Contacts in New York City, Darrow Papers.
71. Clendinen and Nagourney, Out for Good, 494– 96.
312
chapter 6
the Studio One disco on Lapeer Drive, and the city’s most popular bath-
house, West Hollywood’s 8709 Club. Starting in February 1982, he had
been spending more time in San Francisco, concentrating his attention
on the Castro and Folsom Street areas. His preferred Castro hangouts
were cruisy venues including the Midnight Sun, Moby Dick, and Bad-
lands. He enjoyed dancing at the Haight’s I- Beam disco but more fre-
quently attended South of Market’s Trocadero Transfer, and often ended
up nearby at the Hothouse at Fifth and Harrison or in the Club Baths at
Eighth and Howard.72
During their hour and a half meeting, Darrow avoided speaking pre-
scriptively about Dugas’s sexual activity. Although the investigator had
written his doctoral dissertation on how using condoms reduced the
spread of sexually transmissible infections among heterosexuals, he re-
frained from advising Dugas on the possibility of using protection. For
his work, Darrow knew that he depended on the cooperation of the gay
community. He feared that by making suggestions about using con-
doms— a measure associated at the time almost exclusively with birth
control— he risked being ridiculed by the people with whom he needed
a strong rapport. Darrow recollected of his conversation with Du-
gas, “I did not tell him to change his lifestyle, his behavior. I gave him
no orders. I said, ‘Your life is your private life. We don’t know enough
now to say that it is sexually transmitted. I have to tell you we could be
wrong, I could be wrong, but this is what we suspect.’” He recalled that
the fl ight attendant was “dumbfounded” by the suggestion that his can-
cer might have been caused by sex and that Dugas appeared to receive
Darrow’s suggestion as a moral pronouncement on his lifestyle.73 De-
spite the lack of evidence to support the theory of sexual transmission at
the time, Shilts’s history would later suggest that Darrow was “surprised
72. Gay establishment listings for New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, Case 57,
folder: KSOI: Cases and Contacts in New York City, Darrow Papers. Edward Hooper also
drew on these records in The River, 67.
73. Darrow, recording C1491/21, tape 1, side B. Dan Turner recalled to Shilts that his
oncologist, Paul Volberding, had suggested in May 1982 that he begin using condoms;
“Dan Turner 1– 13– 86,” interview notes, January 13, 1986, p. 12, folder 3, box 34, Shilts
Papers. In November 1982, the Southern Californian Physicians for Human Rights orga-
nization was one of the earliest to recommend that gay men use condoms to decrease the
transmission of viruses potentially linked to the syndrome. A more widespread discussion
of condom use within the gay community took place in the spring of 1983; see Silversides,
AIDS Activist, 31; Patton, Inventing AIDS, 42.
Locating Gaétan Dugas’s Views 313
that Gaetan hadn’t thought of it before,” and it would be from this date
that the story of his willful transmission of the virus would often be mea-
sured.74 In contrast to Shilts’s version, Darrow gave an account of this
meeting to the authors of The Truth about AIDS— a book which Shilts
used as a reference for his history. In it, the CDC offi cial noted that
the man “felt terrible” at the prospect of “having made others sick. . . .
He had come down with Kaposi’s but no one ever told him it might be
infectious.”75 The book also quoted Dan William, a gay physician in New
York, who suggested that Dugas was “living proof of the single- agent
theory.” William reached this view by midsummer 1982 when the evi-
dence suggested to him that a single sexually transmissible agent was at
work.76 As we shall see, the fl ight attendant, like Mary Mallon decades
before him, would fi nd it diffi cult to give credence to a new medical the-
ory that used his own body as its strongest evidence.
When Shilts described Dugas’s confrontation with a panel of speak-
ers at a public meeting organized by AIDS Vancouver in March 1983,
he dismissed the fl ight attendant’s reaction as “almost a textbook case
of denial and anger.”77 Marcus Conant, in an interview, also suggested
that this resistance to doctors’ advice was denial.78 Yet the reductive
notion of denial— which implies one’s resistance to accepting an obvi-
ous truth— makes little allowance for the existence of alternative views,
expressed by many, of the available evidence of the time. For example,
from late 1982 onward, two New York men with AIDS, who were also
members of Nichols’s support group, articulated a signifi cant alternative
theory to the notion that AIDS was caused by a single virus. Michael
Callen and Richard Berkowitz, who copublished a popular safe-
sex
booklet in early 1983, were heavily infl uenced by the work of their physi-
cian, Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, who endorsed a multifactorial approach to
disease causation. The theory suggested that the immune suppression in
gay men was not caused by a new virus but by a systemic overload of sex-
ually transmitted diseases (STDs), particularly the repeated reinfection
74. Shilts, Band, 136.
75. Fettner and Check, Truth about AIDS, 86; annotated copy in folder 23, box 34,
Shilts Papers.
76. Dan William, “If AID Is an Infectious Disease . . . A Sexual Syllogism,” New York
Native, August 16, 1982, 33.
