MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2961067942 · doi:10.1353/bhm.2019.0039

Patient Zero and the Making of the AIDS Epidemic by Richard A. McKay

2019· article· en· W2961067942 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gerald M. Oppenheimer

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the history of medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiographyHistoryMedicineGerontologyDemographySociologyArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Patient Zero and the Making of the AIDS Epidemic by Richard A. McKay Gerald M. Oppenheimer Richard A. McKay. Patient Zero and the Making of the AIDS Epidemic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017. xiv + 432 pp. Ill. $35.00 (978-0-226-06395-9). Randy Shilts’s And the Band Played On (1987), the first history of the AIDS epidemic, introduced the American public to Gaëtan Dugas, the infamous Patient Zero, who supposedly seeded the U.S. epidemic from coast to coast and, worse, may have been the vector who imported AIDS to North America. Most dramatically, influenced by several medical sources, Shilts portrayed Dugas, an Air Canada steward, as a psychopathic carrier who purposely infected other gay men. Shilts’s account was rapidly amplified by the popular media so that Dugas became for several years the human face of the epidemic in North America. As Richard McKay demonstrates in his meticulously researched book, much of what we know of Dugas is a fiction, the transformation of an early AIDS patient into a demon. McKay’s project may in part be described as the biography of a false fact. Dugas, an exceedingly attractive young French Canadian with a highly active sex life in multiple cities, was diagnosed with Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) in spring 1980, a year before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published its first reports of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) and KS in previously healthy gay men. He came to the attention of the CDC when it constructed a cluster study of early KS/PCP cases in Southern California, later extending it to ten U.S. cities. The CDC’s cluster consisted of the self-reported sexual contacts of the selected gay men. Erroneously assuming that the incubation period of this new disorder was approximately a year, the CDC inferred that the cluster demonstrated that AIDS was a transmissible disease and that infected individuals within the cluster, Dugas among them, had possibly passed the virus on seriatim. But the CDC provided no data plotting the temporal transmission of the disease from one man (with possibly scores of previous partners) to the next, so that the direction of supposed transmission remained obscure. As McKay shows, Dugas’s importance within the cluster was unduly magnified in two unfortunate ways. While the other men in the study could identify only a few of their multiple partners, Dugas maintained an address book of his sexual contacts, information he shared with the CDC, ensuring that a higher proportion of the cluster’s members would be associated with him. Likewise, unlike most others, he could specify sexual partners on both coasts, boosting his image as a cross-country vector. In addition, while other cases were identified by city and sequence of diagnosis, Dugas, as the only outlier in the initial cluster of men living in Southern California, was tagged with the letter O, denoting “outside-of-California.” At some point, accidentally, the letter was transposed into the number zero, inadvertently marking him as the putative “ur-case.” Graphic displays of the cluster also distorted the data to Dugas’s detriment, presenting him (patient O) at the center of the network’s spokes, visually indicting him as the index case. As McKay demonstrates, Shilts’s characterization of O as the demonic carrier, Patient Zero, required highly selective and biased research by this San Francisco Chronicle journalist. Why Shilts, himself gay, would choose to blame critical elements of the epidemic on a gay man is a subject that McKay analyzes in forensic detail, drawing from his assiduous archival work, interviews, and secondary [End Page 294] sources. His two chapters on Shilts and Band offer an elegant and persuasive case for Shilts’s motives and the circumstances under which his ideas consciously and unconsciously formed. Shilts’s depiction of Dugas as a villainous Typhoid Mary was capitalized on by his editor, also gay, desperate to publicize a work that he feared reviewers and opinion makers were set to overlook. Once planted in the press, the Dugas story diffused rapidly through newspapers, magazines, and TV programs in the United States and Canada. (McKay, a Canadian, integrates his story into the parallel...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the history of medicineSame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207