Freddie knew he had HIV in 1984?

while i agree in fact with what you're saying, it is almost possible to deduce these things in some cases
for example:

if X Y & Z all find out they're hiv+, and they all had unprotected sex with W 3yrs ago, who found out last yr that he was hiv+, then there's a certain amount of logic in that assumption

That would work if those incidents were singular and not joined by countless other exposures. It's basically impossible to trace the source. Freddie was exposed countless times to the virus, before and after he contracted it, you can trace that through his track record. Many of the people with whom he got intimate died before him.

Freddie's lifestyle propelled in 1978. If details about Freddie's promiscuity are true, then really, even as early as the late 70's, when HIV wasn't all that prevalent, it would have been hard for him not to get exposed. Having a one year relationship with a person who subsequently succumbed to the disease was of no help either, but even that incident is not the sure case due to the circumstances of the time.

It's impossible for Freddie to have known of infection as early as 84, when no tests was available. I suspect Freddie became aware of the risks as some of his former partners fell to the illness, around 85-86. But back then, the outlook of being diagnosed with the virus was so bleak, that many people at risk refused to get tested. They were too afraid to get tested. Perhaps Freddie just avoided testing until the first symptoms of AIDS surfaced.

Freddie probably had the virus by 83-84. Wasn't that the time he was spending all those crazy club nights in New York? By the early 80s hiv was spreading more in new york than in England and according to close friends from him it was very likely he got the disease there. Now I'm positive that tho he mightve been self conscious about it since he was aware of his careless sex life . I really doubt he knew he had it back then. Maybe he knew there was a possibly he had it and avoided medically knowing out of fear. I'm sure that by 86 tho around the magic tour he must've felt strongly about it and started feeling more brave to officially know about it since some of his lovers had died of it by that time. I'm sure he suspected and somewhere around late 1986 or early 1987 he got tested to then get the news in spring of 87 he had aids (according to jim ' s book he notice a KS on his shoulder and got it tested and he knew) but yeah. Even if Freddie didn't officially know until spring of 1987. He must have felt suspicious about it by 86. I doubt before that. Also let's consider by 85 freddie had already settled down and had enough of the promiscuous nights. Jim got the virus from freddie. That's why he was lucky and the virus didn't progress to aids unlike freddie. Jim got the opportunity to undergo the hiv pills cocktails and the improvement of medicine. That's why he lived longer. I doubt had it been Jim who infected freddie things would've played the same for him. Before 1992 when the first retrovirus treatment came into market, more time with the virus mean less time of life. So according to how things played out I'm sure freddie infected jim by the time the disease was already long there hosting freddie's body. Plus Jim said he didn't wanna know because he knew if freddie had it then he did and he didn't want freddie to feel responsible for it or in a way making it feel like jim was more fortunate tha freddie had he not had it. It just didn't seem to fit the situation Freddie was in so he wanted to avoid telling him until a year later .

Also I'm sure by late 70s there's NO way he had it. I mean the possibilities were just not big enough for him to get hiv back in late 70s. Although the disease already existed in Africa it was still not considered a pandemic. Let alone be in the streets of london. The first hiv/aids cases as pandemics were dated in the beginning of the 1980s. 81 in USA to be more exact and then started spreading more worldwide. It's just the probabilities of Freddie being one of those very unique EXTREMELY unique and weird cases of having hiv already by the 70s is just unlikely. Also keep in my that though it takes normally 10 years for an hiv patient to develop aids NOWADAYS. It wasn't the same back then and certainly not on the early 80s. So just because he got aids by 87 doesn't mean he had hiv by 77. Freddie could've been living with hiv was 3 to 5 years.

[QUOTE] [b]Fmercurio wrote:[/b]

Also I'm sure by late 70s there's NO way he had it. I mean the possibilities were just not big enough for him to get hiv back in late 70s. Although the disease already existed in Africa it was still not considered a pandemic. Let alone be in the streets of london. The first hiv/aids cases as pandemics were dated in the beginning of the 1980s. 81 in USA to be more exact and then started spreading more worldwide. It's just the probabilities of Freddie being one of those very unique EXTREMELY unique and weird cases of having hiv already by the 70s is just unlikely. Also keep in my that though it takes normally 10 years for an hiv patient to develop aids NOWADAYS. It wasn't the same back then and certainly not on the early 80s. So just because he got aids by 87 doesn't mean he had hiv by 77. Freddie could've been living with hiv was 3 to 5 years.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree, and I think you're wrong also on a scientific level. The HIV pandemic was noticed in 1981, but this was just the consequence of the spread of the virus in the early to mid-70s. By the 70s it was already spreading like wildfire, but because of the long latency period, symptoms in those infected with HIV only became widely apparent to doctors in the early 80s. It's not correct when you say that only a few had it in the 70s - tens of thousands had it already, but they just didn't know it.

