There are a bunch of weird things in the article. HIV typically has three phases: acute for first 6 months (most contagious, perhaps cold symptoms), chronic for up 11 years if untreated, or much longer if under treatment, and then AIDS.
Per the report two cases were acute and one case (two?) had AIDS, yet they all fell within the same viral DNA cluster (AIDS if infected in 2018 would be rare). So it seems that they were infected at very different times, yet they share a common viral strand. One explanation was that the clinic was using infected blood rather than customers' own blood, but even that sounds weird.
That's incorrect. 8-10 years is generally reported as the "average" time from infection to AIDS, but faster progressions are by no means rare. One study found that up to 13% of newly infected patients may develop AIDS within one year. Developing AIDS 6 years out from infection is certainly unfortunate but by no means rare.
Per the report two cases were acute and one case (two?) had AIDS, yet they all fell within the same viral DNA cluster (AIDS if infected in 2018 would be rare). So it seems that they were infected at very different times, yet they share a common viral strand. One explanation was that the clinic was using infected blood rather than customers' own blood, but even that sounds weird.