| Day dop 13.10.2012 22:15 |
I know a few of you will probably groan, "Ohh, that bloody subject brought up on here again!"... (and yep - you'd be right... fair enough too) But but but - It's just that towards the very end of this article, David Wigg says of Freddie, "He had known since 1984 that he was HIV-positive, but he had told no-one else." That's the first I knew of it. Most here know about Freddie's HIV test in the spring of '87 from what info is out there, but it seems a bit of a bold statement to say Freddie knew in '84... unless D.W is guessing that Fred might have had an idea, and saying "He had known..." Anyone else has heard or read that before? link |
| Day dop 13.10.2012 22:17 |
Actually, it seems a bit odd, considering "he had told no-one else". How would D.W know he knew? Oh I dunno. |
| john bodega 14.10.2012 03:58 |
The impression I'd gotten from the Great Pretender doco was that '84 was when the doctor was trying to get in touch with Freddie and wound up telling Mary instead. And that summarily, Freddie managed to sweep it under the rug or say that it was a false positive or some other story. That last part of the anecdote is the part I'm not really clear on though. If I were Mary, that wouldn't really be a plausible explanation, and I'd probably be dragging him down to every clinic in the country. But i'm not really up on all of the details. I only saw the documentary once and I might be blending different interviews in my head. |
| Holly2003 14.10.2012 04:09 |
I know a few of you will probably groan, "Ohh, that bloody subject brought up on here again!"... Yes, exactly. |
| john bodega 14.10.2012 04:16 |
If it's any comfort, I see the same thing on Titanic forums. The most fun is starting dummy accounts and asking if anyone has a photo of 'the iceberg that did it'. Or if Titanic was swapped with the Olympic. |
| pittrek 14.10.2012 06:14 |
Sounds like bollocks to me |
| 1sharppencil 14.10.2012 09:38 |
he did say 1984 - I am positive that only Freddie had the whole picture [damn this topic] |
| AlexRocks 14.10.2012 11:52 |
Um...wasn't he permiscuous up to the last 1986 tour? That would have made him out to be a mass murderer. I don't think he knew until late 1987 and did not get it until sometime earlier that year. For the sheer fact that in the 1980's you just could not live long without meds. Even with the meds he only lived four years or so longer. |
| pittrek 14.10.2012 13:47 |
Phoebe said on numerous occasions that he knew it since 1987. |
| Bad Seed 14.10.2012 15:42 |
Mary made it clear in a recent interview that both she and Freddie were aware of his health situation during the magic tour. |
| dekipema 14.10.2012 17:29 |
|
| dekipema 14.10.2012 17:31 |
Recent interview to Mary? Please tell me where I can find it:) |
| flash00. 14.10.2012 23:08 |
When Freddie said that he did not want to tour again at the end of the magic tour shows he knew well before the end of that tour, I think Freddie seemed to look more tired on stage 84 onwards while on tour. |
| Garden Lodge 15.10.2012 00:49 |
link Around minute 8:00 or so..... Mary saying he knew already at the Magic Tour... |
| dekipema 15.10.2012 09:02 |
Thank you, Garden Lodge! Your comment helped me to catch the words ?('?')? It's an interesting segment. |
| Day dop 15.10.2012 10:03 |
"Bohemian: Um...wasn't he permiscuous up to the last 1986 tour? That would have made him out to be a mass murderer. I don't think he knew until late 1987 and did not get it until sometime earlier that year. For the sheer fact that in the 1980's you just could not live long without meds. Even with the meds he only lived four years or so longer. " No, he wasn't promiscuous up till then. |
| mooghead 15.10.2012 11:39 |
"That would have made him out to be a mass murderer." If such crass use of language is to be used then they were all at it.. the gay community through the 80's were massively ignorant and 'brushing it under the carpet', it wasn't until huge amounts of them starting dropping dead that people really took notice. Anyway. Who cares? |
| Supersonic_Man89 16.10.2012 13:03 |
I think it's a very valid reason to care if Freddie gave people the disease knowing full reason he had it. |
| john bodega 16.10.2012 23:27 |
"I think it's a very valid reason to care" About a dead man who gave a disease to some other dead men? There's absolutely zero reason to give a shit about it. People shouldn't be caught up in the personality cult. Love the music as much as you like, but if you can't reconcile your opinion of someone with the facts of his life, then you shouldn't have been so enamoured of him in the first place. I might be missing something here but he's as dead as King Tut or the passengers of the Titanic. Evaluations of his character at this point are utterly moot. |
| Supersonic_Man89 18.10.2012 00:11 |
What a load of shit. So if Michael Jackson were to actually be found guilty of paedophilia after his death, you're saying 'we shouldn't care, we should just enjoy his music'. I don't know, it might be me but if Freddie gave people a disease which would knowingly KILL THEM then yes, that would affect my opinion of him and his music. I don't know, i'm a bit crazy like that. However, there's no evidence to suggest he did and I personally don't think he was capable of doing so knowingly. |
| cmsdrums 18.10.2012 03:27 |
