I'd put Bowie out of mind for a while. Like most everyone, didn't know he was dying.
The conversations about his dying revive his work intelligently. I heard him on NPR talking about his friend John Lennon, and how Lennon, who, he said, never suffered from a deficit of strong opinions, showed him that rock could draw on and integrate other art forms — dance, theater, film.
Lennon, of course, picked this up from Yoko, a superb visual/conceptual artist. He was looking to pick it up. Why he dug her.
From Yoko to Lennon to Bowie.
That said, I like most everyone want to know about the cancer that killed Bowie. For all sorts of reasons. I'm thinking about the cancer that killed Steve Jobs, and the alternative therapies he resorted to for too long, in lieu of the surgery that might — the stress is on "might" — have saved him.
Surgeons and other "Western" doctors debate this out loud, on-line. They argue about whether, given Jobs's particular cancer, any of their techniques — surgery, chemo etc. — might have saved him. They express their doubts.
Haven't heard the same from any of the herbalists, naturopaths, and various and sundry quacko-paths Jobs relied on for so long.
Their lack of accountability is much of why I don't trust them.
Eccentricity, to be sure, was part of Jobs's genius. But maybe so far as his own life and death was concerned, his medical eccentricity failed him.
So, back to Bowie. If his cancer was AIDs related, I suspect he might have said so, given how forthcoming he was about personae, possibility, and polymorphous sexuality.
I don't have a right to know, only a right to be curious.