): ~8.1 billion people. If w removed two of the greatest life-saving tools in human history… Without Vaccines: Vaccines have eradicated or drastically reduced diseases like: Smallpox (once killed 30% of infected, now eradicated) Measles (caused millions of deaths annually pre-vaccine) Polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, hepatitis, etc. Before vaccines, childhood mortality was staggering. In some areas, 1 in 3 or even 1 in 2 children died before age 5. Impact: Millions more deaths annually, especially among infants and children. Major pandemics would have had far deadlier tolls (e.g., COVID-19 without vaccines likely = tens of millions of deaths globally). Without Antibiotics: No penicillin, no sulfa drugs, no modern infection control. The implications are brutal: Simple infections = deadly (a scratch could kill you). Pneumonia, tuberculosis, strep throat, gonorrhoea, syphilis, and wound infections would be major killers. Surgical procedures and childbirth would be far riskier - infection was the #1 killer in both contexts before antibiotics. Antibiotics added an estimated 20+ years to average life expectancy in developed countries. Estimates: Historians and epidemiologists suggest that without vaccines or antibiotics, global population growth would have been far slower due to: - High childhood mortality - Lower life expectancy - Epidemics and pandemics regularly culling large portions of the population The world population in 2025 without vaccines or antibiotics might range from 3 to 4 billion, possibly even less. In short, vaccines and antibiotics didn’t just save lives - they enabled modern civilisation as we know it. Without them, we'd be stuck in a perpetual cycle of plagues, early death, and medical helplessness. Without them - the probability that you'd even be alive at 67 years old is tiny.

> Yes, and for those that interested in this matter, you can look up Marc Girardot's BOLUS theory. In short that theory advocates that shooting the mRNA straight into a vein is the very likely cause of people dropping dead within minutes after having gotten the mRNA-shot. And such misfortune is in most cases due to unskilled/poorly trained shot-providers. mRNA vaccines are intramuscular injections, always have been. No vaccines are direct injections into a vein. If there has been 'medical malpractice' and any vaccines (mRNA or otherwise) have been 'shot' directly into the vein, then thats human error, not a vaccine flaw. Doing so and would be just as bad as a diabetic injecting insulin directly into their vein. Marc Girardot's BOLUS theory attempts to mitigate the risk of 'accidentally' injecting a vaccine directly into the bloodstream / intravenously. Girardot advocates for alternative vaccine delivery methods, such as intranasal administration for respiratory vaccines or subcutaneous injections. I actually agree with this - I'm all for safer delivery methods of any vaccine and accept that there is an extremely small risk of an 'idiot' injecting a vaccine directly into a vein either by mistaken when attempting an intramuscular injection, or worse, deliberately due to poor knowledge / training.

I do acknowledge that naturally acquired herd immunity is, in many ways, more robust and enduring than immunity induced by vaccination. However, achieving such widespread natural immunity would come at a staggering cost - the loss of millions of lives. Centuries from now, the numbers may be reduced to lines in a textbook, a distant memory to future generations. But for us, in this moment, every life matters. The cost is not theoretical - it's tangible, it's human. And let there be no illusion: if all vaccines were to cease today, it would not take long - merely a few years - before the fatality rates of viral diseases surged dramatically. Vaccination is not just a convenience of modern medicine; it's a shield against a return to an era of mass suffering and untimely death.

Idiocy - Are you suggesting normal viruses that are not harmful to us have been isolated and their existence proven... but harmful (pathogenic viruses) have not and can't be because they don't exist ? Do you realise the ridiculousness of this?

Which is why I am responding here to your persistent lies and misinformation. The mRNA shots developed for COVID-19, such as those from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, are vaccines, not gene therapy. They were classified and regulated as vaccines from the start, because they meet the longstanding scientific and medical definition of a vaccine: a substance that stimulates the body's immune system to recognise and fight off a pathogen, in this case, the SARS-CoV-2 virus. What mRNA vaccines actually do: They use a snippet of messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a harmless piece of the virus (the spike protein). This stimulates an immune response, training the body to recognise and respond more effectively to future infection. The mRNA does not alter a person's DNA - it never enters the cell nucleus, and it degrades naturally within hours to days. Not gene therapy: Gene therapy involves making permanent or semi-permanent changes to a person’s genetic code to treat or cure a disease, often by inserting genetic material into DNA. mRNA vaccines don’t do that. They temporarily deliver instructions to produce an immune response — they don’t modify genes or integrate into the genome. Definition of a vaccine: While the CDC and other health agencies refined the wording of their vaccine definition during the pandemic (to better encompass mRNA technology and avoid confusion), the core concept - inducing immunity without causing disease - hasn't changed. Medical dictionaries and immunology textbooks had already recognised this kind of immune stimulation as vaccination. So no, it wasn’t a sneaky redefining to “pave the way” - it was an update to reflect innovation. The technology evolved, and so did the language, but the purpose and function stayed the same. The language was changed because: The old definition was too narrow: Prior to the COVID pandemic, the CDC’s definition of a vaccine (on their website, not in law or scientific texts) emphasised that a vaccine provided immunity by introducing a weakened or killed virus. That worked well for traditional vaccines like polio or measles, which used whole virus particles. But mRNA vaccines don’t contain the virus at all - just instructions to make one viral protein. And their primary aim is to prevent severe disease, not always to block infection entirely. Evolving science: Science moves forward. The understanding of immunity has expanded - we now recognise that vaccines can provide strong protection without necessarily stopping every infection. Think of the flu shot: you can still catch the flu, but you're far less likely to end up hospitalised. That’s still successful vaccination. Weaponised misunderstanding: During the pandemic, some critics cherry-picked the old, narrower CDC wording to falsely claim that mRNA vaccines “aren’t real vaccines.” This led to confusion. So, the CDC updated the definition (as of September 2021). This latter point is precisely why updating the definition - IF they had not, people like yourself would have 'weaponised' misunderstanding and highlighted that the mRNA vaccines do not contain the virus... Instead you have 'weaponised' a perfectly reasonable modernisation of the definition of a vaccine to fit your broken narrative.

