richard_smith237

Was he complaining ?... I read his commentary as just that... commentary.

Going through Birmingham immigration this April I went through the non-UK Channel with my wife and granddaughter - no issue. Probably half the immigration and customs officers at Birmingham are of mixed heritage, that reflects the city, and they all speak impeccable Brummie - warms the cockles of my heart to hear it. I think you missed the point... Using the Non-UK Channel is slower, a lot slower on flights from the Middle East and Asia.

That "permission of the spouse to enter through the UK channel" varies from UK Airport to UK Airport. I've been told different responses from 'Boarder Control" so many times, I still have no idea - whether we can go through the same channel or not. The last time I went through Heathrow with my (Thai) Wife, I was told to use the UK Channel. The last time I with through Birmingham with my (Thai) Wife, I was told we had to use the non-UK Channel. The response is so inconsistent I don't think there is any official policy other than that which each individual airport applies and that seems to vary from year to year.

Thats the point - laws must evolve with technology, because the nature of harm has evolved. What might once have been dismissed as ‘just images’ now constitutes psychological assault, repetitional destruction, and social exile - all digitally scaled and enduring. The example I cited (from a School in Bangkok) was of a firm but measured response: serious, instructive, and preventative. That boy, and everyone around him, learned a line had been crossed - and crucially, they didn’t cross it again. And that’s the point. In that school (example I used), action worked. In this case, over twenty girls were targeted. Repeatedly. That’s not a failure of teenage judgement - that’s a failure of the system to protect, to act, and to send a clear message that digital sexual misconduct has consequences. When leniency is chosen over accountability, we don't just excuse the first offence - we invite the next......

Lol, what reputation can 15 year old girls have, pray tell? A young girl’s reputation is integral to her mental wellbeing. If you can’t grasp that simple truth, you’re clearly too entangled in the defence of your own foolish remarks to engage in anything resembling intelligent discourse. If that's true, that was way too harsh and a clear overreaction. Not thought so by other parents, the police or the school itself. But these images are nevertheless not real. And these girls at 15 years of age can hardly have a reputation to tarnish. Sure, they may be ridiculed and teased for a short time. But that will pass. To excuse this as harmless because the images 'aren’t real' is the height of intellectual dishonesty. The psychological toll is real. At 15, a girl’s identity, confidence, and social standing are still being shaped - precisely when reputation is most fragile. To suggest these girls have no reputation to damage is as absurd as it is cruel. Ridicule and humiliation at that age don’t simply 'pass' - they linger, often deeply and permanently, especially in a digital landscape where nothing is ever truly erased. Your remarks betray a disturbing disconnect from reality, as if teenage girls exist in a vacuum, unaffected by peers, perception, or shame. This isn’t just naïve its truly ignorant. Yes, I might ask the boy get a slap on the wrist, but I wouldn't want him expelled or have police charges filed! That's totally OTT. A 'slap on the wrist'? For generating sexually explicit imagery of underage girls ?... using their REAL faces. That response reeks of indulgence towards perpetrators and contempt for victims. This isn’t harmless mischief - it’s a form of sexualised digital assault. To shield the boy from serious consequences while the girl is left to carry the weight of public shame, humiliation, and potential lasting psychological harm is a grotesque inversion of justice. Claiming police involvement or expulsion is 'over the top' only exposes a breathtaking ignorance of the gravity of what’s been done. If creating fake nude images of minors doesn’t warrant real consequences, what exactly would? This kind of minimising attitude is precisely why victims so often suffer in silence - and why abusers learn they can get away with it. If no action is taken - society has taught this boy and everyone else that they can get away with such actions. If no action is taken - society has victims and everyone else that they have no voice. Meanwhile, you are teaching us (the forum collective) that your thought processes in such matters are fundamentally flawed to the point of being somewhat disturbed.

With respect, SF - when you choose to post on a forum specifically intended for discussion, especially when your comments are, at best, controversial and fundamentally flawed, it seems rather immature to take offence when others respond critically. If you’re not open to dialogue, then perhaps it’s wiser not to post at all. But you cannot reasonably expect to share views as questionable as those in this thread and face no challenge or contradiction. You’ve asserted that individual choices directly affect health outcomes, and even cited your own genetics and lifestyle as shields against illness. However, your argument collapses under the weight of your own example regarding childhood cancer. How can a child be held accountable for congenital illness? Or parents, for that matter? And how would you be at fault should your own genetics predispose you to certain conditions - something beyond your control? In short, your views invite scrutiny and discussion. That’s not a personal attack - it’s the natural consequence of engaging in a forum built for debate. If your opinions provoke reactions, perhaps they warrant more careful thought, not fragility in the face of dissent.

