No, I'm not a "tin-foil hat conspiracy nut" but I was just browsing Google for HIV/AIDS related inquiries and stumbled on some government and non-profit organizations that literally want to force everyone to get tested and then force everyone who is positive to take medications, use condoms, and limit the number of their partners. I could give a couple of links if you'd like but any simple search of "HIV monitoring" should bring up more than enough info. In some cases, they don't come right out and say it but in other cases they pretty much do.
There are several reasons why I think it is a conspiracy to control and perhaps eliminate people vs. a misguided attempt to keep the people "healthy." The first is that if the health authorities in this country were so concerned about controlling disease and improving the overall health of the populace, the United States would have public healthcare available to everyone similar to Canada and some European countries. The combination of the health authorities' concern along with the fact that everything costs an arm and a leg for the HIV-infected patient tells us that "helping people" is not their real goal.
The second red flag is that HIV is not a very dangerous disease in terms of public health. Real public health risks involve highly contagious diseases that are caught airborn or skin-to-skin contact. Something that would cause entire towns to get sick and die within days are actual public health concerns. Something that can only be transmitted by blood-to-blood contact or sexually and then takes 10+ years to make someone sick even without the medication is not a real health concern. For the purposes of this argument, I'm pretending that HIV/AIDS is actually as real as they say it is.
The third warning sign is the fact that they place the responsibility on the infected person vs. the uninfected person. This would make sense for someone who has TB because anyone near them could catch it. The only way someone can catch HIV is by consensually having sex with that person. By consenting to sleep with someone, you already know the risks so the responsibility should actually be placed on the uninfected person. If they are not comfortable with the risks of picking up germs during intercourse, they reserve the right to abstain from sleeping with that person.
There are numerous social engineering projects amongst government agencies as well as private healthcare officials to moderate and control human behavior. For instance, look at the term "HIV medication adherence monitoring." In a free country, adults have a choice on how they live out their lives which means that they have a right not to wear a seatbelt when they drive, not take their vaccines, and likewise choose not to take HIV drugs. Something called "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means that adults get to choose how to govern their own lives. I can get the exact quotes if you would like but I did see statements tossed around similar to this, "Health authorities may require patients participate in a medication adherence monitoring program where they have to report to a clinic." A lot of this disturbing nonsense is going right under people's noses and it should be taken very seriously. The bolded words clearly indicate the lack of choice which is what makes a person a free citizen.
Other statements showed projections on controlling the disease such as in 2010, 2015, and 2020 with targets such as by a certain date, x% of the populace will be regularly using condoms and there will be an x% decrease in the number of people having numerous sexual partners. Other scary statements were seen such as "patients' lack of adherence pose a health risk to the entire populace."
Obviously authorities whoever they may be are more concerned about moderating the behavior of adults and how they interact with one another and what they do with their lives instead of genuinely helping people. Such kind of situation is something you expect to see in a totalitarian state and not a free society. The other thing that is highly suspicious is the fact that they want to "help you" when you are not asking for help. It is one thing if a person asks for help because they are volunteering to receive someone else's advice, opinions, or treatment on their own free will. In other words, you choose to go to the doctor, take your pills, etc. What is not normal is when health authorities routinely visit gay bars and other establishments to hand out condoms and set up testing sites right out front. You could say it is still voluntary as you don't have to talk to them but it is cause for alarm when doctors are trying to cure people who aren't sick and it is almost like they want to force you to get sick so that they can cure you.
Another red flag to point out is that their behavior doesn't make sense economically unless something is up of course. The majority of people affected by HIV/AIDS are minorities and the urban poor. Since when has the wealthy elite ever cared about helping the poor? The so-called epidemic is not affecting them anyway yet they seem so concerned. It seems strange to me that we have "authorities" who want to force impoverished people to take deadly medications for the rest of their lives for "their safety and welfare" yet nothing is done about getting these people jobs with livable wages and out of a never-ending debt crisis. Just like with African AIDS, you would think that the focus would be on food, clean drinking water, and improved sanitation.
Nobody even has to look at the science to know that this disease is bogus. A transmittable virus does not affect the same groups 25 years later--certain regions of the world, urban poor, racial and sexual minorities. Viruses do not work that way. Why I say that this is a "grand conspiracy" is because it appears that the elite is using HIV/AIDS as one more tool to keep the people controlled, subdued, and otherwise distracted for the benefit of the lucky few in charge. As one person said, "if you are poor, sick, stupid, and scared you aren't likely to rise up and challenge the system and are a much better candidate for a sheep in the herd."