I'm sure Freddie didn't do that - Montserrat Caballe says that once he told her he wouldn't even let her hug or kiss him for fear of passing it on (this is the time before transmission methods were as well known as today). |
| john bodega 18.10.2012 04:06 |
"So if Michael Jackson were to actually be found guilty of paedophilia after his death, you're saying 'we shouldn't care, we should just enjoy his music'" No, I'm not saying that at all - you shouldn't be enjoying Michael Jackson's music in the first place. PS. Elvis raped Priscilla because of his belief that she was cheating on him. I hope I've ruined Elvis for you. If you can't separate the personalities of dead people (ones you will never meet and to whom you meant absolutely nothing) from their artistic output, then that's your issue and you need to deal with that in your own time, instead of doing the white knight thing and trying to look like you give a shit about something that is meaningless in the here and now. He's dead. His boyfriends are dead. Your tears aren't helping anyone. |
| john bodega 18.10.2012 04:07 |
"Montserrat Caballe says that once he told her he wouldn't even let her hug or kiss him for fear of passing it on" Indeed. There's a couple of anecdotes of him doing stuff like that. |
| Supersonic_Man89 18.10.2012 15:50 |
Why does it matter if someone's dead or not? If i find them to be a horrible person then i'll choose not to enjoy their music...what's so crazy about that? I don't go looking people up checking if they're a prick to see if i can like them or not, but take for example Dappy from N'Dubz...his music isn't my cup of tea, however even if it was, I wouldn't like him cos he's a thug who sends death threats to people. And the Elvis thing sounds like it was a vast exaggeration to which Priscilla and since tried to distance herself from. |
| flash00. 18.10.2012 22:43 |
I'd not heard of the Elvis/rape thing I had heard and read that Elvis was bisexual etc... lol @ celeb gossip |
| john bodega 19.10.2012 02:15 |
"Why does it matter if someone's dead or not?" It invalidates your judgement of them because they don't exist anymore. It's wasted energy. I think if one is going to get suckered into judging the character of famous persons, they might as well stick to living ones. Every buck I don't spend on a Polanski movie is one less dollar going towards his rohypnol budget. (Although for me it really is more about his movies just not being very good). Spare yourself a lot of gut ache and only evaluate musicians for their music, actors for their acting and so on. You're only setting yourself up for disappointment if you do otherwise. It is, as I said, wasted energy - especially concerning the dead ones whom you can no longer rehabilitate in any way. Besides which, picking and choosing aspects that you like about a person (that you never met, and for you has only ever existed anecdotally and thus is an incomplete picture) is folly. Compared to the little bits and pieces that we read about on this forum, Freddie was a complete human being. You don't have (and never will have) a complete understanding of him. He's nothing but an interesting relic from history now. Take what lessons you can from him, and move on with your life. |
| john bodega 19.10.2012 02:16 |
"Dappy from N'Dubz...his music isn't my cup of tea, however even if it was, I wouldn't like him cos he's a thug who sends death threats to people." Amen to that. |
| SimonFerocious 19.10.2012 04:27 |
In January 1985, the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed, for commercial production, the first blood test for AIDS. So I doubt Freddie would've known in 1984 that he had HIV. Freddie also wouldn't have been able to get insurance for the 1986 tour if he was HIV-positive (I doubt he would have undertaken the gruelling tour if he'd known), so the April 1987 timeline would appear to be the correct one. |
| emrabt 19.10.2012 07:00 |
Freddie also wouldn't have been able to get insurance for the 1986 tour if he was HIV-positive (I doubt he would have undertaken the gruelling tour if he'd known) =============== I think he knew by then, I don't mean 100% knew because he was tested, but he "knew", 86 is the time when I personally think I all became very real for him, that was the year the people around him started dying and he made loads of "if i'm still here" comments in interviews. |
| malicedoom 19.10.2012 13:24 |
I was under the impression that Freddie found out he had gone full blown in 1987 (from what I've read) and not simply HIV-positive. Big difference. And, from the comments he makes on The Magic Tour, it seems pretty clear that he's aware of what's going on, to me at least. |
| Heavenite 19.10.2012 16:49 |
SimonFerocious wrote: In January 1985, the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed, for commercial production, the first blood test for AIDS. So I doubt Freddie would've known in 1984 that he had HIV. Freddie also wouldn't have been able to get insurance for the 1986 tour if he was HIV-positive (I doubt he would have undertaken the gruelling tour if he'd known), so the April 1987 timeline would appear to be the correct one. I'm not sure that insurance companies were on to it straight away But I guess a rock star might have attracted special attention. |
| Day dop 20.10.2012 23:54 |
