Good Doctor Beauty Clinic, Pattaya
check pending
27index /100
M1 · Clinic licence 2 · 13%
UNVERIFIED A licence is claimed but there is no verifiable number. A name search in the MoPH registry matched a different facility in Nakhon Sawan province — not Chonburi; a registry match needs the exact Thai name. For now: claimed, registry check pending.
M2 · Doctor traceability 1 · 13%
SECONDARY The doctor is named neither in public sources nor in the captured aggregators; a Medical Council (checkmd) check is impossible without a name. A missing public name means untraceability, not an accusation.
M3 · Service specificity 3 · 6%
SECONDARY A medical-aesthetics menu (injectables, skincare procedures) is stated, but without procedure specificity; the provider site did not open, so part of the picture was reconstructed from the index.
M4 · Product disclosure 3 · 8%
SECONDARY Injectable products are mentioned, but specific brands and an authenticity policy are not publicly disclosed to the extent available without the provider site.
M5 · Device traceability 1 · 8%
SECONDARY No public disclosure of device models or a safety mapping was found — neither on the available pages nor in aggregators and the index. (The provider site was unavailable at capture.)
M6 · Price transparency 3 · 10%
SECONDARY Promo price fragments for injectables are published; there is no full published price list.
M7 · Russian-language path 2 · 6%
SECONDARY A Russian patient path is not confirmed: no Russian-language page or coordinator is stated.
M8 · Source readability 2 · 5%
SECONDARY Legibility is reduced: the provider site returned ECONNREFUSED and did not open to the crawler; the source was reconstructed only from the index and aggregators, and re-audit requires a manual re-fetch.
M9 · Safety disclosure 1 · 7%
SECONDARY No public disclosure of consent, contraindications, or aftercare was found — neither on the available pages nor in aggregators and the index.
E1 · Cleanliness of promises 2 · 12%
UNVERIFIED editorial — Injectable promos are aggressive (discount campaigns) — the clinic is on our internal medical-advertising watch list. No bright-line overclaim ("100% safe", guaranteed result) was found.
E2 · Consistency of facts 3 · 7%
UNVERIFIED editorial — The captured public record is internally non-contradictory; part of the picture is incomplete due to the unreachable provider site.
E3 · Reputation hygiene 3 · 5%
UNVERIFIED editorial — Reviews exist but are not counted as a quality proxy; no public correction mechanism is stated.
The provider site did not open to our crawler (ECONNREFUSED), so this entry is assembled from the index and aggregators — some of the record awaits a manual re-fetch. A licence is claimed, but a name search in the registry matched a different facility in another province: claimed, registry check pending. The doctor is unnamed (M2), and device (M5) and safety (M9) disclosure is essentially empty. Injectable promos are aggressive — an internal medical-advertising watch, not a public red flag.
Clinic licensed: caveat
Doctor traceable: caveat
In register scope: yes
Clinic operating: yes
What this register does NOT measure We do not rate procedure outcomes, a doctor's skill, complications or "who's better". We verify structural facts: the licence, the doctor, the products, the prices, the Russian-language path, safety disclosure — and where something is unconfirmed, we say so.