141. “Simon” requested that Shilts not use his name, thus I have given him a pseu do-
nym. His interview notes in the Patient Zero folder are headed with the boxed phrase
“raised in [name of province].”
142. Roger Ross, “Media Finds Easy Target in Dead Man: Friends Angry That Gaetan
Dugas Is Labelled Patient Zero,” Q Magazine [Vancouver], December 15, 1987, 5; copies
of this short- running Canadian periodical are available at the British Columbia Gay and
Lesbian Archives.
143. “Paul Popham, Interview— April 17 ’86,” interview notes, p. 5, folder 25, box 34,
Shilts Papers.
144. Randy Shilts to Marcus Conant, 14 May 1986, folder 60, box 1, K- S Notebook—
Chronological Files, Conant Papers.
178
chapter 3
once more, explaining that he was ready to write up some sections and,
in addition to other details, would like to know “anything about Gaetan
Dugas.”145 It appears, somehow, that the writer was able to obtain some
medical information about the fl ight attendant from the doctor’s of-
fi ce, as two pages of information in Shilts’s records list the fl ight atten-
dant’s social insurance number, insurance provider, former doctors, ill-
ness and treatment history, and the date of one visit to Conant.146 More
important, however, the next phase of the development of the “Patient
Zero” story was under way: over the next few months, Shilts wrote up his
book, and Michael Denneny prepared its release.
“I Wait for a Pulitzer Prize”
A few weeks after returning to San Francisco from Vancouver, Shilts
wrote a weary yet upbeat entry in his journal, refl ecting on changes from
his old self: “Then I wanted a job— Now I wait for a Pulitzer Prize. Then
I wanted sex— now I still want a life- long relationship— A big change—
It’s been 2 years w[ith]/out alcohol and, in 9 days, one year without Any
drugs. No pot. No coke and that has helped [me] see how success is my
drug too and how I’ve been trying to have an applauded today replace a
childhood in which I was beaten and emotionally abused— .” The jour-
nalist was feeling “a little under the weather,” a feeling which he attrib-
uted to working too hard on his second book, so he kept the entry short,
noting in conclusion that “somewhere, I hoped to have a hand in making
a better world and (most lately) in saving some lives. Life gets so much
more serious than we ever expect it to be and all our youthful scheming
can look pretty petty in retrospect— I hope I do a better job of all this life
business in my second 34 years. Randy”147
The writing of his second book, Band, would drain Shilts emotion-
ally and fi nancially. After getting a green light from Denneny, Shilts re-
duced his work at the Chronicle to part- time in September 1985 to work
on the book.148 He took to writing during the day and working the night
145. Randy Shilts to Marcus Conant, 31 July 1986, p. 1, folder 14, box 33, Shilts Papers.
146. “Gaton Dagus [ sic],” Shilts’s handwritten notes, folder 23, box 34, Shilts Papers.
147. Shilts, “April 6, 1986 / SF,” “Green” journal, Alband Collection.
148. Mark A. Perigard, “They Fiddled While Rome Burned— A San Francisco AIDS
Reporter’s Wide- Ranging Critique,” Bay Windows [Boston], November 12– 18, 1987, 6.
“Humanizing This Disease” 179
shift at the newspaper before eventually taking a leave of absence from
the Chronicle to concentrate on the book full time. In addition to the
diffi culties of conducting interview after interview with dying PWAs,
the expenses of research travel and telecommunication took their toll.
He later stated that the publisher’s advance just covered the cost of his
long- distance phone calls and that he needed an additional $4,000 “to
pull him through a personal fi nancial crisis.”149 He borrowed the maxi-
mum amount on his credit cards and went $30,000 into debt.150 An un-
dated note in his papers for Band indicates that at one point Shilts “fi led
bankruptcy” and was “on foodstamps.”151 He also borrowed money from
three of his brothers, whom he thanked in Band’s acknowledgements.152
As Denneny recalled, “Randy went totally broke writing the book. Bor-
rowed from all his friends, from his family. Finally, he’s one of these peo-
ple who has one of these great big glass jars that he’d throw his pennies
and nickels into. He had to take that to the bank, to pay his rent.”153
A letter written in late September 1986 from Shilts to his editor dem-
onstrates the author’s determination to complete the book despite set-
backs. Shilts was enclosing the fi rst half of the book, which would have
included the Patient Zero segments, and nervously awaited feedback:
“Of course, I’m neurotically sitting around until you call me up and
tell me what you think, so read it. I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.”
Shilts mentioned that he was due to return to work at the Chronicle on
January 4, 1987. Shilts continued, “That is when I want this book com-
pleted as well. It simply was impossible to even work part- time while I
did this. Frankly, I was getting extremely stressed out toward the end of
the summer, my dreams haunted with horrible nightmares about peo-
ple trying to inject me with AIDS virus and the like.” He warned of im-
pending dire fi nancial circumstances: “I left The Chron on the faith that
somehow, somewhere, the money would come up to support me. I can
take care of myself, probably, through October. In November, however,
I must have money. I’m not posturing around this; I mean that I’ll need
money to pay rent and that kind of thing. I’m praying we can get what-
149. Steve Taravella, “‘A Story of Prejudice’: Author Chronicles Politics behind AIDS
Policies,” Modern Healthcare, January 1, 1988, 76.