But its not a sentinel event... The use of the term 'sentinel event' indicates proven cause and thus a 'sensationalisation' t Even IF assuming the article’s findings are accurately reported (which is itself questionable), this single, anecdotal, lacks confirmed causation between vaccination and the fibril structures. It is not independently replicated or corroborated by broader epidemiological surveillance. The event has not has not triggered systemic consequences or wider patterns of harm in the millions of other vaccinated pregnancies. And, the account is presented through a non-peer-reviewed platform (Substack) rather than standard scientific channels with rigorous quality control. This is not a smoking gun. Nevertheless, any event requires high level evaluation as noted.

You’ve already proven you’re incapable of holding intelligent debate - so you resort to feeling butt hurt and start whining and insults whenever your pathetic drivel is demolished.... Seems you’re still licking your wounds from the last time... and yet here you are again, desperately clawing for relevance with a feeble jab, while I engage properly with those actually capable of it. Don’t feel badly or blame yourself - its either your teachers’ failure or just bad genetics.... Thank you for making my point !!!!

The mere fact that the term "Bombshell report" was used - is surely sufficient to highlight sensationalism and lack of scientific integrity in the reporting here... We have a one off tragic event - but, correlation of a one off event does not imply causation: When two events or phenomena appear together or show some kind of association, it’s called a correlation. For example, that a child was born prematurely and later developed certain blood fibrils after the mother received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy is temporally correlation - they happened around the same time, thats it. This does not mean one caused the other. Establishing causation requires much stronger evidence because many factors can occur alongside each other without a direct cause-effect relationship. - The child’s premature birth and later immune issues happened after maternal vaccination, but this alone does not prove the vaccine caused these outcomes. - Without broader, well-designed studies confirming higher rates of such problems linked to vaccination, we cannot infer causation - yet as an anti-vaxxer you present this as a smoking gun. - Many robust epidemiological studies show no increase in adverse fetal or childhood outcomes after maternal mRNA vaccination. - The article’s microscopy findings do not prove these fibrils cause disease or directly result from vaccine exposure.

