KRAMER VERSUS KRAMER'S CHILDREN
A Rowdy AIDS Forum and its Aftermath
By John Lauritsen
New York Native 7 Oct. 1991
A recent forum sponsored by Positive Action of New York
turned into a shouting match and near brawl over the personality
and conduct of one of the evening's speakers, Larry Kramer, a
prominent playwright and "AIDS spokesman". Billed as "The
Treatment of HIV Infection in 1992", the forum was held on
Thursday evening the 19th of September 1991, in Farkas Auditorium
at the New York University Medical School. Many attended the
forum to hear the now-discredited AIDS-superstar Robert Gallo, of
the National Cancer Institute, who was slated as the principal
speaker. There was advance speculation as to whether Gallo would
dare show his face in public, after the recent appearance of an
article by John Crewdson in the Chicago Tribune.
Crewdson's article disclosed the results of an official
investigation by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which
concluded that Gallo's scientific conduct was reprehensible. In
a preliminary, 200-page report, the NIH investigative team
stated, among other things:
The investigative team considered if Dr. Gallo's
actions as lab chief and senior author of the Science paper
constitute scientific misconduct. The scientific advisory
panel was not unanimous on this point although all agreed
there were serious problems with Dr. Gallo's conduct....
The investigative team believed that even though Dr.
Gallo's actions do not meet the formal definition of
scientific misconduct, they warrant significant censure.
(John Crewdson, "U.S. probe cites lies, errors in AIDS
article", Chicago Tribune, Sunday, 15 September 1991.)
Gallo stayed in Washington, and a message from him was read,
in which he apologized for not attending. It was later divulged
that Gallo has been forbidden by his superiors to make public
appearances of any kind.
Storm clouds were in the air from the beginning, as Bill
Dobbs, a lawyer and member of ActUp, passed out a flyer, "Larry
Kramer: Why Did He Betray AIDS Activists?". The statement,
written by Charles Stimson, Bill Dobbs and Jon Nalley, charged
that Larry Kramer and Rodger McFarlane (a fund-raiser for
Broadway Cares and for the political candidate, Liz Abzug) had
"engaged in a vicious smear campaign against Tom Duane" in the
recent primary race for the New York City Council. The flyer
accused Kramer of having violated Duane's HIV confidentiality by
"calling every reporter in New York to identify Tom Duane as HIV
positive", doing so "in the hope that they would destroy Tom
Duane's candidacy for city council, thereby helping their friend
and Tom's opponent Liz Abzug." Stimson, Dobbs and Nalley demanded
that Kramer "unequivocally apologize for trashing Tom Duane by
gossiping about his HIV status, and affirm the right of HIV
positive persons to make their own decisions about divulging
their HIV/AIDS status."
Although Gallo failed to make his appearance, and the
treatment information presented at the forum was not very useful,
the forum itself was eminently newsworthy. Some important
political and ethical issues were sounded, and Larry Kramer, the
man who is identified as closely with "AIDS activism" as Robert
Gallo is with "AIDS research", spectacularly displayed himself in
the process of self-demolition. I'm writing this report in the
belief that readers of the Native deserve to know the contentions
that are now erupting among "AIDS activists". And for English
students of the future, I wish to leave a brief record of the
language that was used in public "AIDS" discourse in the year
1991.
Fred Valentine
The first speaker, Fred Valentine, MD, showed a number of
slides. One, entitled "Ways To Intervene", listed a half-dozen
or so ways that it might theoretically might be possible to
intervene in the life-cycle of HIV-1, the retrovirus commonly
considered to be the cause of "AIDS": "Block binding, inhibit
uncoating, inhibit reverse transcriptase", and so on. Another
slide showed the genetic structures of HIV-1 and HIV-2; as
retroviruses go, they are not very similar. Valentine referred
to HIV-1 reverse transcriptase as a "sloppy enzyme" inasmuch as
it made two to ten errors per copy. This means that the virus is
constantly mutating, offering in effect a continually moving
target.
Nothing in Valentine's talk suggested that anywhere, at any
stage of development, is there even one drug that shows promise
of helping people with "AIDS". I suspect that few if any of
those in the audience understood more than a smattering of what
he was saying. It really didn't matter.
