Depends what you mean by lied to. If you're concerned that the bearers of news have limited integrity: welcome to the history of mankind, I hope you enjoy your stay.
If there's an incurable disease for which there are no treatments, which kills not only the initial host generation but also their children, and you aren't sure how easily it spreads, do you 'wait and see' and let science run it's course over 3 decades before talking about it, or do you risk seeming sensationalist and try to get people to be safer rather than victims? It's easy to say that you've been lied to, knowing what we do now, that the threat amongst certain demographics was exaggerated -- but the threat is still there, exaggerated or not. An exaggeration doesn't mean that it can't still happen. AIDS hasn't gone away, and if people are ignorant about it then it will proliferate.
Just because you come from a middle-upper-class white background doesn't mean you have immunity, even if you aren't 'at risk'; conversely, even though you come from a lower-class/empoverished background doesn't mean you're 'at risk' if there's no HIV+ individuals in your locality, but again that doesn't make you immune either. The disease doesn't recognize race/creed/sexuality, it does what its intended function is, it replicates itself at the cost of its host and does so indifferently from all else. That means it is a danger, and until there's a way to eradicate it, it will always be a danger.
Sure, it has been politicized, sure, people make it a partisan issue, sure, people make it an absurd moralistic or religious issue (ie it's a gay disease, it's a disease that affects adulterers), and sure, some others make it a race disease (ie only blacks get it). Really though, it isn't something to be shocked about, and if you think this is the only time it's happened, prepare to experience much more outrage in your life. Everyone has an agenda, and everyone will push that agenda.