SEA Aesthetic & Wellness, Pattaya
check pending
31index /100
M1 · Clinic licence 2 · 13%
UNVERIFIED The clinic does not publish a licence number; the licence is claimed but a MoPH registry match is pending (no access to the Thai registry as of the audit date). Claimed — registry check pending.
M2 · Doctor traceability 2 · 13%
UNVERIFIED A doctor is named — Dr Pom; but a Medical Council (checkmd) trace has not been done (no Thai IP and no full Thai name). A named doctor ranks above an unnamed branch, but there is no confirmation yet.
M3 · Service specificity 3 · 6%
UNVERIFIED An injectables and laser menu is stated, but without procedure-level specificity on protocols or indications.
M4 · Product disclosure 2 · 8%
SECONDARY Specific injectable product brands are not publicly disclosed; no authenticity policy is stated.
M5 · Device traceability 3 · 8%
UNVERIFIED Device procedures are mentioned but without specific device models or a safety-information mapping.
M6 · Price transparency 1 · 10%
SECONDARY No public price list — neither on the site nor in structured aggregators (GoWabi). Prices are not available for verification.
M7 · Russian-language path 2 · 6%
UNVERIFIED A Russian patient path is not confirmed, although the clinic sits in Na Kluea (a Russian-speaking area); no Russian coordinator or Russian-language page is stated.
M8 · Source readability 3 · 5%
SECONDARY The presence is indexed, but the public record is thinner than chain storefronts; reproducibility for re-audit is moderate.
M9 · Safety disclosure 3 · 7%
UNVERIFIED General procedure information is present; procedure-specific consent / contraindications are not publicly published.
E1 · Cleanliness of promises 2 · 12%
UNVERIFIED editorial — Promotion leans on before/after photos as proof plus superlative wording — an internal medical-advertising watch flag; no bright-line overclaim ("100% safe", guaranteed result) was found.
E2 · Consistency of facts 3 · 7%
UNVERIFIED editorial — The public record is internally consistent; no discrepancies between sources were found.
E3 · Reputation hygiene 2 · 5%
UNVERIFIED editorial — Before/after photos are used as proof of quality — we do not count them as a quality proxy; no public correction mechanism is stated.
A doctor is named (Dr Pom) — better than the anonymous storefronts, but the Medical Council check is not yet done and the licence is not matched in the MoPH registry. The clinic leans on before/after photos as proof, which we do not count, and there is no public price list at all (M6=1). On most axes it is claimed — registry check pending.
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.