Aids Drug AZT killed Freddie

Yeah, I know what you mean...I` have tried to get a higher resulution - but they almost slaughtered me because I asked for that ! The next point is the particular place on his cheek - very similar to KS stain on the well known "Jukebox interview " from 87` and the Ibiza pictures from the same year.

[QUOTE] [b]youngballantyne wrote:[/b]

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]

Sorry guys, don't know why Queenzone does the above every time I try to reply with quote, so I'll just paste the answer to "youngballantyne" here. Happy reading, Mr Know It All.

Not exactly sure who you are referring to as a moron who suggests Freddie did not have HIV or AIDS. I don't think anyone in their sane mind could say that. I appreciate your (alleged) knowledge of the subject matter, but perhaps if you saw the film I mentioned, you would have a better idea what I meant saying that perhaps the OP did have a point and suggesting that perhaps he was bashed a bit unfairly here. Which should be obvious to anyone who saw the film. I'm not claiming that AZT killed Freddie, because that would be absurd. To clarify, I'm not the OP. Anyway, won't waste much more time debating you.

@ musiclandmunich

Since when a blood transfusion is an "alternative treatment"? Also, apart from the "thing" on his cheek, he didn't look like dying there. He actually looks quite healthy. Perhaps, he was still at HIV stage? Anyway, I never claimed to be an expert on AIDS or HIV, so won't really argue here. As I said, watch the Dallas Buyers Club, maybe you will see a different aspect to the whole story. And as usual, the truth lies probably somewhere in between. AZT did not kill Freddie, but perhaps it did him a lot of harm? Obviously, he wasn't as crazy as Ron Woodworth, so he wouldn't rely on unapproved drugs (as RW did), but maybe it was also a bit of a trap?

Since Hutton's book,the general consensus has been that FM discovered that he had AIDS in late April or early May 1987. I know that's only one person's story,but it seems to be the timeline that most biographies/websites go by.
Now, as we have seen from "Barcelona" until "I Want It All",Freddie's face is at times slightly bloated,this being blamed on medication he was being given for his condition. But...
In the "Great Pretender" video, Freddie's face is already displaying this "puffiness". This video would probably have been filmed around January 1987, suggesting that he was already receiving treatment at this point. This calls into question the April 1987 diagnosis.
I may be wrong here but just thought I'd mention it. Apologies if it's been mentioned before.

Ok I am not here to "bash" other people or something like that.

Of course is just a Theory - try to really prove me wrong ! I mean real good, and not with a movie wich has nothing to do with Freddie`s case. Two different people with a disease that is known for a large spectrum of what can happen to the patient. Think of cancer for example, some are dying in a couple of weeks without noticed something before that point and some are fighting for years and years.


Back again - The picture - the more or less exact place on his cheek- Jim Hutton mentioned in his book that he expected that Freddie would be a party animal as soon he returned from Japan- but actually he turned into a couch potato. And it doesn`t matter if he had KS in late 86 or early 87, in both cases he lived longer than the prognoses by the doctors. So did AZT kill him ? I say NO to that !

Destroy my Theory - real good - with a better one !

Lol. You have even used a capital T for your Theory, as if it was some scientific thesis we're supposed to kneel down before. The only thing I can add is that the film which you so conveniently dismissed is based on facts and it certainly sheds some light on various methods of treatment in mid-late 80s. And don't try to educate me about cancer and how it differs from person to person, because you sound pathetic. I am not going to discuss it any longer, as you are clearly stuck in your views, unwilling to accept anything which might put them in question.

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

According to B Valentin he had bood transfusion(s) in Suisse.[/QUOTE]

I always wondered why replacing most of the blood wouldn't cure AIDS, wouldn't that recover a normal CD4 count besides a lower viral load?

Why do people come to the theory that music wouldnt be the same had freddie been.alive? There is no way to stop the way music develops whether he was alive or not. I honestly believe Queen already had peaked in the 80s as with any band. My question is how would the music industry be different if Freddie was here?

Little, if any at all.

Queen's major ripples were made between 1975 and 1981.

[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]

[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]

The only worthwhile thing which has come out of this topic is the photo above. I had never seen it before. It shows that Freddie already had what used to be called "full-blow AIDS" (it's never called that nowadays) in mid-to-late 1986. That Kaposi's sarcoma lesion became more prominent later on, and you can clearly see it in many photos from 1987 (such as those taken in Ibiza).

This really puts a strong shadow of doubt on Jim Hutton's version of events - i.e. that Freddie got to know he had AIDS in 1987. Yes, in 1987 he did have a biopsy done which confirmed his HIV positive status. But I am certain that by 1986 he had already received HIV-positive test results, which, while at the time not always completely reliable, already gave him an extremely strong indication that he had HIV. In 1986 he must have already done ELISA tests and Western blot assays, most likely several, and enough of them came back positive to establish within near certainty that he was HIV positive. The 1987 biopsy was just overkill really. By then he had Kaposi's sarcoma, an AIDS-defining disease, and there would have been virtually no doubt that he had not just HIV, but AIDS.

So, the question here is, why did Jim Hutton not say that Freddie knew he had HIV in 1986? Did Jim himself not know? Was Freddie concealing this? It is quite obvious (especially since a recent radio interview) that Mary Austin knew Freddie had HIV during the Wembley Tour. So either Jim wasn't privvy to the truth, or else he lied about it in his book.

Since Freddie had AIDS by mid-1986, it is reasonable to argue that he must have been infected in the mid or late 1970s. He spent most of his time in Queen living with HIV.

I also think, and this is just speculation based on less facts than what I wrote above, that Freddie knew in 1985, not through tests but through using his own common sense, that he most likely had HIV. I think 1984 was the last year that Freddie did not strongly suspect he was infected.

So nice to see a few people trying to wake up the Sheep, Trolls and Plants.. It's easy to research.. you can see who is unwilling to do so. Learn the truth about AZT and all the spinoffs of it.. Learn the truth about the non-standardized testing, learn the truth that the virus has never been photographed and that so many have been diagnosed by lifestyle alone.. Learn the truth, spread the truth..

[QUOTE] [b]enjoybeing wrote:[/b]

So nice to see a few people trying to wake up the Sheep, Trolls and Plants.. It's easy to research.. you can see who is unwilling to do so. Learn the truth about AZT and all the spinoffs of it.. Learn the truth about the non-standardized testing, learn the truth that the virus has never been photographed and that so many have been diagnosed by lifestyle alone.. Learn the truth, spread the truth..
[/QUOTE]

I really must tell you, and I say this with the utmost respect, please shove your AIDS denialism up your arse and fuck off.

Indeed, fuck off and stop resurrecting this ignorant bile.