Dr Robert Redfield, former CDC Director, has expressed a clear preference for traditional "killed protein" vaccines (which use inactivated virus or protein subunits) making it evident that he is not anti-vaccine by any stretch. .... Just to put that particular discussion to bed: he not only supports vaccination but has administered vaccines himself. So, citing him as a credible source, but using authority selectively while ignoring his broader, pro-vaccine stance is somewhat questionable from perspective of an anti-vax debate.... His concerns are not about vaccines in general, but specifically about the novel mRNA platforms used during the COVID-19 pandemic. He noted, "I prefer the killed protein vaccines," and explained this by pointing out that mRNA was persisting in the body longer than expected in some patients - a point that deserves scientific scrutiny, not political spin... and I completely agree. Rather, his concerns and public commentary focus specifically on the newer mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. In one statement, he said, "I prefer the killed protein vaccines," citing the persistence of mRNA in the body, which, in some patients, appears to last far longer than originally expected - a point that deserves scientific scrutiny, not political spin... and I completely agree. This observation has raised questions about how long synthetic spike protein is produced, and whether such persistence could have unintended effects - particularly in susceptible individuals. Dr Redfield also stressed that more comprehensive information should have been shared with the public from the outset of the vaccine rollout. I agree. Transparency would almost certainly have led some people to hesitate or decline the vaccine, especially early on - but informed consent is a fundamental ethical principle. At the time, however, public health officials were acting under intense pressure amid a global pandemic, with limited data and overwhelming uncertainty - undoubtedly mistakes were made... I don't think anyone is arguing they weren't. During the discussion, the interviewer [Senator Jonson] shifted towards highly specific concerns, not mentioning, but clearly alluding to the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis. One pointed question asked what might happen if the spike protein produced by the mRNA vaccine were to bind to heart muscle tissue. While this is a valid question, worthy of serious inquiry, it lacked necessary context. Namely, that COVID-19 infection itself poses a far greater risk of causing myocarditis and pericarditis than the vaccine (as does influenza and the common cold). Multiple studies have demonstrated that the rate of cardiac inflammation is significantly higher in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 than in those who receive an mRNA vaccine. This raises the broader and often-misused question: is the cure worse than the disease? In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, especially during the early waves of the pandemic, the evidence strongly suggests that the benefits of vaccination far outweighed the risks - particularly in older or high-risk populations. That said, as data has evolved, so too should our assessment of risk-benefit balances in various demographics, particularly for young, healthy individuals - and the Dr mentioned this need for continued evaluation and study. Dr Redfield also raised concerns about the vaccine industry's accountability, arguing that manufacturers should not be immune from liability. I fully agree. There should be no double standard for public health products. If anything, there should be more transparency and oversight. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen with the processed food industry - whose products have contributed massively to obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease - corporate accountability and public health interests don’t always align. To summarise: as we are posting this is thread concentrated with Ant-vax sentiment... The expert you have referenced; Dr Redfield, holds a position which reflects a pro-vaccine stance with a measured, scientifically grounded critique of specific technologies and the systems around them. It's not vaccine scepticism - it’s vaccine scrutiny, and that distinction matters.... --------------- I'd like to address the issue of the blood-brain barrier - a term that, understandably, tends to provoke alarm. Much like the words myocarditis or pericarditis, it sounds severe and clinical, often triggering strong reactions among lay audiences. Yet, in reality, many of these conditions can be mild, transient, or even asymptomatic - common after viral infections such as the flu, and often passing unnoticed. So, back to the blood-brain barrier - just the phrase itself seems to send a chill down the spine. It evokes images of something sacred being breached, of a dangerous foreign agent invading the most protected part of the body. But what does the science actually say? Do mRNA vaccines cross the blood-brain barrier? Based on current research and scientific consensus, the risk of mRNA vaccines, or their components - crossing the blood-brain barrier (BBB) is extremely low. The BBB is a remarkably effective, selective barrier that shields the brain from pathogens, toxins, and large molecules, including synthetic mRNA. There is no robust evidence that either the mRNA in COVID-19 vaccines or the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) that deliver them routinely cross the BBB in humans at any clinically significant level. In animal studies, particularly in rodents and under high-dose or artificial conditions, researchers have detected tiny traces of LNPs in brain tissue. However, these findings are not representative of real-world vaccine doses or how the human body processes them. What about the spike protein? This is where some concern is often raised. In a small number of cases, circulating spike protein has been detected in plasma following vaccination (as discussed earlier), leading to questions about its potential impact on endothelial cells, including those in the brain's blood vessels. However, the spike protein levels observed post-vaccination are very low, transient, and no evidence has shown that they cause clinically meaningful neurological harm. Conversely, natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 results in much higher levels of spike protein, produced in a less controlled and more systemic fashion, and is far more likely to affect the brain. COVID-19 itself has been associated with well-documented neurological complications, including encephalitis, stroke, seizures, and prolonged cognitive issues - commonly referred to as brain fog. What are the known neurological side effects of mRNA vaccines? Rare events such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell’s palsy, or brief neurological symptoms have been reported post-vaccination. But the incidence is very low - typically fewer than 1 in 100,000 doses, and often equal to or lower than the risk posed by COVID-19 itself or even by other common vaccines. Thus: The notion that mRNA vaccines may cross the blood-brain barrier and cause harm makes for an emotive discussion, but the scientific evidence doesn’t support it strongly enough. If any components do cross, it appears to be in quantities so minute as to be biologically insignificant, with no proven link to serious neurological outcomes in the general population. What we do know is that COVID-19 poses a far greater neurological threat. The balance of evidence continues to support vaccination as the safer path, mRNA vaccines too, particularly during high transmission periods or in vulnerable populations. All of that said, I agree with your underlying sentiment and that of Dr Robert Redfield and firmly believe that there must be ongoing, open, and transparent investigation into these mechanisms. Public confidence is not built on blanket assurances, but on honesty, data, and the willingness to ask hard questions.