So, to be clear - those who were infected in the early 70s started showing symptoms in the early 80s - those infected in the late 70s (indeed it was more likely to get infected in say 1979 than in 1972) showed symptoms in the late 80s (as our Freddie did).

It is likely that by 1984 or '85 at the latest Freddie already had some light symptoms showing, meaning HIV had already progressed significantly. I think we can say almost certainly that, with a narrow margin of error of ±2 years, Freddie was infected between 1978 and 1981. If by late '86 he already had full-blown AIDS (which he probably did, as he had a KS lesion visible on his cheek - as evidenced by a photo of him coming back from a trip to Japan - and KS is USUALLY but not always demonstrative of AIDS, not just HIV infection), then he couldn't have likely been infected after '81.

As to when he knew, it's also almost certain that he had a very good inkling that he wasn't well by 1985, possibly by 1984, and certainly by 1986 (Mary herself recently said he knew in '86 - not because he was tested - but through deduction and through his symptoms). The term "knew" is relative - like when a smoker of three packs a day for 60 years starts hacking up blood - he knows he has lung cancer, even before tests confirm it - but he isn't 100% certain.

If I had to bet 100 quid on when Freddie contracted HIV, I'd say it was 1979 or 1980. If I had to choose just one year, it would be 1979.

One last thing - HIV took on average ten years to become AIDS since the beginning, not nowadays. Nowadays HIV usually doesn't become AIDS, as HAART stops it. Ten years is the average latency period WITHOUT treatment.

But this AIDS porn must really stop now. I'm sorry I'm contributing to it.

I'm sorry to be contributing as well, and have nothing to say on the 'how/from whom did Freddie get HIV' speculation... but for those who are claiming there was no HIV testing available in 1984, this isn't true. 1985 was when the first test was licensed. It isn't the same thing. Obviously, the ELISA test didn't just appear miraculously in 1985 out of nowhere, with no research or case studies, and there are lots of incidental evidence that testing was available earlier:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/feb/06/jonathan-grimshaw-hiv-aids-survival

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-cdi3003j.htm
(says testing available in Victoria, Australia, late 1984)

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/24/science/new-us-report-names-virus-that-may-cause-aids.html?pagewanted=1
(published April, 1984, says test to be available within 6 months, people tested already for research)

http://www.poz.com/articles/471_5056.shtml

http://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000887.htm
(see case 1)

All the individual cases before ELISA was licensed wouldn't necessarily come up on 'AIDS/HIV timeline' google searches. Nothing to do with Freddie's personal testing experience(s), but just saying...

Also, reading the POZ Forum long-term survivors section (one of the links is to a this forum) gives a lot of insight into the fear of testing positive that was around at that time, and why people may have chosen not to be tested... also quite a few say they were first diagnosed in 1984.

I couldn't care less if Freddie was first tested in 1984 or not, but it isn't impossible as some seem to be saying, here.

Now, die thread (and apologies again for letting it live another day).

He probably had hiv by 1984 already if he developed aids by 87. But i doubt he knew it until 86 where he started to suspect or by the confirmation in 87. It takes a really bad heart for someone to know they have hiv and keep having unprotected sex injecting others. I doubt Freddie knew by 1984. Let's remember hiv doesn't show physical changes most of the times until the immune system is decaying and is heading towards aids. You can look and feel normal and healthy while you have the virus. He probably started getting worried once some of his previous lovers have died of it by 86 and he was already with Jim (who freddie gave the disease to) and knew in 87 . After the diagnosis him and Jim used protection. So I really doubt he had hiv and knew it while infecting other people.

He probably had hiv by 1984 already if he developed aids by 87. But i doubt he knew it until 86 where he started to suspect or by the confirmation in 87. It takes a really bad heart for someone to know they have hiv and keep having unprotected sex injecting others. I doubt Freddie knew by 1984. Let's remember hiv doesn't show physical changes most of the times until the immune system is decaying and is heading towards aids. You can look and feel normal and healthy while you have the virus. He probably started getting worried once some of his previous lovers have died of it by 86 and he was already with Jim (who freddie gave the disease to) and knew in 87 . After the diagnosis him and Jim used protection. So I really doubt he had hiv and knew it while infecting other people.

