TallGuyJohninBKK

The IAT method is pretty much meaningless to the average U.S. bank or FI customer, since no U.S. consumer bank / CU or even brokerage that I'm aware of offers IAT-compliant ACH transfers to its consumer banking customers. Some U.S. government agencies, on the other hand, can and do send their own outbound payments to recipients in IAT compliant format. But that doesn't help you or I wanting to send our own money. The U.S. FIs still do, on the other hand, offer regular non-IAT compliant ACH transfers commonly used for domestic U.S. fund transfers -- but as noted above, those have been a NO GO for BKKB NY transfers to Thailand for some years now.

The last time I checked with BKKB, the original method of doing domestic ACH transfers from a U.S. bank account to the BKKB NY Branch and then onward to BKK TH NO LONGER functions. However, what WAS still functioning last time I checked was the ability to send a DOMESTIC wire transfer from your US financial account to BKKB NY and then onward to BKKB TH. When you send the domestic wire, you use the routing number for the BKKB NY branch and then the account number for your recipient BKKB TH account. BKKB NY and BKKB TH both charge some relatively small fees for handling the transaction. There's also the fee by your US FI for sending a domestic wire, which can vary greatly by institution. But these days, a lot of FI's offer some number of free domestic wires or very low cost domestic wires.... whereas intl wires tend to be much more expensive. A person still could do a international wire direct from their U.S. FI to their BKKB TH account, But the intl wire fee from the U.S. FI is likely to be a whole lot more expensive than the alternative of doing a domestic wire to BKKB NY and then onward to BKKB TH. And a lot of U.S. FI's, especially retail banks, don't make it especially easy to send intl wires when you're not there in person and want to do it only online. BKKB NY in the past has been reachable by phone at their office there. So anyone needing to pursue this would be best to contact them and confirm what's currently available in terms of the details of routing of funds from NY to TH.

The OP report could have been a lot clearer of just what is -- and apparently is NOT -- going on with the abovementioned change. What's not said in the above excerpt re the Wealthy Global Citizens category of LTR visa eligibility is that apart from the now eliminated requirement for $80K USD in annual income, the visa still DOES require a minimum investment of various kinds in Thailand of at least $500K USD -- which is hardly walking around money for most folks. That's a pretty important detail to omit. Meanwhile, there is another different LTR visa category for so-called Wealthy Pensioners age 50 and above. It too currently has an $80K USD annual income requirement, with no mandatory lump sum investment required. But the removal of the income requirement cited in the OP apparently does NOT pertain to the Wealthy Pensioners category, so it appears that the $80K income requirement still applies for that group. And that means no matter how much money a retiree person might have sitting in their investment / retirement / other accounts, unless they're willing to draw down at least $80,000 of it per year in annual income as shown on their annual tax returns (regardless of whether they actually need that much to live here), the Wealthy Pensioner visa likely isn't going to work for them. Although for the Wealthy Pensioners category, there apparently still remains a different workaround whereby you can get by with only $40K to $80K USD in annual income, IF you're able to also pony up at least a $250K investment in Thailand (in such areas as Thai government bonds, foreign direct investment, Thai real estate, or any combination of those. Again, a $250K cash investment in Thailand isn't something many pensioners are likely going to entertain, IMHO. So all in all, the removal of the annual income requirement for the Wealthy Global Citizens category only -- where a $500K USD investment in Thailand is still required -- strikes me as a whole lot less than it might seem on the surface.

The only "exemplary performance" that Hulscher has experienced is having one of the papers he co-authored discredited as flawed and inaccurate, and the other flatly withdrawn by the established journal where it was originally published. Does anyone give out awards for that kind of performance?

