Having a high viral load means you have a virus in your blood stream.
It does not have to be HIV.
Maybe you didnt get my question? When I meant viral load.. I meant individuals who ARE infected with HIV and has a high viral load in the blood stream...yet the tests turn out to be Negative. there are documented cases as such...and I was curious to WHY?
the virus replicates so rapidly in the millions that it overwhelms the immune system and immune system does not react to it till several weeks later by releasing antibodies for the millions of HIV virus, by then its already too late.
several weeks? in other words incubation period? which is considered as 3 months?
I'm sorry about the confusion. I thought you meant HIV negative people with a high viral load. Sorry again.
The Medical Article stated that the individual has been infected for a while and his viral load was at its highest but did not indicate in the antibody test, assuming that his immune system was suppressed to the point there weren't sufficient antibody's to show up in a standard blood test. It sounds logical?!?!
My argument is that , if thats the case, then, at the time of Acute infection where the virus multiples rapidly making the individual highly contagious ...would there be sufficient antibody's that will appear in a blood test?
Antibodys to HIV don't show up in a standard blood test. 3 months post exposure is when you can obtain a conclusive negative test result.
Is there an undiscovered difference in the time period for the antibodies to appear on people with different ethnic backgrounds? I have read that European and western cultures have more susceptibility and lower mortality rates to the virus compared to individuals with an Asian/oriental/Indian descent.? How true is that statement?
NO. HIV doesn't care about the color of your skin or the location of where you live.