kwilco

Of course Trump would never engage in language that informal.

...and who do you think they represent?????? Do you jot u derstand how the "laws" not the electorate are used to change a government in Thailand....and if that fails they use the barrel of a gun. Always the same people, though.

You are using cynicism to cover your ignorance

So trying to sort out the border problems the (suspended) PM insults the military. THe military run thr constitutional court which then suspends the PM amid a background of talk about a military coup. THis cycle of "fake" litigation and suspension of politicians is the Thai way of running a country - it is not democratic, it is at the will of the military and needs to be stopped so the country can get on with becoming a democracy.

what was teargument about? Why was she being so violent - what was she saying to the other men who got involved.

oh dear! so you make a disnctilon? - do you bleieve in atoms and molecules? - BTW - The first evidence of the existence of viruses came from experiments with filters that had pores small enough to retain bacteria. In 1892, Dmitri Ivanovsky used one of these filters to show that sap from a diseased tobacco plant remained infectious to healthy tobacco plants despite having been filtered

so no research at all then? Where do you get your "evidence" or are you too ashamed to say?

yes and rs - do you seriously think only you are privy to that?

Thanks for the re-post - it's all a bit too much for you, isn't it? where do you get your information from?

Conspiracy theorists love to think they’re doing research, but all they’re doing is digging deeper into ignorance. It’s not truth-seeking — it’s fan fiction with a medical theme. I think it’s genuinely sad how much time some people spend spinning conspiracies when that same energy could be used to actually understand the science. But I guess it’s easier to yell 'Big Pharma' than read a clinical trial." So here's a reality check from science ... It's healthy to be sceptical. It's essential to hold institutions accountable. But it’s also crucial that scepticism doesn’t slide into pseudoscience. The post above makes sweeping claims about PCR tests, antiviral treatments, and COVID-19 response, while invoking classic tropes of the "Big Pharma" conspiracy. So let’s take a breath, bring some scientific rigour to the table, and unpick the core claims with the help of actual evidence—not viral Substack posts or random X threads. PCR Tests Are Not “Discredited” Let’s start with the PCR test. Contrary to what's claimed here, PCR (polymerase chain reaction) remains one of the most accurate and sensitive methods for detecting viral RNA. Yes, it’s true that cycle threshold (Ct) values matter—and labs have refined protocols over time to improve accuracy—but the idea that “95–99% are false positives” is simply false. That statistic doesn’t exist in any credible epidemiological literature. PCR’s sensitivity means it can detect low viral loads—important for early detection, especially in vulnerable populations. Are there limitations? Of course. But that’s true of every medical test. That’s why PCR is often combined with clinical symptoms, contact tracing, and other data in public health decision-making. Ben Goldacre—whose work Bad Science and Bad Pharma rightly criticises data manipulation—would call out misuse of statistics. But he would also call out cherry-picking and the spread of scientifically illiterate paranoia masquerading as critical thinking. Ramdev Sivir and the “Toxic Antiviral” Myth Next, remdesivir. It’s no silver bullet. But neither is it a cartoon villain. Clinical trials like the ACTT-1 trial (published in NEJM) found that it reduced recovery time in hospitalized patients. Other studies found mixed or modest benefits—but calling it "toxic" based on misapplied data from Ebola trials is disingenuous. Drugs are authorised under emergency use when risks of inaction are higher than risks of use. That’s how medicine works in real time during a pandemic. If better treatments emerge, protocols change. That’s not conspiracy—that’s adaptive evidence-based practice. Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin and the “Suppressed Cure” Fallacy This narrative has been debunked countless times. Large-scale randomised controlled trials—including the WHO’s Solidarity Trial and the UK’s RECOVERY Trial—found that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin offer no meaningful benefit for COVID-19 patients and can carry risks, especially in unsupervised use. If vitamin D and zinc were enough to treat severe viral respiratory illness, we’d have a very different medical history. Supplementing deficiencies is helpful—but replacing antivirals with multivitamins in ICU patients is not medicine. It’s magical thinking. Why the “Big Pharma = Evil” Argument Fails Here’s where Goldacre comes in. In Bad Pharma, he exposes real problems: lack of data transparency, ghost-writing, and selective reporting. But even he warned that if critics abandon evidence and run on emotion, they become as untrustworthy as the worst industry offenders. Criticising pharmaceutical practices is necessary. Replacing that criticism with online rage, false statistics, and science denial is worse—it undermines trust in medicine, harms public health, and fuels dangerous movements that cost real lives. Science Is Messy, But It’s Not a Conspiracy COVID-19 was a global emergency. Mistakes were made. But they weren’t the product of some evil cabal—they were often the result of uncertainty, time pressure, and an evolving evidence base. Science learns. Conspiracy theories don't. If we care about truth, let’s do better than posts like this. Let’s demand transparency, yes—but also uphold scientific literacy, humility, and responsibility in the way we talk about health. multivitamins in ICU patients is not medicine. It’s magical thinking. Why the “Big Pharma = Evil” Argument Fails Here’s where Goldacre comes in. In Bad Pharma, he exposes real problems: lack of data transparency, ghost-writing, and selective reporting. But even he warned that if critics abandon evidence and run on emotion, they become as untrustworthy as the worst industry offenders. Criticising pharmaceutical practices is necessary. Replacing that criticism with online rage, false statistics, and science denial is worse—it undermines trust in medicine, harms public health, and fuels dangerous movements that cost real lives. Science Is Messy, But It’s Not a Conspiracy COVID-19 was a global emergency. Mistakes were made. But they weren’t the product of some evil cabal—they were often the result of uncertainty, time pressure, and an evolving evidence base. Science learns. Conspiracy theories don't. If we care about truth, let’s do better than posts like this. Let’s demand transparency, yes—but also uphold scientific literacy, humility, and responsibility in the way we talk about health.