No... but this is a clear sign you are looking at the issue from a myopic perspective. As mentioned earlier: At a well known school in Bangkok, two girls had their faces photo shopped on a the naked bodies of young women... I've no idea how 'well' this was carried out as I never saw the photo's - however, the photos spread, damaged the reputations of the girls... Mud sticks whether its accurate or not. The boy was expelled, I think police charges were filed. The girls moved to a different school. What's mad to me is any 'adult' not understanding the harm such behavior can do. AI produces lifelike images now, and whether an image is genuine or not reputations can be damaged, harm can be caused, and ridicule is the intent... Imagine you had a 15 year old daughter and some cretin is using AI to super impose real photos of girls faces onto naked bodies and circulating them on social media - I don't know any father who wouldn't be in that school demanding heads to roll.

Only if it is shown that they caused harm. And you think posting a lifelike naked AI photo of a school child is not going to cause any harm ??? ... The damage to their mental well being can be devastating... plenty of harm caused. The little cretin bulling girls like this needs to be dealt with now...

Yes........ we already do with slander and libel...

I suspect there may be a few dyslexics on this forum with prostate issues keen to improve their urethral power...

I know because they are downvoting posts of mine that either state facts that are unpalatable to them, or are non-controversial. No, you cannot know who they are! While its impossible to be sure, we can 'guess based on the arrival in a thread of a person with whom past conflicts have existed, then a sudden 'thrash' of down-thumb emoji's appear... (*before it was the confused or laughing emoji).... So.. It is possible to guess who the down vote might be from once patters are established, but that can obviously be wrong - though a pattern is a pattern and its often a good indication. I see some people post perfectly sensible and helpful comments receiving 'thumb-down' emoji's its clear that response has nothing to do with their comment and everything to do with a personal conflict... I've seen the pattern in response to my comments once certain posters 'appear'... and I've seen it with other posters, when it becomes clear that someone has some childish agenda.... So.. you are right, we cannot know for sure who they (down voters) are, we can make an informed guess... IMO - it was far better when we could see who liked or disliked a post... at least to slowed down the dumb trolls hiding behind anonymity when hey are already anonymous - but then we'd just get the 'tit for tat' behaviour... and I see that already in someone 'arguing a post' not for its content, but just because a certain poster made a comment...

Possibly - but that would surely make the owner more furious - attempt to apologise... Thai's are not barbarians... when humility is shown they are very reasonable.

Drunk ???? Or as someone else wrote - pedal error. But, whatever the issue, walking away without interaction, apology, checking everyone is ok it completely despicable. So fortunate the child was unarmed - this could have so easily been another avoidable tragedy.... I think the nationality, foreigner or Thai is somewhat irrelevant - the behavior is simply subhuman - I accidents happen, I can't think of a valid reason to walk away and hide, unless under the influence of 'something'...

Yup - obviously travel outside of province without your passport is ill advised... However, I'll be very surprised IF in Bangkok, I turn up at a hospital I'm already registered at and they ask for my passport. This might be a localised Bangkok Pattaya Hospital policy required instigated with a degree of xenophobia, perhaps due to an increased incidence of foreigners 'bill dodging' ???? I still can't see that it has anything to do with immigration status - rather it purely about Patient Identification.

My response for now: I'm very interested in it and would like to read a lot more before I respond in detail (which wont be tonight as I'm heading out for dinner)... But, I'd like certainly like to dig a little deeper into this, learn more and be able to respond from an informed position. But... my initial take after a quick scan of the study: A small number of test subjects (84) from Saudi. Did the study report evidence of elevated spike protein production persisting a year or more after vaccination ?? (I didn't see that part). What I did is is that the persistent spike protein production is hypothesised as a contributing factor, it was not directly measured or proven in the study. The authors propose it as a possibility, alongside the well-established inflammatory properties of mRNA–lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), which are known to stimulate innate immune responses. This, the focus appears to be on cytokine levels rather than direct measurements of spike protein presence over time. As I read it (very briefly), the study highlights prolonged immune signalling post-vaccination and the potential for longer term immunity (further study required of course).

Bangkok Pattaya Hospital posted a couple weeks ago they won't be accepting their registration card anymore, needs to be passport Thats interesting.... Thought I wonder why, as its far outside of a hospitals remit to check for Immigration status ? So I wonder what this is for.... for residential hospital stays (and TM28 reporting) ??? ... and what happens if a tourist turns up with a broke leg ? - is the hospital going to turn the tourist away to go home and get their passport ? I suspect, this has more to do with simply 'proving ID' for billing purposes and mitigating flight risk.