150. “Heart of an Epidemic,” 14.
151. Handwritten note, folder 6, box 42, Shilts Papers.
152. “Heart of an Epidemic,” 14.
153. Denneny, recording C1491/22, tape 1, side B.
180
chapter 3
ever money deal we can worked out in October; we must get it worked
out in October. I hate to have these kinds of worries dogging me when
I’m working on such a massive project.”154
The journalist also described the political context of his writing,
which imbued his task with even greater urgency. “It’s possible I never
will write something this important again. I can’t describe what it’s like
to be in California with the debate over the LaRouche Initiative rag-
ing.” A far- right political leader, Lyndon LaRouche, and his associates
had assembled enough signatures to place a referendum on public health
policy onto the California state ballot, with the vote to take place in No-
vember 1986. Proposition 64 asserted that HIV could be spread through
casual contact and insect bites, demanded mandatory testing for anyone
suspected of being infected with the virus, and called for the quarantine
of all those infected. “I assure you,” Shilts continued, “Proposition 64 is
the start, not the end, of
such proposals. Behind it is an anger at AIDS. I
think the anger is warranted. However, we are not the people to be mad
at. I think this book sets the record straight. Hopefully it will also save
our collective asses when the real numbers start to mount and the real
anger, still nascent, begins to arise in full force.”155
Shilts’s use of “we” implies his self- identifi cation with the gay com-
munity, wrongfully facing the anger and blame for AIDS, fury which, he
believed, should be directed toward the Reagan administration’s inac-
tion. His word choice also prepared the ground for an act of scapegoat-
ing, an expulsion of an undesirable whom he deemed unworthy of com-
munity membership and on whose head the perceived collective sins of
the group could be placed. The writer recycled long- held tropes about
superfi cially attractive but deadly disease spreaders in his “othering” of
Dugas; his acknowledgment of his own vulnerability to these external
charms underscored their dangers. Speaking later of the fl ight attendant,
a contemporary whose physical beauty he admired, Shilts admitted, “He
was totally beautiful. I would have gone to bed with him in a minute. . . .
154. Randy Shilts to Michael [Denneny], 25 September 1986, folder: Band Letters, Re-
views 87– 88, Alband Collection; the fi rst instance of October is typed as “Octobere” in
original, and these typed as “theses” in the fi nal sentence.
155. Ibid. See also Christopher P. Toumey, “Conjuring Medical Science: The 1986 Ref-
erendum on AIDS/HIV Policy in California,” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 11, no. 4
(1997): 477– 97.
“Humanizing This Disease” 181
Maybe that’s why I got so obsessed with him and tried to fi nd out every-
thing I could about him. Winsome, sandy hair, mustache, very thin, not
overly tall, well- defi ned torso with light hair all over it— Gaetan was the
kind of man you’d see dancing shirtless at a disco, and everybody would
fall for him.”156 Shilts became convinced, however, that there was a dark
side to this beauty. In an interview with his hometown newspaper, Shilts
gave a clue to the framework within which he viewed Dugas, speaking of
his belief “in moral absolutes. To me, what is morally wrong is not being
kind to your fellow man and ignoring situations in which you can help
out.”157 Dugas, from Shilts’s perspective, utterly failed in this respect.
Shilts would later be unrepentant about his depiction of Dugas, vari-
ously comparing the fl ight attendant to a sociopath, a psychopath, and,
in an interview published by the St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch, a se-
rial killer. “He’s no more representative of people with AIDS than Rich-
ard Speck is representative of the typical male heterosexual. There are
others who were infected and who behaved responsibly and heroically.”158
Similarly, for a British paper while on his UK book tour, he said, “As
a gay person myself I wasn’t thrilled about Gaetan’s behavior. I don’t
see him as any more typical of a gay man than Jack the Ripper was of
the heterosexual— but it did happen.”159 When asked by an interviewer
from the Advocate, his old employer, to explain how Dugas could have
done what Shilts wrote he did, the journalist deployed some armchair
psychology: “I think the key line in the book that gives away every-
thing about Gaetan is when he’s watching Jerry Falwell on TV and he
says maybe Falwell is right, maybe we are being damned. I think that
Gaetan was someone who had never accepted himself as a human be-
ing, hated the part of himself that was gay, hated other gay people, exter-
nalized that self- hatred, and became what in effect was a psychopathic
killer. Every city has its Gaetan Dugas.”160 Denneny recalled that he and
Shilts had long discussions about boyfriends and ex- lovers who contin-
156. Bluestein, “Cries and Whispers,” 65. Shilts seems to be completely unaware of
the assumptions of race and class informing his construction of what “everybody” desired.
