Among reasons cited are by way of "lack of access:"
you may not get an HIV test or treatment until it's too late
Since the disease is not curable, and the only way to detect it is by taking a test once having contracted it, how would access to tests or treatments affect the infection rate?
And this laughably unscientific pronouncement:
"Given the greater prevalence of HIV that already exists in many African-American communities [there is] an increased likelihood of being exposed to HIV with every sexual encounter."
Which puts the epidemiological cart before the horse. How did a "greater prevalence of HIV" come to exist in the first place if not for: increased promiscuity among AA's and a higher incidence of IV drug use?
Honestly? We are now at the disgraceful point where scientists must pretend that not only do plain facts and statistical inferences no longer operate, but that we actually DENY them for the sake of not offending a be-knighted minority. This corruption makes the CDC complicit in their deaths. But no one's feelings are hurt. That's the important thing.
If true, that would have been a tremendously important clue in understanding the virus and the disease. Was it ever studied? Of course not, because every medical professional in the field knew quite well that it was nonsense. The disease was the same, the human physiology was the same. What was different was a far higher incidence of risky behavior. [CCR5 receptor defect was not discovered as a result of this clue, by the way.]