Freddie knew he had HIV in 1984?

And The Band Played On is also harrowing - and it DOES mention Freddie right at the end.

[QUOTE] [b]Martin Packer wrote:[/b]

And The Band Played On is also harrowing - and it DOES mention Freddie right at the end.[/QUOTE]

I watched 'And The Band Played On' a couple of months ago, and I don't remember Freddie ever being mentioned.

I do recall that 'Play The Game' was playing during one of the scenes, when the two doctors/scientists walked into a bathhouse.

You might be referring to the book though.

@Costa86 it might have been something added by the TV station when the movie was played. But I really don't know.

I can confirm it has queen stuff in it... 18 mins in, the queen track 'play the game' is on the background..at the end freddie features in a montage of famous aids victims with music by elton john.

There's my factoid of the day.

Freddie already had HIV for at least 6 years by 1984, but had not yet developed AIDS, so I doubt he knew he had it then, as he probably felt mostly well. it was the following year, 1985, after learning of Rock Hudson's death, that he started to worry and was tested for the first time, and probably positive

Freddie had put on a bit of a belly during the Works shows and certainly by 1985. Not far by any stretch of the imagination but pudgy enough for it to be noticeable. All gone by the time of Live Aid of course. Was this age, a side effect of medication (for what, who knows?) or the result of a year off work and living it up in New York? He did seem to suffer from various minor ailments from 84 onwards. There's the throat issues on tour and in Sun City. This is a man who had been on tour in and off for over a decade with few problems. Yet The Works tour was nowhere near as strenuous compared to earlier tours. I also remember reading that a fan met Freddie at the I Want to Break Free shoot where Freddie complained of being tired all the time. Again at Live Aid he had throat problems (but still went on to kill on stage) but from this point on he remained completely faithful to Him (according to Mercury & Me iirc). So I reckon the early symptoms of a reduced immune system were kicking in around early 1984. Poor Freddie, like so many others, was infected before he knew there was anything to be infected by.

@raucousmonster Sorry to pick at your well meaning post but "over a decade with few problems" with regards to touring is totally inaccurate. He was plagued by problems all through his touring career and often performed (brilliantly) with various issues. Due to the way he sang and the effort he put into it he was constantly dealing with throat issues for a start. None of this had anything to do with HIV.

[QUOTE] [b]raucousmonster wrote:[/b]

Freddie had put on a bit of a belly during the Works shows and certainly by 1985. Not fat by any stretch of the imagination but pudgy enough for it to be noticeable. All gone by the time of Live Aid of course. Was this age, a side effect of medication (for what, who knows?) or the result of a year off work and living it up in New York?[/QUOTE]

He was living in Germany at this time; his boyfriend was a restaurateur, maybe that had something to do with it! And probably because he wasn't touring. He maybe looks *slightly* chunkier at Rio but it was just after Christmas...common problem haha.

He didn't have steroid weight gain til 87/88; he looks different.

[QUOTE] [b]captainjory wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]raucousmonster wrote:[/b]

Freddie had put on a bit of a belly during the Works shows and certainly by 1985. Not fat by any stretch of the imagination but pudgy enough for it to be noticeable. All gone by the time of Live Aid of course. Was this age, a side effect of medication (for what, who knows?) or the result of a year off work and living it up in New York?[/QUOTE]

He was living in Germany at this time; his boyfriend was a restaurateur, maybe that had something to do with it! And probably because he wasn't touring. He maybe looks *slightly* chunkier at Rio but it was just after Christmas...common problem haha.

He didn't have steroid weight gain til 87/88; he looks different.[/QUOTE]

I was pretty young at the time and I used Freddie's seemingly rude health to convince myself all the rumours were bullshit. I knew nothing about weight gain from steroid treatment.

Makes me so sad looking back, sad and frustrated. The press were real cunts too.

[QUOTE] [b]raucousmonster wrote:[/b]

I also remember reading that a fan met Freddie at the I Want to Break Free shoot where Freddie complained of being tired all the time[/QUOTE]

You got me interested! Where did you read about that, d'ya still have source or link on this? If true, it may have a great contribution to calculation on when Freddie's got the full blown AIDS.

What calculation? He had "full blown AIDS" (not a term which is even used much anymore) in 1987 - which is a certainty, given his medical records were reported multiple times as attesting to this.

He might have been "full blown" by 1986, given he had KS on his face, but KS can appear at any time during an HIV infection, although it gets worse as AIDS progresses.

And if you want to go full blown morbid, given what we know about the progression of the disease with the treatment available at the time, he'd have become HIV positive around 1979-1982, likely during one of the periods in those years when he was in New York.

The first HIV test became available in 1985, which is when he had his first positive results and also started having the telltale symptoms. But by 1984 he'd probably have known he might have been in trouble, given he'd have noticed past lovers getting sick with HIV/AIDS symptoms, and might even have had a few symptoms himself.

So in relation to this topic, it claims in the Wikipedia article about the upcoming Bohemian Rhapsody movie that Freddie took the stage at Live Aid with the knowledge that he had a life threatening illness. How could this be? Did Freddie know he was HIV positive by the time of Live Aid? Seems a bit of a stretch of artistic license if the movie claims this. any thoughts?

They need to sell a film...

Yeah, I get that. Like I said, if that's not truly the case, that's quite a jump in artistic license.