Freddie Mercury-If i'm still alive i'll come back(to Hungary)

The line between HIV positive and Full-Blown AIDS differs from country to country.
It has to do with the level of (parts of) white blood cells in a persons blood.
When this drops below a certain level then they have AIDS, until then it is called HIV positive.

The determination of this level is free for every country to decide for themselves.
Idiotic but true..

[QUOTE]

[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] When Peter found out is not necessarily when Freddie found out.  I tend to take most of what's written in these "tell-all" books with a pinch of salt ... or maybe even the fullshaker.

Everyone wants to think they were closest to Freddie and heard the real deal, but it's highly likely that only Freddie knew.  And as Dane pointed out, it's very probable he felt something was wrong with his health even before he got confirmation from a doctor. [/QUOTE]
Unless we're running on the assumption that Fred was an exquisite, irresponsible, inconsiderate selfish asshole, I'd assume he would inform his live in lover and sexual partner as soon as he knew anything concretely.  Jim claimed in his book that it was Easter 1987, and based on the biopsy of some tissue from his skin, which was confirmed to be Kaposi's Sarcoma - an AIDS defining illness.  Usually AIDS is diagnosed with the white cell counts Dane noted, or the presence of an AIDS defining illness.  So all things considered I think Jim's claim of a diagnosis of full blown AIDS in April 1987 is credible.

Right - it was the Hutton book that I was making my assumption based on - the fact Freddie had developed Kaposi's Sarcoma, which I've read appears when you have AIDS and are not simply HIV positive.

I think the proof you need is in Freddie's own writing in the December 1986 Xmas edition - that he was aware something maybe happening. I quote "The tour was fun and a great success, although I must admit I had to be coaxed into doing it. I'm glad I did it now."

What says to me he probably didn't fancy touring in 1986 but it was dawning on him following Live Aid etc they were kind of reborn & he might not get another chance in the future. Brian May said in one of the interviews Touring probably was a good distraction given what he might be facing instead of having 1986 as a "quiet" year, which was Queen's intention before the Live Aid success.

[b]MAXPOWER WROTE "What says to me he probably didn't fancy touring in 1986 but it was dawning on him following Live Aid etc they were kind of reborn & he might not get another chance in the future[/b]. Brian May said in one of the interviews Touring probably was a good distraction given what he might be facing instead of having 1986 as a "quiet" year, which was Queen's intention before the Live Aid success."

------

I reckon Freddie probably felt obligagted to tour due to their Live Aid success. Had it not come at that time, The Works tour could have been their last hurrah which was possibly their intention given the re-introduction of their earlier material on stage.

Would their legacy still have been so great without that last massive tour... I doubt it. It was groundbreaking in it's size, and surely had such an impact to music fans (both Queen and neutrals), that it's still thought about today. EVERYBODY had a copy of live at wembley... whether bought or taped from TV. It's the first (and only) concert[i] [/i]I remember watching as a youngster... mainly due to Freddie looking so cool in the yellow jacket (and him having a mosuatche the same as my dad's).

As we're notsure when he found out about his illness, we'll never know if that last tour was down to their resurgence in popularity thru Live Aid or Freddie's live farewell to his fans? Whether he did it out of obligation or for more personal reasons?