157. Bercaw, “Shilts Gets Grip,” A8.
158. Jacqui Banaszynski, “Reporter Calls Accounting of AIDS a ‘Mission,’” St. Paul
Pioneer Press Dispatch, November 10, 1987, 4A. Richard Speck raped and murdered eight
nursing students in Chicago in 1966.
159. Young, “Patient Zero.”
160. Bluestein, “Cries and Whispers,” 65.
182
chapter 3
ued to go to the baths after they were sick and apparently did not use
protection. Though the two were not in a position to determine whether
these were attempts to spread the AIDS-
causing agent deliberately
or a form of carelessness, or even how often such instances occurred,
they agreed that it was important to document such actions, which they
viewed as morally indefensible. Although Denneny would later concede
that Shilts’s characterization of Dugas as an individual was perhaps mis-
taken, he would remain adamant that the behavior that Dugas’s charac-
ter stands in for did happen.161
As some critics were horrifi ed by the presentation of Dugas in the
book, and particularly the scene from November 1982 in the San Fran-
cisco Club Baths, they might have been outraged by an earlier draft.162
This earlier version is extraordinary for the extent to which it enlarges
Shilts’s view of Dugas as a sociopath. Almost identically to the fi nal man-
uscript, Shilts described how Dugas chose a cubicle to enter in the bath-
house “and waited for the ritual nod that indicated he would be welcome.
Without speaking a word, the assignation was set and Dugas pushed the
door shut.” At this point, the fi nal manuscript stops, a result of an edito-
rial decision to strike through the following lines: “Gaetan could barely
restrain a giggle as the thought once again arched across his mind and a
certain glint crossed his mischievous eyes. Maybe he would play his little
joke with this one.”163 In Shilts’s version of 1982, there was no room for
competing etiologies of “gay cancer,” or for moral ambiguity.
Dugas’s friends in Vancouver who were interviewed by Shilts would
have been interested in other information that did not make it into the
book. Bob Tivey, for example, had described a lighthearted day when
Dugas had called him up for a picnic. They drove on Dugas’s motorcy-
cle to North Vancouver, where they spent the afternoon walking around,
eating, and drinking from little airplane bottles of champagne. The iso-
lation within the gay community that Dugas was facing was apparent to
161. Denneny, recording C1491/22, tape 1, side B; tape 2, side A; tape 3, side A. Addi-
tional recollections provided in e- mail to author, May 24, 2013.
162. Shilts, Band, 196– 98; Guy Babineau, “The Prettiest One: Gaetan Dugas and the
‘AIDS Mary’ Myth,” XTRA! West [Vancouver], November 29, 2001, 13– 15; James Miller,
“AIDS in the Novel: Getting It Straight,” in Fluid Exchanges: Artists and Critics in the
AIDS Crisis, ed. James Miller (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992), 258.
163. Draft of Band, p. 456, folder: Draft (511p), n.d., p. 317�
�� 511 (3 of 3), box 37, Shilts
Papers.
“Humanizing This Disease” 183
Tivey when, at the end of the day, Dugas dropped him off and gave him a
kiss, saying, “T[han]k you for g[ivin]g me a normal day.”164 In writing the
book, Shilts skipped over this anecdote in favor of one that reinforces
the image of Dugas angrily resisting medical cautions to refrain from sex
completely.165
Kevin Brown also shared a story with Shilts that did not get included
in the fi nal manuscript of Band. Brown and Dugas had gone on a date
to the Conservatory, a beautiful restaurant in Vancouver’s Stanley Park.
When Brown admits he is interested in Dugas sexually, Gaétan hesitates
before answering, “We can’t. It won’t work out. I can’t say any more.”166
This page- long section, completely written up and included in an early
draft, was cut. It is possible that this was done to tighten the pace of a
long book, though its excision also removed any ambiguity from Dugas’s
motivations and strengthened the image of the fl ight attendant as a de-
liberate disease spreader. Shilts omits the recollections of “Frank” that
Dugas was “always in love [and] needed [an] emotional bond, even if for
a few days,” and that he was “considerate, generous, would share any-
thing.” Also left out was the more humanizing point— to which Shilts
could almost certainly relate— that Dugas “was once chubby— got weight
down— hated old pictures.”167
Shilts also left out humorous anecdotes about Dugas, diminishing
the warm sense of humor remembered by the fl ight attendant’s friends,
who in their interviews with Shilts described Dugas as a clown. The
fl ight attendant would twist his English words around in a humorous
way that would make his friends laugh. Dugas would also make light of
his condition: “If you fi nd me dead, just bury me in the backyard.” He
“ always had p[eo]ple laughing,” Shilts’s notes indicate, “he could charm
a rattlesnake.”168 Dugas’s charm would enter the book, but generally in
a detached, coldhearted way. Shilts depicted the fl ight attendant mak-
ing use of it to single- mindedly pursue his own aims. To a certain extent,
some observers might say that the author deployed the information he
Patient Zero and the Making of the AIDS Epidemic Page 30
