Defense, or (better word) solidarity doesn't imply agreement on all points.
It's awfully interesting how HIV/AIDS is a kind of tabula rasa on which people inscribe the stories they need to read. We can't resist moralizing nature -- sermons in stones, as the man said. There are several competing paysages-moralisés on this topic:
1) The Fallwellian/Robertsonian: HIV/AIDS is a punishment for our collective sin of permissiveness (to borrow a trope from that unforgettable moral philosopher Spiro Agnew).
2) Knownot has obligingly given us a sound bite which may well represent Rev Wright's considered view -- I haven't researched the matter and don't really know.
3) The bien-pensant upper-middle-class pwog version runs something like this: The experts in white coats would have found a cure years ago if the Government had only spent enough money. They want to kill us!
Of the three, which is the silliest? I'm not clear that #2 wins by any very decisive margin -- if it wins at all. On balance I kinda prefer its distrust of expertise to View #3's implicit reliance.