Hulscher is another discredited COVID anti-vax quack with a history of spreading documented COVID misinformation, who now appears to be working for a foundation headed by another prolific anti-vax misinfo peddler, Peter McCullough, as shown below. Example #1 re "flawed study" co-authored by Hulscher: ... An article published by the website The Blaze in late January 2024 claimed that a study published in the journal Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety showed the risk of COVID-19 vaccination outweighed its benefits. ... The study in Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety was authored by computational biologist Jessica Rose, masters student Nicolas Hulscher, and cardiologist Peter McCullough. Both Rose and McCullough have previously spread vaccine misinformation. Hulscher, according to his LinkedIn profile, is a masters student in epidemiology at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor. Notably, Hulscher and McCullough co-authored a preprint that claimed 76% of deaths in vaccinated people were due to COVID-19 vaccines. Health Feedback covered the preprint’s questionable methods and conclusions here. [emphasis added] https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/claim-myocarditis-covid-vaccines-carries-serious-risk-death-flawed-study/ Hulscher's current LinkedIn profile says he's working now, not surprisingly, for a foundation founded by McCullough: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicolas-hulscher-mph-3683b1274_how-and-why-do-certain-injectable-products-activity-7262860978151673856-PjqD Example #2 re bogus study co-authored by Hulscher that was withdrawn by the original journal where it was published: Hulscher, McCullough and several others in their anti-vax misinfo peddling clan also collaborated on a bogus research paper claiming they did a review of published research reports on sudden death autopsies and found many of them were caused by COVID vaccines. Unfortunately for the authors, those determinations that THEY made contradicted what many of the actual studies they reviewed found, which was for the most part that COVID vaccines were NOT to blame. That and other problems with their paper led to the journal where it was published ultimately withdrawing the paper, as shown below: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073824001968?via%3Dihub The following fact check report details the travails of Hulscher and McCullough's bogus journal article, including the following: "As others have pointed out before, there’s reason to suspect that the authors may have been biased in their determinations. All three adjudicators, including Dr. Peter McCullough, are well known for spreading COVID-19 misinformation. Dr. William Makis, a Canadian radiologist, has previously claimed, without evidence, that 80 Canadian doctors died from COVID-19 vaccines. The only pathologist, Dr. Roger Hodkinson, incorrectly claimed in 2020 that COVID-19 was a “hoax” and “just a bad flu.” Hodkinson and McCullough, along with five other authors, are also affiliated with and have a financial interest in The Wellness Company, a supplement and telehealth company that sells unproven treatments, including for purported protection against vaccines. [emphasis added] Perhaps most tellingly, the scientists who conducted many of the autopsy studies came to opposite conclusions than the review authors. Of the 240 cases, for example, 105 come from a single paper in Colombia, whose authors found “[n]o relation between the cause of death and vaccination.” Similarly, the review authors counted 24 of 28 autopsies from a study from Singapore as vaccine-related, even though the original authors identified “no definite causative relationship” to mRNA vaccines." https://www.factcheck.org/2024/07/flawed-autopsy-review-revives-unsupported-claims-of-covid-19-vaccine-harm-censorship/ Then last November, the anti-vax group of authors managed to get the paper published again in a different online journal headed and overseen by various anti-vaxers, including McCullough. As the above fact check recounts: "Update, Nov. 19: On Nov. 17, the autopsy review that sparked these initial claims and that was later withdrawn from its journal was republished online, renewing claims of censorship and the incorrect idea that the COVID-19 vaccines “are causing large numbers of deaths.” The republication outlet, Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, says it is a peer-reviewed journal, but it is not indexed on PubMed. The editor-in-chief is James Lyons-Weiler, a well–known spreader of vaccine misinformation. Other board members, including one author of the republished paper [McCullough], are also known spreaders of vaccine misinformation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lyons-Weiler#Controversies

I prefer to look at these kinds of COVID vaccine effects: What are the implications for public health practice? Adults aged ≥65 years should receive 2 doses of 2024–2025 COVID-19 vaccine, and persons aged ≥6 months with moderate or severe immunocompromise should receive ≥2 doses to protect against severe COVID-19. Vaccine Effectiveness "The 2023–2024 COVID-19 vaccines provided approximately 50% (95% CI = 44%–55%) additional protection [emphasis added, meaning beyond prior infection and prior vaccine protections] against hospitalization initially and then waned to negligible additional protection by approximately 4–6 months after receipt of a 2023–2024 COVID-19 vaccine dose. Protection lasted longer against critical illness (i.e., intensive care unit admission and death). VE against critical illness started at 67% (95% CI = 55%–75%) and decreased to 40% (95% CI = 16%–58%) 4–6 months after the dose, with point estimates indicating additional waning of VE by 6–10 months after the dose (10)." Safety ACIP reviewed CDC data on COVID-19 vaccine safety with a focus on doses administered after the initial vaccination series. Robust safety surveillance of COVID-19 vaccines has demonstrated that serious adverse events are rare [emphasis added]: anaphylactic reactions have been rarely reported after receipt of COVID-19 vaccines (12), and a rare risk for myocarditis and pericarditis has been observed after COVID-19 vaccination, predominantly among males aged 12–39 years (13). No increased risk for myocarditis or pericarditis was observed in adults aged ≥65 years after COVID-19 vaccination (13); whether the risk might be different in persons with immunocompromise is unknown." U.S. CDC December 12, 2024 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7349a2.htm