Nava Sarve
The next speaker, Dr. Nava Sarver, was a replacement for
Gallo. She showed more slides -- the familiar artist renditions
of HIV-1: spherical blobs with bright-colored knobs (like Tinker
Toys) sticking out of them and with funny-looking squiggles
inside. She showed charts of things like, "Therapeutic Targets
To Stop Life Cycle Of HIV". She rattled off the names of drugs
at various stages of development or testing: SCD4, Hypericin, GLQ
223, R031-8959, RO24-7429, FLT, ADT, TIBO, BIRG587.... There is
no evidence to suggest that anyone ever has, or will, or would
benefit from any of these drugs. She showed a slide of the
alleged effects of AZT on resistant and non-resistant strains of
HIV-1, in terms of the now-discredited p24 antigen test. At
least AZT is more than just a theoretical possibility: it's been
aggressively marketed for several years now, and it's out there
actively killing people. Sarver neglected to inform the audience
that AZT is a poison without a single, scientifically-
demonstrated benefit. No doubt she was displaying the scientific
objectivity of which her lab chief, Robert Gallo, is such a
shining example.
David Ho
The third "scientist" to speak was David Ho, of the Aaron
Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York City. He began with the
mind-boggling statement that until 1988 no one had attempted to
quantify the virus. I believe it would be more accurate to say
that attempts had been made, but they were unsuccessful inasmuch
as free virus particles were recorded at such low levels that
they were virtually undetectable, even in patients who were dying
from "AIDS".
Ho showed a slide of recent HIV-1 infection. Five to twenty
days after infection, the viral load reached a sharp peak,
accompanied by mild flu-like symptoms. Then antibodies were
formed, and the virus immediately plunged to barely detectable
levels. Common sense would say that the body had successfully
overcome a brief and not very serious infection. But according
to current HIV dogma, the virus is still doing _something_, and
after a "latency period" of ten years or so, the symptoms of
"AIDS" will begin to appear.
David Ho was not optimistic that any form of anti-retroviral
therapy would be helpful, and he appeared to take an especially
dim view of the nucleoside analogues (AZT, ddI, ddC, etc.).
Mark Harrington
The first "activist" speaker, Mark Harrington of ActUp New
York, asserted that far too much research had gone into anti-
retroviral drugs, and not nearly enough into drugs to treat the
opportunistic infections from which people with AIDS suffer:
pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, the wasting syndrome,
cryptosporidium, MAI, tuberculosis, and various fungal
infections. He asserted that emphasis should be shifted to drugs
that strengthen the immune system, and away from drugs designed
to attack retroviruses.
Harrington made one very good point, which is obvious but
easily overlooked: with truly effective drugs, a dramatic
improvement is seen. In the case of the anti-retroviral drugs,
none but the most subtle and dubious benefits have ever been
claimed.
Larry Kramer
Shortly after Larry Kramer started talking, Bill Dobbs and
his colleagues in the rear of the room demanded that Kramer first
answer the charges that he had violated the HIV confidentiality
of Tom Duane. I have transcribed the whole ruckus, including the
extemporaneous talk Kramer eventually gave, for posterity. The
quality of the recording is quite high, but unfortunately at
times Kramer tended to mumble or otherwise slip into substandard
diction, which accounts for the occasional gaps in the
transcript. If I may digress, there is a lesson here for our
younger agitators: Even in the most explosive diatribe, even in
the climax of a thundering jeremiad, it is still important to
enunciate clearly.
Bill Dobbs: Why don't you answer the charges? You
purport to speak out about this issue, let's hear you!
Respond!
Larry Kramer: If you will wait until the question and
answer session...
BD: No we're not going to wait until the question and
answer session! Your credibility is in fucking shreds!
We've never seen the spector of someone who purports to hold
the leadership
David Barr (Moderator): Bill!... Bill!
BD: ... that would disclose the HIV status of someone
without his consent.
DB: Bill, everybody got the flyer.
BD: [unintelligible owing to commotion] ... You can't
just lick his ass before he talks.
DB: Shut the fuck up and let him answer!
BD: Don't you think Kramer's able to speak for
himself, David?