77. Shilts, Band, 247.
78. Conant and Robinson, recording C1491/10 (Conant suggestion at tape 1, side B).
314
chapter 6
of cytomegalovirus (CMV).79 Among the theory’s appealing qualities
was the prospect it offered for patients to regain their weakened immune
function if they reduced their exposure to infections.80 “AIDS is a new
syndrome and there are NO authorities,” declared Callen and Berkowitz
in a paid November 1982 advertisement in the New York Native for their
Gay Men with AIDS group. “We believe that it is crucial for us to begin
to share with others like ourselves our personal experiences in getting
treatment.” They urged sick men to educate themselves “by going out-
side the gay press. Get as broad a view and as many different opinions
as possible.” The advertisement also stated, in block capital letters, that
“some immunosuppressed gay men who have stopped indiscrimi-
nate sex are beginning to show signs that their immune system
is healing.”81
In an article summarizing an NYU conference on KS that took place
in mid- March 1983, a journalist for the Medical Post reported the re-
sults of Bijan Safai, chief of dermatology at the Memorial Sloan Ketter-
ing Cancer Center, who was treating KS patients with “total skin elec-
tron beam radiation.” Seventeen of his twenty patients so treated had
enjoyed complete remission for forty- eight months (the other three died
within four months). “Despite the ugly purple- colored tumors and ex-
tensive treatments,” the journalist
quoted Safai as saying, “plus a large
loss in patient self- esteem once the diagnosis has been made,” half of his
KS patients “go back to their previous promiscuous lifestyle and acquire
a new lesion.”82 Based on this summary, one can draw at least two con-
clusions: fi rst, a number of men with KS in New York continued to have
sex; and second, it appears that some medical practitioners viewed re-
turning to a “promiscuous lifestyle” as being a suffi cient cause for a re-
currence of cancer. Following this logic, one might imagine KS patients
of the time, like Dugas, fi nding in such studies evidence to support the
immune overload theory.83 This interpretation of the evidence, in turn,
79. Berkowitz and Callen, How to Have Sex in an Epidemic, 5– 9.
80. Joe Wright, “‘Only Your Calamity’: The Beginnings of Activism by and for People
with AIDS,” American Journal of Public Health 103, no. 10 (2013): 1790.
81. Gay Men with AIDS, “A Warning to Gay Men with AIDS,” New York Native, No-
vember 22, 1982, 16. See also Epstein, Impure Science, 58– 66.
82. Mark Fuerst, “‘Shell- Shocked’ Gays Told ‘Wear Condoms’: Homosexual Practices
Linked to Kaposi’s Risk,” Medical Post, April 19, 1983, 8.
83. For example, when interviewing gay men with AIDS in 1984, Lon G. Nungesser,
who himself had KS, asked Arthur Felson how he thought he had “caught AIDS.” This
Locating Gaétan Dugas’s Views 315
could sustain the view that one’s skin cancer was not contagious. By re-
ducing one’s sexual contacts and attending to other sources of immune
stress, one could decrease one’s own chances of a recurrence of cancer,
without having to abstain from sex.
Such a perspective was moving in opposition to the growing scien-
tifi c consensus that a single agent, likely a virus, caused AIDS. It was
not, however, beyond the pale. In October 1983, Edward Brandt, the US
Assistant Secretary of Health, inquired about this possibility to Jeffrey
Koplan, the chair of the Public Health Service Executive Committee on
AIDS, after having read a September supplement to the Medical Tri-
bune called “Facing AIDS Today.” After reviewing the article, which
profi led Callen and Berkowitz and their claims of having improved their
immune function after reducing their exposure to viruses and other in-
fections, the committee’s response was clear. It concluded “that the im-
pression of clinical improvement in AIDS after lifestyle alteration is an-
ecdotal at best and certainly affected by a desire for cure in persons with
a seemingly fatal illness.”84
Christos Tsoukas, a Montreal-
based physician, also attended the
NYU KS conference in March 1983 where Safai had presented his re-
sults. Two months later, Tsoukas encountered Dugas on rounds at the
Montreal General Hospital. He was intrigued by Dugas’s KS, the fi rst
case he had ever seen, and was struck by his patient’s strongly held be-
lief that his cancer could not be sexually transmitted. Although he ac-
knowledged that it had not yet been proven that AIDS was caused by a
virus, the physician felt suffi ciently concerned to contact Linda Lauben-
stein, whom he had met at the NYU conference: “I was intrigued by the
Ka posi’s and the treatment that he was getting because we were seeing
New Yorker, who was part of an emerging person with AIDS (PWA) empowerment move-
ment, provided a multifactorial explanation, attributing his personal health crisis to a com-
bination of dietary, stress- related, and sexual risks, even acknowledging the possibility of a
genetic component. “I believe I came down with the illness because I was a highly stressed,
drug- abusing, sexually active man who was nutritionally insuffi cient and who was psycho-
logically insuffi cient. I may have had a minimum amount of genetic predisposition.” See
Lon G. Nungesser, Epidemic of Courage: Facing AIDS in America (New York: St. Mar-
tin’s Press, 1986), 6.
