You said werewolves are mainly villains most of the story and this is just not true. The only actual werewolf example we have for 6/7 books is Lupin, and until the 7th book they are almost always treated sympathetically. Even the ones who align with Voldemort end up looking more sympathetic than just about everyone else given the discrimination they receive from those in positions of power (Umbridge) and the general public.
I'm sorry, there's literally a werewolf army under Voldemort control. As a group, they are siding with the bad guys in the book's last conflict. Therefore, they were villains in the story climatic conflict, there's no discussion to it. Like most topics from previous books, Rowling just didn't give 'em much focus. I don't see the point you are trying to make with "we only have one ACTUAL werewolf", yeah, I've read the books and there are only 3 named werewolves, only 2 of them get any kind of focus and 1 is The Bad One and the other one is On Our Side…so what? as group, they are on the villain side. That was my point.
She's not saying AIDS=werewolves, she's using werewolves (as werewolves, so with all of the baggage) to examine the stigma around our own diseases. It's obviously not a perfect metaphor, but she's also not saying that she's equating werewolves with those with transmittable diseases in our own world. There's a huge difference between the two.
Yeah, and she did a great job there snorts
Andre, look, please go back a bit and reread my first post: there's an interview in which she links lycanthropy to transmitable diseases, namely HIV. Your quote is literally that. I did not said that it was a metaphor (good or bad one) or anything like that. That notion comes from your own corner, your own mental gymnastic to reach an argument I'm not sure I'm grasping. All in all, she did a poor job doing that social commentary - seems like a topic she forgot to develop or to give a satisfactory conclusion.