DB: So let's give him a chance. Sit down and shut up
and let him talk.
BD: Oh yeah, we'll just be quiet while HIV
confidentiality is broken!
[Commotion - "Let him talk!"]
BD: You didn't do it for Brad Davis, did you, Kramer?
[Commotion.]
DB: Sit down, Bill!
BD: Shut up!
DB: Sit down!
BD: Shut up!
DB: Sit down! [to Larry Kramer:] Go ahead.
Larry Kramer: [Long pause] I spoke to Dr. Gallo
several times this week and I found the experience
exceptionally sad. In a strange way I had grown rather fond
of him ... over the last six months or so. I don't know if
we will ever know the answer to the charges made against
him. But they certainly, I believe, are not so black and
white as so many would have us believe. He was not allowed
to come to this meeting ... by Dr. Broder. [Unintelligible]
... He has been placed on an exceptionally short leash, and
is not allowed to make public appearances. Additionally,
the work in his lab has come to a standstill. In that
laboratory he tried to find a cure for KS. When we come
fact to face with ... the various big moral questions.
[mumbling] ... It is one thing to disagree and another thing
to kill.
BD: Exactly! And why would anyone rely on you after
what you did this Summer? Why would we rely on your
judgment that Gallo is right? You're going to stand up
there and defend Gallo? Horseshit! How many times have we
been forced to depend on your judgment? And you sell out
AIDS for a cheap political tactic!
DB: Bill, you're going to have a chance to talk.
BD: Don't lecture me, you stupid, lazy, incompetent
shithead! Go back to Lambda! [Laughter.]
[Commotion.]
DB: Look, each speaker is up here for fifteen minutes
to talk, and then we open it up to the floor. There are a
lot of people in the audience who want to ask and talk about
treatment. Would you allow that to happen? Awright? Your
flyer's been given out. Everybody's heard what you had to
say.
BD: You're not going to dictate free speech now?
DB: No, we're not going to dictate free speech ...
[commotion]
[Commotion.]
LK: I said that I would refer the questions to the
question and answer session. [Unintelligible] Could you
wait a little longer? Or do you want me not to make my
speech. I'm happy not to make my speech.
BD: I'd be happy not to hear you talk, if you want my
opinion.
[Commotion.]
DB: [To Larry Kramer] Would you go on, please?
LK: No, I don't want to go, if I'm going to be ...
BD: Oh, beg us to go on, Larry. You stupid hypocrite!
DB: Bill, enough! It doesn't help the points you're
trying to make.
[Other voices] Whether it's GMHC or some other ...
operation that's paying you.... You're making the same
points that George Bush makes endlessly, David. You don't
help our cause when you use such defensive tactics.
DB: Fine. Fine Are you going to keep talking? All
right.
LK: I'm not going to talk if he's continually going to
interrupt me.
[Long interchange, after which Bill Dobbs and two
companions agree not to interrupt Kramer's talk.]
BD: We've agreed not to say anything further. Carry
on, Kramer!
LK: [Rests his chin on the podium and scowls at the
audience for about one minute. Suddenly he springs back and
yells, full volume:] SO! WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A FUCKING
PLAGUE!!! AND YOU BEHAVE LIKE THIS! SO! FORTY MILLION
INFECTED PEOPLE IN THIS FUCKING PLANET!!! And nobody acts
as it is! Nobody here either! Nobody in this hospital!
Nobody in this city! Nobody in this world! [Begins banging
on the podium.] [Bang, bang, bang] ... the fucking plague
[Bang, bang, bang] ... all because of some stupid thing you
didn't even call and ask me about! You don't know what I
did!
We are in the worst shape we have ever, ever, ever been
in! Nothing is working! None of that shit you saw on the
screen is working! None of the shit that's in the pipeline
that these people are studying is working! You heard what
George Bush said ... when we went to Kennebunkport. He's
more inclined, he's feels more sorry for the unemployed.
That's what we're in. Every person I talk to -- in every
city, in every agency -- gay, straight, AIDS -- is as
despondent as they can possibly be. Nobody knows what to do
next. Nobody knows what to do next. And we have a
president who cares ... more about the unemployed ...
setting people against each other ... just like these people
are doing ... than he cares about us.