84. “Facing AIDS,” in “Sexual Medicine Today,” a supplement to Medical Tribune,
September 14, 1983, 9– 16; attachment to note from Edward Brandt to Jeffrey Koplan, Oc-
tober 7, 1983, and reply from Koplan to Brandt, October 19, 1983; AIDS Tracer M, folder:
(1983 Sept.–Oct. FL 2 of 2), box 1, AIDS Correspondence (TRACER) archives, National
Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD.
316
chapter 6
other people with Kaposi’s and I wanted to fi nd out what was going on
in New York. So I remember calling up to speak to Dr. Laubenstein, and
she talked to me and then for certain things that I wanted to know she
referred me to the nurses that would care for him, and the funny part
was that . . . the nurses in New York nicknamed him ‘The Vector.’”85
The nurses’ reference to Dugas as an agent of transmission echoes a
concern that motivated Callen and Berkowitz to develop and promote
a new sexual ethics, one that emphasized a responsibility for one’s own
health and that of one’s partners. “We must recognize,” they wrote in a
widely cited New York Native article in November 1982, “the self- hating
short- sightedness involved in knowingly or half- knowingly infecting our
sexual partners with disease, only to have that disease return to us in ex-
ponential form.”86 Berkowitz recalled in a memoir that they had been
prompted, in part, by the attitude expressed by Philip Lanzaratta at
their support group.87 For parts of his book, Berkowitz drew on tape-
recorded conversations with Michael Callen, transcripts of which can be
found in Callen’s archived personal papers. In one, Callen is recorded
as saying, “I brought up the subject of sex and Phil Lanzaratta said yes,
I still go to the baths, I worked all those years on my body and I’m still
attractive, the lighting is such that there’s this spot on my leg . . .” The
phrase is left unfi nished, but the implication is that the lesion remained
unnoticed in the bathhouse’s low light levels. Though describing Lan-
zaratta as “a complete sweetheart,” Callen recalled being struck by the
“coldbloodedness” of the man’s reply to Callen’s question about the pos-
sibility of transmission: “It’s every man for himself, they’ve probably all
got it anyway, one of them gave it to me and if they’re there they’re tak-
ing the same chance I took.”88 Although they were initially disturbed
by Lanzaratta’s remarks, Callen and Berkowitz ultimately recognized
some of his sentiments in their own thinking and among many of the
men who attended bathhouses. Troubled, they decided to reframe the
conversation.
85. Tsoukas, recording C1491/30, tape 1, side A. See also Shilts’s notes from his inter-
view with Laubenstein: “Dr Linda,” p. 2, folder 10, box 34, Shilts Papers.
86. Callen and Berkowitz, “We Know Who We Are,” 29; Berkowitz and Callen, How to
Have Sex in an Epidemic, 15.
87. Berkowitz , Stayin’ Alive, 137– 38.
88. “SONY XB- 60 Microcassette— side a,” p. 7, folder 250, box 9, Callen Papers.
Locating Gaétan Dugas’s Views 317
In summary, there was a tension at play during thi
s period, between
some health workers, who were gradually becoming convinced that
AIDS was caused by an as- yet- undiscovered virus, and signifi cant num-
bers of gay men who wanted more proof of transmission prior to mak-
ing dramatic adjustments to their lives. Many of the latter believed that
making concessions before being presented with such evidence would
create personal hardship and irrevocably undermine their hard- won po-
litical gains from the previous decade.
Rumors and Hostility
In July 1983, Time magazine noted ominously, “The AIDS reaction
has its dark side. The gay culture is awash with rumors of unnamed vic-
tims who are purposely trying to infect as many others as possible.”89
This story built on a May 1983 article by Arthur Bell in New York’s
Village Voice. Bell stated, “Many AIDS victims, particularly those in
advance[d] stages, literally live at the baths, not only in Manhattan, but
in San Francisco and Los Angeles. In orgy rooms, dark hallways, and
dimly lit cubicles, scars and lesions go undetected. The rationale (if there
is one) among spreaders is ‘I’m going to die anyway. I may as well go
down happy.’ Or worse: ‘Somebody gave it to me, after all.’”90
Bell, in turn, had built his story, at least in part, from a remark from
Richard Berkowitz, who was frustrated that the Village Voice refused to
publish his and Callen’s writing about AIDS. Berkowitz recalled, with
regret, a conversation with Bell wherein he had exaggerated the motiva-
tions of men from his AIDS support group who continued to attend the
baths without disclosing their health status. Hoping that he might gener-
ate more concern, he recounted, “I told Arthur Bell, and I had nothing
to base it on, that there were gay men who were going to the baths be-
cause it was so dark they could have sex with people without anyone see-
ing their lesions. And Arthur reported it as fact [ chuckling] in one of his
columns. And I’m like, ‘Oh Jesus, you know? I shouldn’t have made up
that little lie.’ [ Speaking loudly] But I was so angry and frustrated that
89. John Leo, “The Real Epidemic: Fear and Despair,” Time, July 4, 1983, 58.
90. Arthur Bell, “AIDS Update: Love with the Proper Stranger,” Village Voice, May 10,
1983, 16– 17.
Patient Zero and the Making of the AIDS Epidemic Page 53