Pretty ironic questioning Dr. Al-Ay's expertise and credentials relating to COVID, considering the assortment of documented loonies and quacks that regularly get posted into this subforum by a familiar cast of anti-vax characters. "Ziyad Al-Aly is an American physician and clinical epidemiologist who is currently Director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center and Chief of the Research and Development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.[1][2][3] He is also a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.[2] He has led multiple studies on long covid and its sequelae. ... Al-Aly holds a medical degree from the American University of Beirut.[6] He completed his post-graduate medical education at Saint Louis University and Washington University in St. Louis. ... Al-Aly's research work has been cited more than a 140,000 times and he has an h-index of more than 90 according to Google Scholar.[7] Al-Aly was featured on Clarivate (Web of Science) list of highly cited researchers in 2024; the list recognizes researchers with significant influence, top 1% cited papers, and broad community recognition. ... Al-Aly led work which provided the first systematic characterization of the post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.[8] He subsequently led work which characterized the increased risks of cardiovascular disease,[9] neurologic disorders,[10] mental health disorders,[11] gastrointestinal disorders,[12] diabetes,[13] dyslipidemia,[14] and kidney disease[15] following SARS-CoV-2 infection. His lab also produced evidence characterizing the effects of COVID-19 vaccines on long COVID[16] and the health consequences of repeated infections with SARS-CoV-2.[17] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziyad_Al-Aly

Now a resurrected post from the OP of yet another junk write-up from junk sources like the one here relating to COVID vaccines... Lioness of Judah Ministry, End Times headline news??? Really??? That's your source for a write--up on COVID vaccines? Presumably the Naomi Wolf referred to in the article (who's not any kind of medical doctor despite the OP's use of the title "Dr.") is the same one referenced below:: "Naomi Rebekah Wolf (born 1962) is an American feminist author, journalist, and conspiracy theorist. ... During the COVID-19 pandemic, Wolf has frequently promoted COVID-19 misinformation, misinformation related to vaccination and 5G conspiracy theories.[142][143][144] [emphasis added] ... Wolf has frequently shared conspiracy theories concerning the safety and efficacy of vaccines against COVID-19.[151] In April 2021, she was instrumental in amplifying and spreading myths that the vaccines cause female infertility.[152] Wolf's conspiratorial and anti-vaccine stance has been criticized as irresponsible, and she has also been the subject of ridicule.[153] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wolf And further from Australian Associated Press fact checking, re the absurd claims in the OP: Vaccine sceptics continue to push misinformation that COVID-19 jabs cause infertility despite no scientific evidence showing it to be true. Experts told AAP FactCheck there was no evidence COVID vaccines affected fertility, miscarriages or long-term semen quality. ... Among those who still claim a link between COVID vaccines and infertility is Naomi Wolf, a US author with a history of promoting vaccine misinformation, as seen here, here and here. ... She said vaccine trial documents published by Pfizer showed the company had “a highly intentional focus on and premeditated designation of the materials to sterilise the next generation” (video mark 22min 15sec). ... None of the claims are backed by scientific evidence." [emphasis added] https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/vaccine-link-to-infertility-barren-of-any-evidence/ More quackery nonsense from a noted conspiracy theorist whose claims have repeatedly been shown to be false and unsupported by any credible evidence. Many more examples of the same as shown below: https://toolbox.google.com/factcheck/explorer/search/Naomi Wolf;hl=en;cropx0=0;cropx1=1;cropy0=0;cropy1=1