All those pills they're shoving down our throat --
forget it! All those treatments Mark mentioned -- forget
it! My beloved Brad Davis took every fucking drug for MAI,
and not one of them worked. Plus two that we got out of the
White ... out of experimental ... that are so top secret
nobody else has had them.
What does it take? Nobody knows. I don't know
anymore. I helped start the two biggest organizations.
They've turned to shit! Both of them! GMHC is a
bureaucracy that's so ludicrous -- it's a joke. ActUp has
been taken over by a lunatic fringe. They can't get
together. Nobody agrees with anything. All they can do is
steal. A couple hundred people at a demonstration. ActUp
doesn't make anybody pay attention. [Unintelligible] ...
millions out there. We can't do that. All we do is pick at
each other. And yell at each other. [Banging on podium] I
deserve a little fucking respect for what I've done -- in
this room. [mixed applause and boos] These people like to
write me love letters ... the essence of Larry should be
bottled, and we should all drink it ... and suddenly I do
one thing that they don't agree with. Then I'm Hitler.
What kind of extremism is this? [Unintelligible]
I'm as depressed as I've ever been. I talked to Marty
Delaney on the West Coast, a similar kind of guy. He
doesn't know what to do. [Unintelligible] You know that
Tony Fauci ... damned bungler that he is ... are not
capable of the jobs entrusted to them. You know that!
Fred, you know that the ACTG system is worth shit! Yes, you
said that, you told me! ... The ACTG system has produced
nothing of any value. The studies are all the product of
second-rate, middle-of-the-road decisions that are not
controversial. And everybody knows this. You all schlep
down there, three times a year, at tax payers' expense, and
you sit there, and you know it's all a load of shit.
Why are all the fights left to the activists? Why do
we have to do all the fights? Why do we have to fight your
fights? Have any of you gone back to Saul Farber, the head
of this medical school? Have you gone to Larry Tisch and
Bob Tisch, whose name is on this hospital, and said we have
got a plague on? We have to get to George Bush. We can't
get the fucking ear of George Bush. And he's the only
person that matters. It doesn't make any difference to go
to Cuomo, or Dinkins, or Moynihan. Forget it! It isn't
going to do dipshit. George Bush is the only person, and we
are closed off from him. The people who have the power
won't go near him. You want to tell Dr. Farber ... the
Tisches. Joan Tisch is on the board of directors of Gay
Men's Health Crisis. [exclamation from the audience] You
didn't know that? She is on the board of Gay Men's Health
Crisis. Bob Tisch's wife. I have spent personally two
years begging her to have a meeting with her husband. Her
husband, Bob Tisch, was in Ronald Reagan's cabinet, as
Postmaster General. And I said, "Joan, you're on the board
of this organization. Get your husband to talk to George
Bush. Tell him there's a plague on. Tell him nothing is
working. Nobody has a master plan. You keep throwing all
this money away. Has anyone planned. Does anybody have a
plan? At NIH? NIH is a joke."
David Ho, you know the things that we have to learn --
before we can go forward. You network with our people; you
can help make a list of all the things that we have in order
... to investigate. Why aren't we doing this? What does it
take, to get, to perpetuate a master plan. You guys
[unintelligible] ... and we have to do the fight. Ten years
have gone. Ten years have gone ... stupid studies of the
ACTG. I don't blame you for that. I blame the ACTG. We're
getting nowhere. Nowhere! I'm so tired of looking at these
stupid flyers. [Laughter] They insult you. [Applause]
You come to these [unintelligible] and they trot out AIDS
101. We're in graduate school.
I want to read you something from the New York Times.
[Reads article, "Medical Research is in Ruins", about how
"the NIH is in disarray".] In other words, you guys ought
to be fighting for your jobs. This litany is not new. Why
then have the scientists been silent? Why then have the
scientists been silent? Why then have the scientists been
silent? Scientists have to speak out. If necessary, fight
-- for health research. They have to tell the president and
his administration that government priorities are signaled
by unfulfilled positions and unkept promises. I don't make
this up. That's the fucking president of Yale Medical
School.