It used to be very easy - I don't think anything has changed - I used to cross every month - It took me about half an hour to get from Mukdahan to Savannakhet. Obviously you need the right docs. THe cars can't be on finance and you must have the purple book car passport

3 lines of total fantasy

from the moment they "legalised" it, it has been a legislaytive and bureaucratic mess - those for didn't prepare the legislation properly and those against are a bunch of hopeless bigots just trying to put people in prison because they don't like it.

What a lovely cliche!!

I base my conclusions on scientific evidence and critical thinking - Your kind of comment — trying to rank vehicles in some imagined "road hierarchy" with Thai truck drivers at the top — is really just personal perception dressed up as fact. It's “fake news”; it’s speculative at best and says more about the poster’s own discomfort on Thai roads than it does about actual road dynamics. Blaming one type of vehicle, whether it’s trucks, buses, or motorbikes, often reflects the fact that some drivers never fully adapt to Thailand’s road culture — even after years of living here. Thai driving isn’t necessarily wrong — it’s different, and it requires different instincts, expectations, and reactions. But let’s not lose focus. This thread is about pedestrian safety, not four-wheeled vehicles, not motorcycles, and not truck drivers. In traffic engineering terms, the global aim — Thailand included — is to separate pedestrians from motor vehicles as much as possible. That means safe sidewalks, proper crossings, barriers, footbridges, and clear signalling. The real failure in Thailand lies not with specific drivers, but with how poorly the road system is designed to protect pedestrians. In many areas, there are no pavements, no working crossings, and no meaningful enforcement of pedestrian rights. So while people argue about who’s the worst on the road, the bigger issue — and the more fixable one — is road design and urban planning that consistently overlooks pedestrian safety.

these are the result of poor road design and conception - and if you have limited mobility they are an insult.

I've been driving on Thai roads since 1998 and in the 20 odd years I lived here I covered well over half a million km. I have a good knowledge of road stats for Thailand and more importantly their sources and how to interpret them. No need to teach you grandmother to suck eggs!

it doesn't clear up yours though can you repost with ALL the headings or at least the source address.?

...and you have the figures to support that? I think the evidence from your post suggests you know nothing about road safety.

I see nothing in the OP to suggest a "spike" - I just think those in power have never bothered to read the figure before.

how silly! No headers on the columns - if you think you can prove something with a graph, at least put the information on it!!!

Passive smoking is already covered by the law.

Comes from idiot comments like yours...your perspective is just someone looking around to justify their own ridiculous prejudices.... if you want to find a drug that interfere with work performance etc just look at alcohol and see what it's done to your own ability to think.

Who's a pretty boy, then?

THat is just the lowest form of evidence and you seem to think it's valid!?!?!!?