"Anyone", not "everyone". Her four siblings (not three, I made a mistake in my previous post) did not catch pneumonia – though she did – because of a multitude of factors which neither of us know. Portraying her pneumonia infection solely as a consequence of her unvaccinated status is the result, as pointed out previously, of a bias in favour of vaccination. No, it's based purely on the fact that she had measles, which - when severe - can lead to secondary pneumonia. Her siblings were simply fortunate that their illness didn’t escalate to the same extent. That’s not bias; it’s straightforward logical causation. I do acknowledge that the development of secondary pneumonia could have been influenced by other, unknown factors. However, to suggest that without considering the glaringly obvious role measles played is to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room. You are reading and interpreting according to your predisposition to see my posts as conspiratorial. In this case, if you look at the paragraph I wrote, it is grammatically clear that "they" refers to the media: "Which brings us to a fundamental issue: why did the media claim this child died of measles? Because they are pushing a specific viewpoint. If they were pushing for the opposite viewpoint, they would give lots of visibility and credibility to studies such as the one below, which gives credence to the notion that measles spreads among vaccinated people." Why do I find myself inclined to view your posts as conspiratorial? Perhaps it’s because, quite frankly, they often are - apologies if that sounds blunt. You're now accusing media sources that do not report in an anti-vaccination manner of having an agenda, which only reinforces that conspiratorial tone. And of course, measles can still spread among vaccinated individuals - it remains a virus, after all. When someone is exposed to a high viral load, transmission is possible. However, vaccination serves to mitigate this risk, limiting both the severity and the spread. This principle applies to many vaccines. Some argue that if a vaccine doesn’t offer 100% protection, then it’s ineffective. But that entirely misses the point of community or herd immunity, which relies on widespread uptake to shield the vulnerable and reduce overall transmission. This is the point I was making: conversely to the above, if there was an endeavour to demonstrate the opposite stance, it would be done just as compellingly, with no shortage of material to support it. The video below presents a dissenting viewpoint. On a personal note, my own nephew (UK-based) was hospitalised in a critical condition after taking the MMR vaccine (causation acknowledged and vaccine exemption issued by the NHS, though my sister still gets regularly harassed with "encouragements" to jab him), so when Polly Tommey says you can die from it, I know she isn't kidding. Sorry for your nephew, I now understand the reason for your stance - you mentioned causation acknowledged and vaccine exemption issues - is that because of anaphylaxis (an allergy) to some of the vaccine ingredients which then likely means he's allergic to many vaccines.... Or was VITT, febrile seizure or something else ? Yes, when they openly lie it becomes obvious they're peddling misinformation - Brain Hooker meantions VAERS data, then lies in the same sentence - There are not more deaths from MMR vaccine than Measles. A 2003 study of VAERS data over 10 years found: - 55 reports of death after MMR (alone or in combination). - None had confirmed causation directly linked to the vaccine. - Detailed investigations often revealed unrelated medical conditions (e.g., congenital defects, infections, SIDS). I'm neither a pro-vaxxer or an anti-vaxxer - I'm pro-statistics, they tell the truth (the issue there of course is how the stats are collected and reported - nevertheless, in such large numbers the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of vaccination). Extensive studies and surveillance have found no deaths attributable to the MMR vaccine in healthy individuals. Rare fatalities have occurred among immunocompromised individuals, for whom the vaccine is contraindicated. Historical data from 1979 to 1990 reported 16 deaths following MMR vaccination; however, these instances are exceedingly rare and often involved individuals with underlying health conditions. In 2023, there were an estimated 107,500 measles-related deaths worldwide, predominantly among children under five years old.