I don't know what to do anymore, and I never said that
before. I think ActUp doesn't work anymore. I think the
tactics it represents don't work anymore. I think the anger
that is in us has fallen on deaf ears. And I don't know
what to do next. I don't know what kind of organization to
start. I don't know how to fight. I don't know how to lead
anyone, should they want to follow. I don't know what to
write anymore. I don't know how to write any part of this,
because I have said what I have said to you tonight, in one
form or another, for ten fucking years. And I say to you in
year ten, as we fact the figure of 40 million infected
people, the same thing I said in 1981, when there were 41
cases. Until we get our act together, all of you, until we
learn to plug in with each other, and fight and make this
president listen, we are as good as dead.
And in closing I would like to thank the gentleman in
the rear [Bill Dobbs] for stirring me up, because I don't
think I would have made such a potent speech otherwise.
The Question and Answer Session
In the question and answer period Larry Kramer responded to
the charges made against him by denying that he had outed the HIV
status of Tom Duane. He did admit to telling Duane that he would
have no respect for him if he kept his HIV status secret. Kramer
said he considers himself to be a "role model" for publicly
identifying himself as HIV positive, and wanted Tom Duane also to
be a role model. Bill Dobbs angrily called Kramer a liar,
charging that he and Rodger McFarlane had violated HIV
confidentiality in their talks with reporters.
Michael Ellner, President of H.E.A.L., pointed out that a
slide shown by David Ho, showing viral burden for both ARC and
AIDS patients, could well be interpreted as showing that HIV was
just another opportunistic infection rather that the fundamental
cause of "AIDS".
I spoke for a few minutes, until I was silenced by the
Moderator, David Barr. The AIDS totalitarianism in this country,
I maintained, is reminiscent of Lysenkoism under Stalin, several
decades ago. Several dozen important scientists have signed a
letter calling for an open investigation of the HIV-AIDS
hypothesis, and their brief and sensible letter has been rejected
by Science, Nature, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the
Lancet. Any discussion of AIDS treatment, I continued, is
incomplete without acknowledging the enormous tragedy that is now
taking place: approximately 125,000 people on AZT and 20,000 or
more or ddI. These drugs have no benefits that have been
demonstrated by honest and competent research, and they are
sufficiently toxic that no consequence other than death can
reasonably be expected. This is mass murder, and nobody is doing
anything to stop it.
Some people came to the forum looking for a crumb of hope
that somewhere on the horizon there might be a cure for "AIDS".
They were disappointed, of course, and some of them bitterly
referred to the forum as a "joke" and a "farce".
The Issue of HIV-Outing
Some background on the outing controversy: In a New York
Post article of 8 August 1991, Joe Nicholson wrote that Rodger
McFarlane, a fund-raiser for Liz Abzug in her primary race
against Tom Duane for the New York City Council, "has been
talking for weeks to potential contributors about Duane's
infection -- and criticizing him for failing to disclose his AIDS
test result publicly." According to Nicholson, McFarlane "told
The Post that Duane's failure to reveal his AIDS status 'was
tantamount to pretending not to be a Jew during a holocaust.'"
Larry Sutton, in his Daily News column of 14 August,
reported that McFarlane had apologized for his reference to Jews
during a holocaust. Harriet Bogard of the Anti-Defamation
League characterized McFarlane's remark as "foolish and
thoughtless".
An article by Donna Minkowitz, "Bella She Ain't", appeared
in the Village Voice of 13 August. It clearly favored Duane over
Abzug, and made no mention of his HIV status.
The next issue of the Voice (20 August) carried letters from
Rodger McFarlane and Larry Kramer. McFarlane accused Duane of
"cowardice" for "hiding in the AIDS closet." Kramer said he had
been "disgusted by Tom's dishonesty in keeping his 'secret' for
so long" and criticized Donna Minkowitz for not alluding "to the
fierce controversy over his withholding of this information"
despite the fact that she "knew Tom was HIV+, as did Voice
editors". Donna Minkowitz responded by accusing McFarlane and
Kramer of "hypocrisy", and said she "would never reveal anyone's
HIV status without his or her permission, political candidate or
not."