He probably had hiv by 1984 already if he developed aids by 87. But i doubt he knew it until 86 where he started to suspect or by the confirmation in 87. It takes a really bad heart for someone to know they have hiv and keep having unprotected sex injecting others. I doubt Freddie knew by 1984. Let's remember hiv doesn't show physical changes most of the times until the immune system is decaying and is heading towards aids. You can look and feel normal and healthy while you have the virus. He probably started getting worried once some of his previous lovers have died of it by 86 and he was already with Jim (who freddie gave the disease to) and knew in 87 . After the diagnosis him and Jim used protection. So I really doubt he had hiv and knew it while infecting other people.

About the weight the only time Freddie looked fat to me was around the years 87-88 and it was because of the aids medication at that time it made you gain weight or more like swollen look rather than fat? He was naturally a thin man and very physical may I add. The only time he looked over weight was that time.

I keep reading that Freddie gave Jim AIDS. While it's indeed quite probable I don't think we can really say that. And actually I don't think I really want to. Remember "there's no one to blame, there's only victims" from about that time.

[QUOTE] [b]Fmercurio wrote:[/b]

About the weight the only time Freddie looked fat to me was around the years 87-88 and it was because of the aids medication at that time it made you gain weight or more like swollen look rather than fat? He was naturally a thin man and very physical may I add. The only time he looked over weight was that time.[/QUOTE]

It's not unusual for people to put on weight when they hit middle age. He'd started to put weight on before '87, look at Freddie in Rio 85. Not as thin as he was in the early years. I recall reading (in one of the books, maybe Jim Hutton's or Peter Freestones) about an article in The Sun where they took a swipe at Freddie in '86 for putting on a little weight too.

It's been a year since anyone contributed to this thread but I agree that Freddie contracted the virus in the late 70's/early 80's. And by the time he was tested, he was full blown. Jim may have or may not have contracted it from Freddie, we won't know for sure but one thing I do think for sure is that Jim did NOT give the virus to Freddie. Sadly, Freddie was already infected with the virus and it progressed to full blown AIDS by the time he was tested. A few times I have read that Freddie states that it was his 13th Aids test that revealed he had it. So, given he stated that himself, he obviously had reason to test. He also stated himself that he had had thoughts that '' this one might be the one who gives it to me'' and he speaks of going into the shower and scrubbing himself, although he knows that it won't wash off and he clearly also knows by the time he makes that statement that its' a bodily fluid virus. Appears he still wasn't using condoms when he was taking those risks. Yes, I saw the documentary '' When Freddie met Kenny'' and there is quite a good timeline to do the math and figure out a time frame as to when Freddie contracted the virus. I have read other threads and postings and so many people are in denial about the entire issue. They clearly have the rose coloured glasses on when it comes to when and how and from whom Freddie contracted the virus from. Sadly, all 3 of the men who resided from Freddie died of AIDS, so someone, infected someone, whether it was Freddie to them or vice versa does not matter now. I believe they were a group of gay men who were indulging in very high risk behaviour at the pinnacle point - prior to much being known about it. So yes, I agree with posters who say Freddie became infected prior to 1985. Now, all we can do is be thankful that times have changed and that so much has been done toward controlling HIV and AIDS.

By the time he was tested in 1987 he was full blown - remember people who are HIV positive take tests regularly to test viral load to assess treatments.

He was almost definitely tested positive in 1985, so he probably had the virus in his body before then.

It was a very sad time for a lot of people. If you want to know about the full impact of AIDS in the early 1980s then check out a film called 'We Were Here'. It documents the journey from 1981 to the present day, and there are some harrowing stories on it. It doesn't mention Freddie (as far as I remember) but it gives real and personal faces to the AIDS epidemic of the time. It's a little like the TB epidemic of La Boheme actually - some people died that suddenly. There are stories of people having a massive stroke in reaction to the treatment and dying before they get close the emergency room, other people developing the more 'classic' symptoms. It's upfront, up-close, personal and absolutely tragic.

Most of the people infected in San Francisco at that time were involved in high risk behaviours - it doesn't really need to be said because they all know what they did and they know the results of their behaviour, and that's very sad. We all - every single one of us - do things which are irresponsible, knowingly and unknowingly, and we all have to pay for it. Sadly in this instance, people paid with their lives.

The positive side to the story is that it shows an extraordinary love developing in the gay community at that time, an extraordinary togetherness that may not have been there otherwise. It shows how people will pull together in times of tragedy and uphold each other. It would be nice if it didn't take tragedy for this to happen, but it seems that it does.