Bizarre claims
Re: "Side-effect blues", (PostBag, May 31) and "Phuket boy's blindness due to sinustisis, not Pfizer jab", (BP, May 10, 2022).
Once again the PostBag allows its regular "storytellers" to make nonsensical claims about Covid vaccines. Eric Bahrt is desperately keen to repeat Mr Setter's claim that "one in 13 people who got Covid vaccines have had severe side-effects", an absurdity with little basis in fact.
Then Mr Bahrt shows his desperation by "remembering" that he read an article about "a 12-year-old Thai boy who immediately lost consciousness after getting a Covid vaccine and is now blind. Yet according to his doctor, the boy's blindness was due to a nasal condition".
The article in question actually said: "The boy's sinuses were infected with Staphyloccocus aureus, which spread to his eyes, optic nerves and spinal cord, causing his blindness". This possible gruesome effect of "Staph Gold" is well documented in medical journals.
Furthermore, the boy did "lose consciousness after the vaccine" because he got his last dose on Nov 15, and was first reported sick with a staph infection two weeks later. Again, the progression of his infection is well documented.
It's little wonder the parents claimed "the vaccine did it" when the Post continues to publish these bizarre claims from our resident spinners of yarns, with no attempt made to point out that they are, in fact, just making stuff up.
Tarquin Chufflebottom
Heart of the problem
Re: "Lawyer group calls to screen lese majeste complaints", (BP, May 27).
The suggestion by the Lawyer's Association of Thailand for a panel to screen lese-majeste matters before they are pursued by the police and courts is to be commended. It is a constructive effort to protect the highest institution from the harm being done to it by zealots who abuse the law, Section 112 of the Criminal Code.
Their proposal does not, however, go to the heart of the problem. The best proposal is the sensible amendments proposed by the Move Forward Party. Under that proposal, the Bureau of the Royal Household should be able to decide when such a serious threat has been made.
Felix Qui
New news, please
I am disappointed in the Post's coverage since the election. It is, of course, important to highlight the horse-trading between the MFP and its potential coalition partners, as well as the wrangling over the position of House Speaker, but to me the constant rehashing of the same articles every day is tiresome.
For example, on Pita's shares -- there was a whole article on the front page dedicated to the court "maybe acting" on a decision. Is this news? Can we wait for a decision before writing a front page article?
Looking at today's online front page, all four of the first articles you can find are negative about MFP's chances of forming a coalition.
Can you take a break from this? Give us some breathing space, please.
John Stubbs