These letters prompted angry replies in the next issue (27
August). Jon Nalley charged: "With these letters, Mcfarlane and
Kramer have done what Jesse Helms has longed to do -- threaten
the confidential nature of HIV status in our society." Jim
Fouratt wrote: "Finally the public is able to see through the
smokescreen of rage to the self-centered, vindictive person Larry
Kramer has always been in the AIDS movement." Fouratt contended
that the letter from McFarlane "violates the most basic issues of
trust in the AIDS service field: the protection of the
confidentiality and anonymity of any person living with AIDS or
confronted with an immune-compromised condition."
Since Larry Kramer expressed bitter resentment during the
forum that people had not called him to find out what he had or
had not done, I called him on Friday, the day after the forum,
leaving the message on his answering machine that I wanted to
hear his side of the outing story. Sunday evening I came home to
find the following message on my answering machine:
Hi, this is Ben [Pesner??]. I'm Larry Kramer's
assistant. Larry got your message the other day. Um. From
out of town. He called it into his machine. And he's out
of town and will be out for most of the Fall, except when he
makes these visits to New York. And he asked me to return
the call and to say -- and this is a quote -- that he was
surprised to hear you condemning him, because he thought
that he had honored your opinions in his writings and his
deeds. So there you go. Um. Um. Well, that's the
message, and I hope it makes sense. OK, bye.
Monday evening, the very next day, Larry Kramer in person
placed a statement on the table outside the ActUp meeting, giving
his side of the story. He wrote:
In regard to the Tom Duane mess, I do not believe I
have done anything wrong. I looked to Duane for courage and
to be a hero and I was disappointed. I did not out him. I
did not tell any reporter, despite what Donna Minkowitz
(someone I have never regarded as a reliable reporter, and
to whom I always speak with great caution, because she, like
Bill Dobbs, has as her main agenda crucifying people) that
Duane was HIV-positive. Donna called me and I referred her
to Tom, suggesting she ask him herself. I spoke to no other
reporter that I can recall. But, even if I had, so what?
(Larry Kramer, statement of 23 September 1991.)
If McFarlane and Kramer did not tell reporters and others
that Tom Duane was HIV positive, then other people must be lying.
But aside from this, Kramer obviously does not consider it wrong
to out someone's HIV status. In his statement of 23 September he
writes: "I do not consider it anything so awful to reveal a
candidate's or an elected official's HIV status, any more than I
consider it a breach to reveal his or her homosexuality."
My own position on the issue of HIV-outing is undoubtedly
influenced by my being an AIDS dissident: I am convinced that
HIV is not the cause of "AIDS". To be honest, nobody really
knows what it means to be HIV-positive. Although a positive test
result is not good news, it should not be considered a death
sentence. Being HIV-positive may be nothing more than a marker
for risk; it may be an indication of immune impairment caused by
factors other than HIV; or (if one believes the official dogma)
it may indicate the presence of a pathogenic microbe. However,
the HIV test is indisputably dangerous, and in my opinion no one
should take it. The test is dangerous to physical and mental
health; it is dangerous politically and socially. A known HIV-
positive status has caused people to lose jobs, health insurance,
and friends. People are now in jail for no crime other than
being HIV-positive and having sex. The test can kill, in a
number of ways -- positive test results have led people to commit
suicide, and have driven many thousands of frightened gay men
into the clutches of doctors who put them on lethal AZT or ddI
therapy.
In light of the above, I think that someone who has found
out he is HIV-positive ought to keep it a secret. He should tell
no one. If necessary, he should lie. It is dangerous to be
known as HIV-positive, just as in the middle ages it would have
been dangerous to be known as a heretic, or a marrano, or a
sodomite. It follows that I consider it highly unethical to
disclose someone's HIV status. People who do so are really no
better than those who denounced heretics to the Inquisition, or
who denounce homosexuals to their employers. Of course, after we
have punctured the HIV myth -- as we will! -- all this will
change.
The Larry Kramer Problem
Most people I've spoken to now regard Larry Kramer as an
embarrassment to the movement, although some of them expressed
admiration for his courage in the past. The problem is that
vehemence alone isn't worth very much. If one examines his
diatribe from the Thursday evening forum (which Kramer himself
described as a "potent speech"), or for that matter any of his
recent talks, one finds that, aside from obscenities, tidbits of
gossip, and personal asides, there is very little content. It's
almost all hot air. His entire talk could almost be summarized
as follows: "THINGS ARE A MESS!!! WHY DOESN'T SOMEBODY DO
SOMETHING?!?!?"
