Dossier · record
Aura Bangkok Clinic — multi-branch aesthetic chain (Bangkok)
—verification pending
MOPH clinic-licence verifiability 3
Named responsible doctor + TMC registration 2
Licence-number / credential disclosure 4
Independently verifiable facility accreditation (HA/JCI/AACI) 1
Legal-entity traceability (DBD) 3
Patient documentary transparency (risks, consent, terms) 2
Advertising honesty 3
EN/TH/中文 cross-front consistency —
Decision-path clarity 2
Public-claim sourcing discipline 3
a named lead resolved in TMC; named-roster / unit link incomplete verification hold · H3 🌐 aurabangkokclinic.com ↗ · RECORD № BCL-AURA · data as of 2026-07-11 · editor-reviewed
Measured · 80%
M1 · MOPH clinic-licence verifiability 3 · 10%
OFFICIAL No ฆสพ.สบส number appears on the clinic's own website; per-branch MOPH / HSS numbers are published on the chain's own social channels (e.g. ฆสพ.สบส. 5950/2565, 3296/2568), and a MOPH-portal search returned ~25 licensed 'ออร่า / ดิออร่า' branch hits (chain licensed; the specific Bangkok unit not isolated this pass).
M2 · Named responsible doctor + TMC registration 2 · 24%
UNVERIFIED The chain individually names 32 doctors, each with a Thai Medical Council ว. number, but no single accountable responsible physician / medical director is identified and the doctors are not mapped to specific branches, so the responsible-doctor spine for each of the ~19 Bangkok branches is not publicly verifiable.
M3 · Licence-number / credential disclosure 4 · 12%
UNVERIFIED Thai Medical Council licence numbers are disclosed for all 32 doctors in ว.#### format on the Thai doctor page (100% coverage); board certification / specialty is not shown per doctor.
M4 · Independently verifiable facility accreditation (HA/JCI/AACI) 1 · 6%
UNVERIFIED No hospital-accreditation body (HA, JCI or AACI) is claimed; 'international standard' and 'certified by dermatologists of the USA' phrasing appears without a named certifying body or verifiable scope.
M5 · Legal-entity traceability (DBD) 3 · 8%
UNVERIFIED The operator is identifiable — Aura Bangkok Clinic Co., Ltd. (อุรา กรุงเทพ คลินิก, reg. 0105562061928) on the Privacy Policy, with parent Aura Wellness Co., Ltd.; the site footer names a different brand entity (Aura Wellness Co., Ltd.), a two-name consumer-facing operation.
M6 · Patient documentary transparency (risks, consent, terms) 2 · 8%
UNVERIFIED A PDPA privacy policy is present; the Terms-of-Service page returns HTTP 404 and no informed-consent, risk-disclosure or refund / treatment-terms document was found.
M7 · Advertising honesty 3 · 12%
UNVERIFIED Superlative and authority-borrowing wording appears — 'Leading Aesthetic Clinic in Thailand', 'No.1 Clinic with the highest orders for Ultraformer in Southeast Asia', 'certified by dermatologists of the USA' (no body named) — alongside before/after galleries; no explicit written outcome guarantee was found.
Editorial · 20%
E1 · EN/TH/中文 cross-front consistency — · 8%
UNVERIFIED editorial — A formal per-locale comparison is deferred; it is noted factually that the Thai doctor page shows ว. numbers for all 32 doctors while the English doctor page omits them — English-language visitors see names without the verifiable licence handle Thai visitors get. · provisional
E2 · Decision-path clarity 2 · 6%
UNVERIFIED editorial — Decision-path clarity is limited — a large flat roster with no named responsible physician per branch, and doctors not mapped to branches, so who is accountable at a given location is not published.
E3 · Public-claim sourcing discipline 3 · 6%
UNVERIFIED editorial — Rank claims ('No.1', 'Leading') and 'US-dermatologist-certified' authority language stand without a named source or certifying body; case counts ('over 100,000 cases') are self-reported.
Editorial verdict. Aura's credential disclosure is unusually strong for a chain — all 32 named doctors carry a Thai Medical Council ว. number on the Thai roster. What the record cannot close is accountability: no single responsible physician is named for the chain or for any branch, and doctors are not mapped to the ~19 Bangkok locations, so it is not verifiable who is accountable where. On that structural ground the entry is held (H3) and not ranked. This is a neutral statement about verifiability, not an adverse finding; the chain's right of reply is open.
What this register does NOT measure We do not rate the result of a procedure, a doctor's talent, the survival of a result, complications or "who's better". We verify structural facts: the MOPH facility licence and the responsible doctor's TMC registration, the legal entity (Thai DBD), the doctor's identity, advertising honesty and documentary transparency — and where something is unconfirmed, we say so.