Folklorists often describe urban legends as "friend-of-a-friend tales" because their subject matter is purely hearsay, usually credited to a thirdhand source. Both of the specimens above display this characteristic.
"An experience of a friend of my brother's wife left me speechless," writes the author of the Bombay version (who turns out to be anything but speechless).
"This is not a joke or an urban myth," pleads the author of the British version, "it's actually happened to somebody Fi (the woman whose email I'm using) knows."
None of the factual claims in these tales are corroborated with evidence. Some are downright ludicrous — for example, the claim made in the Bombay version that the victim got a blood test "a couple of weeks" after the incident and was found to be HIV-positive. Highly unlikely. As of this writing (1998), the incubation period before detectable antibodies emerge in a patient exposed to HIV is typically four to eight weeks, often longer.
We are also asked to swallow the improbable claim that police told one of the victims that hers was only "one of the many such cases they had received." If that's so, why hasn't the press taken an interest? One would think that multiple instances of HIV infection caused by hypodermic-wielding thugs in at least two countries would have incited a full-tilt media frenzy by now. Apparently, reputable news organizations don't find it credible.
Or maybe they're all just waiting for Matt Drudge to break the story.
Last updated 05/21/98