Obviously Kramer is not an analyst, and I doubt he ever
claimed to be. The media must share some of the blame for
promoting him as the elder statesman of AIDS activism on the
basis of his capacity for wild rhetoric and empty posturing.
That a fiction writer should be promoted as an AIDS expert is
reminiscent of the actors from Mash, who have been on the
collegiate circuit as lecturers on foreign policy (based
apparently on the expertise they acquired from playing their
roles in the television series).
Kramer seems to feel that our first priority ought to be to
"get the fucking ear of George Bush." Well now, suppose that we
did. Suppose that Larry Kramer himself were ushered into his
presence. Then what? Would Kramer make a face, bang his fists
on something, and yell, "THERE'S A FUCKING PLAGUE GOING ON!!! DO
SOMETHING!!!"? And then suppose that the president said, "All
right, Mr. Kramer, what do you think I should do?" And Kramer
would shriek, "I DON'T KNOW!!!" Is this really what we need?
I do admire Kramer, and wish to give him credit, for writing
the novel, Faggots, which was published in 1978, only three years
before the first "AIDS" cases began to be identified. The book
showed courage and insight. It touched a raw nerve. It was
disgusting, and meant to be, and very funny. All the hotshots in
the gay movement, all the politically-correct gay intellectuals
hated it. Kramer was excoriated as a traitor, in and out of
print, for writing an expose of a portion of the gay subculture
in New York City and Fire Island: obsessive promiscuity, drug
abuse, infantilism, and inter-personal viciousness. Behind
Kramer's rage and rancor was a serious message: Gay men were not
treating each other as human beings ought to; they were fixated
in a lifestyle that was deadly to the spirit as well as the body.
On questions of "AIDS", I think that Kramer has been wrong
as often as not. For a decade his main contribution to AIDS
discourse has been hysteria, when calm, honest and analytical
minds were needed. He has never supported those of us who are
calling for a free and open investigation of the HIV-AIDS
hypothesis. Nor has he done anything to stop the pharmacogenic
manslaughter of gay men which is now happening through AZT and
ddI therapy. Nor has he supported free speech for those he
disagrees with. On at least two occasions Kramer attempted to
silence me at ActUp meetings, when I either challenged the HIV
hypothesis or criticized nucleoside analogue therapy. In my
book, no one can claim to have intellectual courage if he is
afraid to hear what his opponents have to say. I am sorry to say
so, but at this point I don't think Larry Kramer has anything
positive to contribute to the fight against "AIDS". *
The author has requested that the two following articles be
included "in the interest of fairness."
Larry Kramer: Why Did He Betray AIDS Activists?
By Charles Stimson, Bill Dobbs, and Jon Nalley
(September 19, 1991)
Larry Kramer and Rodger McFarlane engaged in a vicious
smear campaign against Tom Duane. Kramer, an HIV-positive gay
man, decided that Tom Duane, also an HIV-positive gay man,
somehow did not deserve HIV confidentiality. Ignoring a basic
tenet of the AIDS activist movement, Kramer and McFarlane spent
June and July calling every reporter in New York to identify Tom
Duane as HIV-positive. They did this in the hope that they would
destroy Tom Duane's candidacy for City Council, thereby helping
their friend and Tom's opponent Liz Abzug.
It must be noted that Tom Duane is the ONLY person that
Kramer and McFarlane have publicly gossiped about being HIV-
positive. Kramer knew for years that Brad Davis was HIV-positive
and kept that quiet and properly so. The decision to talk about
one's HIV status is only to be made by that individual. What
Kramer and McFarlane did was not breaking new ground. In 1986
Bill Buckley proposed tattooing those who tested HIV-positive.
What they did this summer was the same attempt to stigmatize
people for being seropositive -- only their smear was done by
gossip instead of by a tattoo.
What is Larry Kramer's response to being called to
account for his venal actions? Since August he has let Rodger
McFarlane do all the talking. We demand that he unequivocally
apologize for trashing Tom Duane by gossiping about his HIV
status, and affirm the right of HIV-positive persons to make
their own decisions about divulging their HIV/AIDS status.
