In article <mcoon-1502960953010001 at pesto.microbiol.washington.edu>
upyers, mcoon at u.washington.edu writes:
>It is YOU who are wrong. See Giovanni Maga's post. I include a snip for
>>>HSV 1 and HSV 2 neonatal infections are quite rare. These viruses seem not
>>to be able to cause transplacental infections. The reported cases of HSV
>>neonatal infections are mainly due to infection of the newborn during
>>Ms Maga goes on to suggest some reasonable considerations and Janice
>whould be wise to consult with her doctor.
>>Frankly, I find it frightening that someone in your position would tell a
>women with an active HSV infection that the risk of transmission to her
>child is zero.
Halan, there is nothing in the text you quoted that is inconsistent with
what Len said, which is right in line with what I know about HSV. Also,
Len never said that the risk of transmission is "zero." In medicine,
_nothing_ is "zero."
Ed Uthman, MD |Note: Because of my provid-|
(uthman at domi.net) |er's lousy Usenet feed, I |
Pathologist |may not see posted follow- |
Houston/Richmond, TX, USA |up messages. Please send e-|
|mail copy if you wish a |