I do have genuine respect for anyone capable of assimilating vast amounts of data and drawing accurate conclusions. However, from a medical standpoint, he remains unqualified, lacking the necessary training to make authoritative judgements in this field - particularly when he dismisses vaccines in favour of “terrain optimisation.” As I’ve pointed out, “terrain optimisation” (or terrain theory) holds validity but represents only a partial protective strategy - one that medical intervention can and should complement. Terrain theory does not negate virological science; rather, it enhances it. Our bodies can indeed combat illnesses, viruses, and diseases more effectively when our internal “terrain” is robust. Yet, the insistence that “nature alone holds all the answers” is fundamentally flawed and potentially deadly if people blindly rely on it to the exclusion of proven medical treatments.... ... thus when you write "Nature has the answers we seek" I think its idiotic - "Nature holds the key to some of the answers" for sure... not all of them... A truly effective approach combines maintaining bodily health with appropriate medical care. Neglecting one in favour of the other leads to imbalance: an exclusively medical approach risks fostering over-reliance on interventions and fuels anti-vaccine sentiment, while a solely “terrain-based” approach that rejects the benefits of medicine and vaccines can have fatal consequences. This seems to imply all Doctors are fraudulent and all researchers are honest - it a response loaded with bias and lacks a base intelligence worthy of responding to.... ... How about 'an honest Doctor carrying out honest research'... the issue, when the research they publish contradicts your rhetoric - you call them dishonest...

This happened previously at a well known International School in Bangkok. The 'boy' in question who has 'photoshopped' the face of two girls on a naked female image was dealt with severely, a brief investigation led to his immediate expulsion from the school.... ... IMO this is the ONLY correct way to handle such an issue, legal proceedings aside. Thai schools on the other hand seem more intent on protecting their reputation and engaging in a soft stance rather than dealing with such issues as harshly as they should.

Your alligator-elephant-rain analogy isn’t just absurd - it’s an insult to logic. It’s a textbook example of a false equivalence, where a completely fantastical, deliberately ridiculous claim is held up as somehow equivalent to an entire field of rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific research. You’re trying to discredit virology by comparing it to imaginary sky-beasts - which is not only logically bankrupt, it’s embarrassingly juvenile. If you think “I made up something silly, therefore science is silly too” is a valid line of reasoning, you’re not making an argument, you’re showcasing a spectacular failure to understand how evidence, expertise, and basic reasoning work. Analogies are meant to clarify ideas, not drag them into the intellectual gutter and beat them with the stupid stick.

Do you think you 'could' come across any evidence that makes you reconsider your take on vaccines, or would your bias automatically debunk and such information as fake, false, not reviewed, politically motivated, influenced by big-Pharma etc... i.e. Do you really believe that you could be open minded enough to accept that vaccines have saved lives, ever ?

Dr Daniel Roytas holds a Master’s in Human Nutrition. He is neither a medical doctor, virologist, nor practising clinician. Yet, curiously, he’s presented as some sort of authoritative voice on infectious disease - despite lacking any qualification remotely relevant to that field. I wonder if, when bitten by a rabid dog, he would refuse the rabies vaccine in favour of “terrain optimisation”, or reject antibiotics during a bout of bacterial meningitis - presumably trusting his internal environment to fend off pathogens he doesn’t seem to believe cause disease. There’s a critical difference between considering terrain theory as part of a broader understanding of health and misusing it to dismantle germ theory and, by extension, modern medicine. What you've done is take a potentially valuable insight - that internal health matters—and attempted to use it as a blunt instrument to reject virology wholesale. That’s not balance, that’s intellectual malpractice. For clarity: I’m not against exploring terrain theory. But to adopt it as the sole framework, while dismissing vaccines, antibiotics, and the entire field of virology, is not just unscientific - it’s recklessly foolish. I’ve ridiculed your anti-vax stance not because it’s radical, but because its just so flawed at a basic level. That said, I’ve given your comments on Dr Roytas and terrain theory due consideration, as you've managed to thread plausibility into an otherwise tangled mess of distortions and falsehoods.