A Statement from Larry Kramer
(September 23, 1991)
Several members of ACTUP are following me around,
shouting down my speechs, and trying to get Rodger McFarlane
fired from his job as probably the most successful AIDS
fundraiser anywhere.
In regard to the Tom Duane mess, I do not believe I have
done anything wrong. I looked to Duane for courage and to be a
hero and I was disappointed. I did not out him. I did not tell
any reporter, despite what Donna Minkowitz says (someone I have
never regarded as a reliable reporter, and to whom I always speak
with great caution, because she, like Bill Dobbs, has as her main
agenda crucifying people) that Duane was HIV-positive. Donna
called me and I referred her to Tom, suggesting that she ask him
herself. I spoke to no other reporter that I can recall. But,
even if I had, so what?
Even though I did not out Duane, I should like to say
that I do not consider it anything so awful to reveal a
candidate's or an elected official's HIV status, any more than I
consider it a breach to reveal his or her homosexuality. I
demand honesty from those I vote for. Every candidate and
official from the President on down is morally obligated to take
a complete physical and reveal all aspects of his or her health
to his/her constituents. You don't think if we found out Bush
(or Cuomo or Dinkins or Noach Dear or Pat Schroeder) was HIV+
that we wouldn't try to get this information out? I started
ACTUP and GMHC so all of who have AIDS and are HIV+ can have
respect and be respected. If people are ashamed of being gay and
HIV+ then how are we going to get anywhere or change anything?
How could I possibly support a candidate (Duane) who was refusing
to acknowledge his status? (Ironically, I told him that if he
were forthcoming, I'd bet it would help him win; and I was
right.) Brad Davis, who Rodger was also trying to encourage to
come out (and Brad was about to) was not being elected to look
after my welfare; it is heinous to compare him with Duane.
I would like to go on record -- so that years from now
you can say, as you have done about many things, "Larry was
right" -- that I think Tom Duane is a coward, lacking political
courage, and that he will not be a strong representative for us
in the City Council. I hope I am wrong. But I don't think I am.
Only time will tell.
This, like all the rest of everything I have ever said,
is my opinion. If you don't like it, or some of it, or any of
it, tough shit. However, I think I have contributed not an
inconsiderable amount to the fight we have all tried to wage
these past long years and that I am entitled to be treated -- not
like the enemy -- but with more respect that these few members of
a lunatic fringe among you, whom, you may be interested to know,
are operating in ACT UP's name, are permitting. If Dobbs et al
have nothing better to do than destroy my speech at NYU Medical
Center, and cause distress at Colleen Dewhurst's memorial
service, and phone-zap Rodger's board, then no wonder a cure for
AIDS has never been found.
I personally consider that Bill Dobbs has done more to
destroy ACT UP than any human being should have against his
conscience. For all the years that I have known him, he has
performed untold cruel acts, under the guise of "keeping ACT UP
clean and honest." What motivates him, I daresay, is not
compassion, or cleanliness, or conscience, but hate. If I am the
enemy of ACT UP, and AIDS activism, and the gay movement, to such
an extent that Dobbs and Jon Nalley and Charles Stimson must
follow me around screaming in the middle of crowded auditoriums
that they "know my address" and "will show up wherever I appear,"
then we are all in great trouble.
I would like to end by saying that I think ACT UP is in
deep shit, and that these acts of Dobbs et al are only symptoms
of a much deeper and more painful problem. This organization
continues its downhill slide unabated, its tactics no longer
working, and its lunatics driving away more and more of its
members who want to fight against AIDS and not against each
other. I find myself, more and more, increasingly disappointed,
and occasionally ashamed, of this once wonderful thing I founded.
I have tried on numerous occasions to help put things right.
However, the one bit of apparatus evidently not included in what
we started is how to bring people to see the handwriting on the
wall, and how to make them roll up their sleeves to do the hard
work of trying to put things right. So, like many others before
me, I have moved on, wishing you well, hoping yoiu all finally
come to your senses, but, once again, seeing little to indicate
that anyone else holds these opinions but me. *