In hindsight, after posting this - I think David Wigg is either talking bollocks there or it's a typing error. Probably the former, I highly doubt Freddie would've given Jim HIV knowingly, or anyone else for that matter. And as someone else pointed out above about Freddie asking to not be kissed by Montserrat Caballe. |
| Martin Packer 21.10.2012 05:43 |
Doesn't this all exemplify the chaos around HIV / AIDS at the time - emergent testing, avoiding being tested for the futility and pain of it all, the fear Freddie had that he could give people AIDS by doing things friends (not lovers) do with each other all the time. Quite apart from the illness and his death this was a terrible time. I'd (naively, perhaps) hope the whole thing is so much better now. Watching Montse on Great Pretender I could see how very upsetting this was for her (and no doubt that's true for many others). And because of this chaos I don't think David Wigg is either talking bollocks or that there's a typo. And I really don't blame Freddie either for any of it. |
| Day dop 21.10.2012 11:02 |
Martin Packer wrote: Doesn't this all exemplify the chaos around HIV / AIDS at the time - emergent testing, avoiding being tested for the futility and pain of it all, the fear Freddie had that he could give people AIDS by doing things friends (not lovers) do with each other all the time. Quite apart from the illness and his death this was a terrible time. I'd (naively, perhaps) hope the whole thing is so much better now. Watching Montse on Great Pretender I could see how very upsetting this was for her (and no doubt that's true for many others). And because of this chaos I don't think David Wigg is either talking bollocks or that there's a typo. And I really don't blame Freddie either for any of it.To say that Freddie knew in 1984, would mean he knowingly gave Jim Hutton HIV. From everything that's been written since and told of, that is clearly not the case. How can David Wigg not be talking nonsense by writing that "Freddie knew in 1984" - now in 2012? |
| jenss85 21.10.2012 11:11 |
Mary pretty much said the same thing on a link that has already been posted in this thread......how the doctor told her and then he convinced her it was a mistake |
| Holly2003 21.10.2012 11:47 |
I think it's vitally important that we find out exactly when Fred got aids, who he got it from, when he knew he had it, and all the intimate details of his sexual and private life. You know, just like the press vultures you all claim to hate, |
| kdj2hot 21.10.2012 12:54 |
cmsdrums wrote: I'm sure Freddie didn't do that - Montserrat Caballe says that once he told her he wouldn't even let her hug or kiss him for fear of passing it on (this is the time before transmission methods were as well known as today).Maybe she just had bad B.O, you ever think of that. Freddie just came up with a brilliant way to avoid it. |
| ploughman 22.10.2012 11:40 |
I bet it was a typo. But I guess Freddie himself started to suspect something during 1985-86. I think you can sense this from all the interviews and stuff. Freddie seems totally different during 1986 interviews. Mores serious. Just compare 1984: link 1986: link He is also thinking that "there will be a time when i cannot run around stage" But from all the biographies and interviews it seems clear that he found out late 1986 or 1987. M. Caballe tolds in an interview that Freddie's behaviour suddenly changed and he told her he was HIV positive. But they only met 1987.... this is puzzling. But I guess Freddie suspected somehting was wrong already 1986... 1984 and 1985 tours he was in a bad physical state...but that was mainly through partying too much...but who knows. Maybe the illness affected already then.. |
| splicksplack 22.10.2012 12:57 |
FACT: There was no test for HIV until 1985 and even then there were lots of false positives etc. because it was so new. FACT: There is no AIDS test. AIDS is a syndrome, a collection of symptoms/illnesses that together can be classified as the syndrome AIDS. The only test is for anti-bodies to HIV, the virus that badly compromises the immune system that can result in AIDS. So, a big fat NO, Freddie could not have known on 1984 that he was HIV positive. He could have had symptoms of AIDS, which was becoming common in the big US city's gay populations at that time but it is very unlikely. The first symptoms tend to be huge weight loss, extreme night sweats and being generally knackered. Not what I could see at Live Aid '85 or The Magic Tour '86. It is possible he had HIV tests in '85 but they were nowhere near as reliable as they are now. Tests at that time had to be repeated at least twice and for certainty there would have to be no sexual contact for the 3 months prior to the test due to the virus's incubation period. |
| emrabt 22.10.2012 13:09 |
The first symptoms tend to be huge weight loss, extreme night sweats and being generally knackered. Not what I could see at Live Aid '85 or The Magic Tour '86. ================= Between 1985 to the start of the magic tour he lost loads of weight, you can see it in his face. |
| john bodega 22.10.2012 15:12 |
It's pretty obvious that he 'knew' before he knew, therefore it's actually impossible to put a date on it. He wasn't completely stupid. There would've been a day where he woke up, put 2 + 2 together and realised that he was a goner. |