I hope that's a bit of hyperbole, because that sounds like the scheme of a Batman villian ...
HOWEVER, your question does provide backing for my concern that the inability of us to discuss frankly the actual progression and population loci of a deadly disease does allow such a disease to spread further and cuase more damage than it would have otherwise. This is a broader issue than just homosexuality, though.
If we can't advise people of possible behaviors that may need to or populations that are prone to certain diseases, due to some misguided opinion that it's worse to OFFEND that group than to protect everyone INCLUDING that group, something is messed up. We can point out that sickle cell anemia is more common in a particular race (and therefore we can be led to greater understanding of the casues of and treatments for that disease), why can't we do the same with AIDS? Especially asit's not a homosexual disease (see Africa), but it would have been good for the homosexual population to know that, IN AMERICA, the disease appeared to be a much greater ris amongst their social circles than amongst the non-homosexual population. I mean, we had no problem saying that the problem was spreading in the IV drug use community ...
Aaargh. I'm angered when imprtant discussion is blocked by PCness ... if I accidentally offend someone in an effort to save their lives, so be it. It's like telling an overweight man to stay off thin ice ... I'm not commenting on the validity of your weight, just advising that the weight may be a problem with the thin ice.
I'm starting to make no sense even to myself, so I think I'll go to sleep soon.