Aids Drug AZT killed Freddie

[QUOTE] [b]Mercuryking wrote:[/b]

He may not even have had aids at all , they diagnose him saying he had the aids virus then giving him the fatal drug called AZT [/QUOTE]

...and what (pray tell) "fatal drug" killed all of your braincells? you f**king imbecile

Fuck all this speculations,
shit !

How ironic....some Queen fans displaying the same level of ingnorance that allowed HIV to spread quickly in the first place....priceless

You must read webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zoHs91gKgDIJ:evolveandascend.com/2014/03/12/why-you-need-to-google-5676977-by-jennifersodini/ (backup: pastebin.com/hpc9H0dy)

Just noticed this topic and perhaps the OP did have a point? Isn't it what the recent film "Dallas Buyers Club" talks about? I still haven't seen it though, so no spoilers please! ;-)

That's right, makes you wonder why alternative treatments weren't recommended to Freddie.
www.biography.com/people/ron-woodroof-21329541
popcultureblog.dallasnews.com/2012/07/for-matthew-mcconaughey-next-up-is-true-life-tale-of-the-dallas-buyers-club-but-it-wont-be-filmed-here.html

[QUOTE] [b]Centurion wrote:[/b]

That's right, makes you wonder why alternative treatments weren't recommended to Freddie.
[/QUOTE]

"You know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proved to work?

Medicine."

-- Tim Minchin, Storm


Alternative treatments do not work, period. Anything that seems to work is nothing more than a coincidence, or a case of correlation not being causation. If something that is not incorporated into modern medicine actually does work, it is then fully developed and patented.

In this particular case of AZT in the 80s and early 90s, it was eventually realized that high dosages of it did indeed have side effects. This is what modern medicine/science does - it makes mistakes and builds upon them in the search for the best possible remedy or theory.

AZT is used today in smaller quantities than it used to be, along with a few other compounds in what is called "highly active antiretroviral therapy" (HAART) - the treatment for HIV that is now accepted across the board (except alties and conspiracy nutbars, of course).

And the film clarifies this at the end. That's the only spoiler I'll provide, since this is (or should be) common knowledge by now.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Centurion wrote:[/b]

That's right, makes you wonder why alternative treatments weren't recommended to Freddie.
[/QUOTE]

"You know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proved to work?

Medicine."

-- Tim Minchin, Storm


Alternative treatments do not work, period. Anything that seems to work is nothing more than a coincidence, or a case of correlation not being causation. If something that is not incorporated into modern medicine actually does work, it is then fully developed and patented.

In this particular case of AZT in the 80s and early 90s, it was eventually realized that high dosages of it did indeed have side effects. This is what modern medicine/science does - it makes mistakes and builds upon them in the search for the best possible remedy or theory.

AZT is used today in smaller quantities than it used to be, along with a few other compounds in what is called "highly active antiretroviral therapy" (HAART) - the treatment for HIV that is now accepted across the board (except alties and conspiracy nutbars, of course).

And the film clarifies this at the end. That's the only spoiler I'll provide, since this is (or should be) common knowledge by now.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Centurion wrote:[/b]

That's right, makes you wonder why alternative treatments weren't recommended to Freddie.
[/QUOTE]

"You know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proved to work?

Medicine."

-- Tim Minchin, Storm


Alternative treatments do not work, period. Anything that seems to work is nothing more than a coincidence, or a case of correlation not being causation. If something that is not incorporated into modern medicine actually does work, it is then fully developed and patented.

In this particular case of AZT in the 80s and early 90s, it was eventually realized that high dosages of it did indeed have side effects. This is what modern medicine/science does - it makes mistakes and builds upon them in the search for the best possible remedy or theory.

AZT is used today in smaller quantities than it used to be, along with a few other compounds in what is called "highly active antiretroviral therapy" (HAART) - the treatment for HIV that is now accepted across the board (except alties and conspiracy nutbars, of course).

And the film clarifies this at the end. That's the only spoiler I'll provide, since this is (or should be) common knowledge by now.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Centurion wrote:[/b]

That's right, makes you wonder why alternative treatments weren't recommended to Freddie.
[/QUOTE]

"You know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proved to work?

Medicine."

-- Tim Minchin, Storm


Alternative treatments do not work, period. Anything that seems to work is nothing more than a coincidence, or a case of correlation not being causation. If something that is not incorporated into modern medicine actually does work, it is then fully developed and patented.

In this particular case of AZT in the 80s and early 90s, it was eventually realized that high dosages of it did indeed have side effects. This is what modern medicine/science does - it makes mistakes and builds upon them in the search for the best possible remedy or theory.

AZT is used today in smaller quantities than it used to be, along with a few other compounds in what is called "highly active antiretroviral therapy" (HAART) - the treatment for HIV that is now accepted across the board (except alties and conspiracy nutbars, of course).