No, quacks are quacks, which by my definition simply means: people who have repeatedly spread false and misleading information that has been proven to be false and misleading by multiple, credible sources. Has nothing to do with whether they say good or bad things about anything. Maybe you'll settle for the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Policy and Research, and its director, Dr. Michael Osterholm: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/michael-t-osterholm-phd-mph "From 2001 through early 2005, Dr. Osterholm, in addition to his role at CIDRAP, served as a Special Advisor to then–HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson on issues related to bioterrorism and public health preparedness. He was also appointed to the Secretary's Advisory Council on Public Health Preparedness. On April 1, 2002, Dr. Osterholm was appointed by Thompson to be his representative on the interim management team to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). With the appointment of Dr. Julie Gerberding as director of the CDC on July 3, 2002, Dr. Osterholm was asked by Thompson to assist Dr. Gerberding on his behalf during the transition period. He filled that role through January 2003. Previously, Dr. Osterholm served for 24 years (1975-1999) in various roles at the Minnesota Department of Health, the last 15 as state epidemiologist. He has led numerous investigations of outbreaks of international importance, including foodborne diseases, the association of tampons and toxic shock syndrome, and hepatitis B and HIV in healthcare settings." ... "He is a frequent consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Defense, and the CDC. He is a fellow of the American College of Epidemiology and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)." And he did a recent podcast where he addressed what it means when doctors and other public health professionals refer to vaccines as being "safe and effective", as follows in an excerpt limited in length by forum quoting rules... but the full exchange is posted in transcript form here: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/episode-173-what-safe-and-effective Dr. Osterholm: "Let me start by saying I want to be clear that a vaccine being safe and effective does not mean that it is entirely without some risk to the person receiving the vaccines. Vaccines are widely accepted as safe can still cause very rare complications. It is essential that we properly communicate this to the public in order to reestablish trust in public health, we need to be transparent about these risks while also assuring that the general public understands that the risks that occur due to infection are much greater. [emphasis added] Let me give you an example. If we look at the MMR [measles, mumps, rubella] vaccine, it's one that's often cited as potentially a risk to individuals. One possible complication associated with the measles vaccine is a condition called immune thrombocytopenic purpura, ITP. This is a disorder that decreases the body's ability to stop bleeding. Studies have found that in the six weeks following vaccination, the incidence of ITP is about 1 in 40,000 children. In fact, the risk of ITP is 13.2 times higher after measles infection. So yes, it can occur among a vaccine. However, the risk of your child having ITP is so, so much higher with the disease itself. ... And so, I want to just point out to you that when we talk about safe, we're not trying to hide the potential impact that a vaccine can have. But it is very, very rare." ... I think this discussion right now is really healthy about vaccine safety, but please do not be confused by what you're hearing out of the likes of RFK Jr. and his colleagues there. They're talking about extremely, extremely exaggerated risk with Vaccines without any consideration of the benefits. And that discussion is not helpful. It's scary, and it's going to be responsible for kids not getting vaccinated and eventually kids getting infected with vaccine preventable diseases and dying."

IMHO, there should be a local law enacted here that any "service charges" like the typical 10% rate added by many restaurants must be given to restaurant staff as their share of tip income. Other than that, if restaurants don't think they're garnering enough revenue from their regular posted menu prices, then they should change their posted menu prices. At least for Westerners, I believe, most of us who see the 10% service charge on restaurant bills ASSUME that money is going to a pooled tips fund for employees. Unfortunately, sometimes that's true, and sometimes it isn't. And you'll never really know unless you specifically ask -- which the customer shouldn't have to do.

Somehow very fitting that a lot of the nonsense COVID anti-vax threads posted here are sharing space with discussions about whether the Earth is flat or round, and about whether the religiously purported "Virgin Birth" really was... 🙂

Interesting that in comparison, the Philippines has a pair of local chain retailers there that expats there seem to like a lot and consider comparable to Costco -- the S&R and Landers Superstore chains. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26R_Membership_Shopping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landers_Superstore

I think the short-timer post above is nonsense. Costco in the U.S. serves a good purpose, is very popular among consumers, and provides access to a lot of quality and popular products, as well as discounted options for consumer necessities like pharmacy, optometry and even gasoline retailing. People pay the required annual fee for Costco membership because they judge it worth the value shopping there provides. "As of 2021, Costco is the third-largest retailer in the world.[6] As of August 2024, Costco is the world's largest retailer of beef, poultry, organic produce, and wine, and just under one-third of American consumers regularly shop at Costco warehouses.[7] Costco is ranked #11 on the Fortune 500 rankings of the largest United States corporations by total revenue." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costco Makro here in Thailand is a pale imitation of the values provided by Costco in the U.S.

"Luxury" seeking tourists, according to the OP, spend about $2,000 USD per trip... That's considered luxury by the TAT??? No wonder they (the TAT) are perpetually lost in their ever changing machinations. Last time I heard from them, I think they were talking about focusing on tourists from "luxury" havens like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan!!!

Interesting thread that I'm just catching today for the first time. Look forward to further posts. FWIW, I follow a couple of YT channels run by locals (not expats) there in Yangon... They're careful to avoid any overt political commentary. But a couple things did seem to shine thru regularly. 1. The ongoing and persistent extent of the power outages seems a real ongoing issue, as is the widespread use (at least by mainstream businesses) of diesel generators so they can remain in business when the power goes out. 2. Repeated comments from the locals about how it's "not safe" to go out at night, but no real elaboration of what they mean by that. Not sure if they mean not being out after curfew, or simply not safe because of other reasons, police, military, crime, not sure. At least in Yangon, any semblance of Western foreign tourism seems to be largely erased.