kwilco

4 hours ago, thesetat said:

Wrong.... initially the soldier she insulted said it was ok and he would not press the issue. This happening now is not the soldier but instead her own Senate government. 

...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.

10 hours ago, JoePai said:

asserting that the call was made solely in the nation’s her father's best interest.

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.

11 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Nature has so much to offer.

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

9 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Thanks Sir. No problem.

 

First I look for evidence that the things that are commonly thought to be true actually are. 

 

For instance; "Coughs and sneezes spread diseases." That old chestnut. Turns out that they don't.

 

Where is the elusive virus? Not ever seen the evidence that shows they are real.

 

Vaccines: The immune system: Big Pharms medications: White-coat procedures: I've researched them all.

 

www.CanYouCatchaCold.com

 

Nature has the answers we seek.

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

7 hours ago, JimHuaHin said:

Again?

 

Did Big Pharma ever stop pushing dangerous meds?

 

Do you know the potential drug or food interactions of all the meds you are taking?

 

Do you know the potential side-effects of the meds you are taking?  Do your doctors inform you of these side-effects?

 

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

8 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

So many words. Some true. But most not so.

 

I think you actually believe there was a pandemic. The pandemic was driven by the PCR test.

 

I think you actually believe there was/is a virus called covid-19. Where's the evidence? Don't other looking; there is none.

 

You are easily fooled Sir. Turn off the Tele.

 

Nature has the answers we seek.

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

On 6/26/2025 at 11:25 AM, DonniePeverley said:

 

 

Easily upset? 

 

I don't want to inhale marijuana smoke. No sane person who isn't smoking that stuff would want to either.

 

I tell you what next time i see you i'll just cough in your face, we will see how easily offended you are. 

 

The marijuana laws have attracted Bendirom Magaluf types Brits, from council estates. Anything to stop them is welcome in my opinion. 

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.

4 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

happily married to a Thai I first met in 2012 who never worked in a bar and does not have any kids. 

What a lovely cliche!!

3 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

WAW.  I have been driving on Thailand highways since 2010 mate - you are the one without a clue. You base your info on road stats??

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.

7 hours ago, Humpy said:

Perhaps some more 100+ step foot-bridges would be in order, like these in Mahasarakham !!. I have yet to see anyone using them. Perish the thought of climbing those steps carrying shopping bags on a wet day !  

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

3 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

WAW.  I have been driving on Thailand highways since 2010 mate - you are the one without a clue. You base your info on road stats??

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!

6 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

The 1st column after the dates are UK pedestrian fatalities 

 

Which are roughly about 100 a year less than Thailand.

 

Does that make Thailands figures pretty good for a developing Nation

 

Or does it make the UK's figures absolutely shocking for a so called developed Nation.

 

Hope that clears up your confusion

 

 

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

36 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

BS - at the top are Thai Trucks Drivers - especially on the highways. 

...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.

20 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Pretty good numbers for Thailand

 

UK Figures

 

2016	448	6,507	16,595	23,550	12.63
2017	470	6,497	16,838	23,805	13.20
2018	456	6,662	15,314	22,432	13.50
2019	470	6,421	14,879	21,770	13.24
2020	346	4,318	10,086	14,750	14.24
2021	361	4,967	11,326	16,654	13.68
2022	385	5,889	13,053	19,327	14.52
2023	405

 

 

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

1 hour ago, DonniePeverley said:

I don't want to inhale marijuana smoke. No sane person who isn't smoking that stuff would want to either.

Passive smoking is already covered by the law.

1 hour ago, flaming dragon said:

 

Like 'safe and effective' and 'two weeks to flatten the curve'?  Where's my 'winter of death' that Joe Biden promised us?  Plenty of people are dropping like flies from aggressive forms of cancer. Guess what they have in common.  They believe what the government and media tells them.

 

  Why is it only now that US food manufacturers are removing toxic artificial colouring from their products?  It isn't because you believers suddenly developed a healthy sense of skepticism when the 'facts' are being dispensed by your betters. 

Who's a pretty boy, then?

4 hours ago, atpeace said:

I also know from personal experience that I am substantially less productive while smoking.

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

On 6/24/2025 at 5:34 AM, webfact said:

Somsak clarified that the current measures are not politically motivated but address ongoing public concerns.

nonsense - this is pure poilitics and prejudice - they've now got to squeeze the touthpaste

On 6/24/2025 at 7:36 AM, atpeace said:

Agreed but weed kills motivation and is not beneficial in most business/employment situations

Utter nonsense - the thing is how do you tell??? - I know several very motivated and wealthy people who smoke every day - the thing is the only way you can say that is pure comjecture and confirmation bias - do you expect a millionaire to stand in front of you light up a joint and the "still motivated"???