And the film clarifies this at the end. That's the only spoiler I'll provide, since this is (or should be) common knowledge by now.[/QUOTE]

Just watched the film and the film does indeed clarify at the end that AZT is used nowadays in smaller doses and helped millions of people around the world. However, before making this brief statement, it also makes the whole case that alternative treatments, in the case of Ron Woodworth (and, as it suggests, many other anonymous sufferers) did work. I'm actually baffled how can you argue that?? When diagnosed, Woodworth was given 30 days to live by the doctors (who later offered AZT trials to their patients) and survived 7 years without them, eventually succumbing to the disease in September 1992. I am very far from any conspiracy theories whatsoever, but the film also indicates it wasn't in the interests of doctors who tested AZT to give their patients something else, not to mention that in the mid-late 80s little was known about the disease and ways to treat it. According to your theory, when was AZT "fully developed and patented" then? When its usage was reduced? Sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me.

[QUOTE] [b]k-m wrote:[/b]
Just watched the film and the film does indeed clarify at the end that AZT is used nowadays in smaller doses and helped millions of people around the world. However, before making this brief statement, it also makes the whole case that alternative treatments, in the case of Ron Woodworth (and, as it suggests, many other anonymous sufferers) did work. I'm actually baffled how can you argue that?? When diagnosed, Woodworth was given 30 days to live by the doctors (who later offered AZT trials to their patients) and survived 7 years without them, eventually succumbing to the disease in September 1992. I am very far from any conspiracy theories whatsoever, but the film also indicates it wasn't in the interests of doctors who tested AZT to give their patients something else, not to mention that in the mid-late 80s little was known about the disease and ways to treat it. According to your theory, when was AZT "fully developed and patented" then? When its usage was reduced? Sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me.[/QUOTE]


AZT did not killed Freddie ! Freddie developed full blown AIDS in 1986 ( Japan Trip he had a KS stain on his cheek) AZT was released in 1987 !!!
Now with this kind of cancer (KS) doctors expect your death within the next three years. Freddie managed to survived five years. Thanks to the best specialists and AZT.

Freddie tried so called alternative treatments. According to B Valentin he had bood transfusion(s) in Suisse.

Sorry, but to stop that rumours. This is Freddie around September 86` on a Japan trip. There is a KS stain on HIS left cheek. So his status was "full blown AIDS" at that point. AZT wasn`t available before 1987.

Okay, medically, let's get a few things straight...hmmm?

Firstly, Freddie's immune system was already in a very bad state in 1987. He could have been dead by the following year. He had had his blood tested the previous year which did come back positive for HIV (or at least there's evidence to support this). At the time in the aids epidemic, doctors were not completely trusting of the test itself, called 'The Western Blot'; the test had been known to give false positives.

It was only after he began to show visible signs of aids when he went for a lymph node biopsy from his shoulder in the spring of 1987. In order to get a definitive diagnosis, tissue from the biopsy would have been scanned under an electron microscope. a specialist would have visually confirmed hiv virus present in the tissue - making an absolute confirmation that he did indeed have the virus present in his blood. This type of procedure is not cheap and was not an option for the general population in the 80's who wanted an undeniable answer to whether HIV could actually be seen in their blood. Freddie could afford it and obviously did it to be sure.

so when a moron like you comes along and starts sprouting out garbage about him not having aids/hiv...it makes no sense.

secondly, Freddie had the best medical specialists in the world treating him. They wouldn't have only given him AZT or a toxic dose of the drug. Even back in 87 there were other drugs that he could get access to and was most likely on a combination of trimetrexate, roferon/ganciclovir/etc.

Whatever you say about AZT, if it wasn't for this drug, we would most likely not have had Barcelona, Miracle, Innuendo, or MIH.

I'm guessing your the type that also thinks 9/11 was an inside job and that a man has never walked on the moon?

[QUOTE] [b]k-m wrote:[/b]

it also makes the whole case that alternative treatments, in the case of Ron Woodworth (and, as it suggests, many other anonymous sufferers) did work. I'm actually baffled how can you argue that?? When diagnosed, Woodworth was given 30 days to live by the doctors (who later offered AZT trials to their patients) and survived 7 years without them, eventually succumbing to the disease in September 1992.[/QUOTE]

The drugs he took (ddC and peptide T) technically weren't "alternative medicine" ... they were real drugs, but they just hadn't yet gone through the proper due processes to be approved by the FDA, which they eventually were.

Alternative medicine, on the other hand, is an umbrella term for things that, for lack of a longer explanation, don't work. In terms of science and rational means of testing ideas based on observable evidence, it is quackery, pseudoscience, new age philosophy airy fairy beliefs, diluted crap used in homeopathy, whatever you want to call it. Major difference.

I realize this may be an issue of semantics, but pretty much any medical scientist will define alternative medicine as something that has been proven not to work. So I'd say we should choose our wording carefully, as we shouldn't be lumping in the naturopath quack crowd with developing medicine.

[QUOTE] [b]musicland munich wrote:[/b]

Sorry, but to stop that rumours. This is Freddie around September 86` on a Japan trip. There is a KS stain on HIS left cheek. So his status was "full blown AIDS" at that point. AZT wasn`t available before 1987.
[/QUOTE]

Could it not be a pimple or something?

Not that I doubt the overall idea ... it's pretty clear that he knew he had AIDS in 1986. But I'm not sure if a picture like this with supposed kaposi's sarcoma marks should be considered evidence..