Hey guys, it's hotmedpro. I'm reading all of your posts and I'm kind of laughing. I will go over all of your concerns since you guys think you know it all. One, yes I did just finish my doctorate in Pharmacy. My graduation ceremony was supposed to be in May but it's cancelled (yes I'm annoyed by that but I'm interviewing for MD programs so I'm finding solace in the fact that ill have that graduation ceremony when i finish med school) Two, the WHO says there's no evidence that antibodies provide immunity from reinfection but it doesn't say that there's evidence showing it doesn't. Many countries are contemplating providing immunity cards, and the WHO is being overly cautious. At this point right now, the virus is mutating slower than the seasonal flu which is great especially for vaccines and for antibody immunity. Antibodies are made specifically for a virus, like a lock and key. But when a virus mutates, the key (antibody) doesn't fit in the lock (virus) anymore. That is one of the reasons why creating a vaccine for HIV has been impossible to do; It mutates too rapidly but that's a different story. As far as the stories of reinfection occurring in other countries, many things could have caused that, one of them (and most likely) is human error. Earlier testing kits (and even some now) were shown to be extremely unreliable. That can be explained by the sensitivity of the tests and/or classic mix ups in the labs (it happens). There are several different tests available and each of them looked for specific genetic material from the virus, so if the sample collected from the patient didn't have enough genetic material (someone who recently became infected) or if it was collected wrong, the test would read negative. Also some of the earlier testing kits only had two sets of probes to detect the virus and now have three. Probes are used to detect coronavirus RNA sequences in RT-PCR tests and show up fluorescent if positive. These probes influence the sensitivity of the tests. There were also some kits that gave positive readings with just water in a negative control experiment. The test manufactured by Roche has a sensitivity of 95% meaning that 5% of infected people could be missed by their test. I know first hand that patients from my hospital were coming up negative according to in-house labs, but were actually positive when sent out to the CDC for testing. So what that means is, someone could have been negative but showed up "positive" on the test, then "recovered", went home and became "reinfected" but in reality, it was their first infection. Or the patient could have truly been positive, came up "negative" when retested on a faulty test but was actually still positive, went home and got worse, and came back "reinfected" but in reality, they were positive the entire time. Another reason for possible positive results after recovering is that the tests are picking up traces of virus that are dead which happened to be the case with some patients in South Korea after a doctor tried to incubate the virus but wasn't able to. Is there a chance that people can became reinfected? Sure there is. Everyone's immune system is different. Some people might not produce a heavy antibody response to the infection. That's fair to say. But I'm happy to provide anyone with my antibody test results. I will be getting that done soon. Again, the WHO is being super overly cautious about this and i totally understand that. Lives are at stake. But everything I have read so far points to a stable, slowly mutating virus. And as someone pointed out already, you don't have to hire me. It doesn't bother me one bit. I just wanted you guys to understand why I put that in my ad. It has nothing to do with wanting to make money, and it certainly isn't because I don't care about people's lives. Anyway, be safe out there.
