HSV and pregnancy

upyers mcoon at u.washington.edu
Thu Feb 15 12:53:01 EST 1996

> Sorry Halan but you are very very wrong. There is nothing that is
> absolutely certain in life, but there is no risk to the baby. This
> lesion is above the mother's eye. Even a recurrent lesion in the
> genital region in the first trimester is 'relatively' safe. I urge
> Janice (the mother) not to take oral acyclovir and there is no
> indication to do anything but the usual stuff like not touching the
> lesion and autoinoculating yourself (esp the eye). Nucleoside analogues
> are DNA chain terminators although not yet proven to be teratogenic in
> humans you have got to remember that this drug has only been used
> extensively for 10 years.
> Please folks if you don't know then don't post
> Len Moaven
> Senior registrar in virology
> VIDRL Fairfield Hospital, Australia  

It is YOU who are wrong. See Giovanni Maga's post. I include a snip for
your edification.

>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.

I stand by my advice to Janice. She should see her doctor to allay her fears.

"The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity" Harlan Ellison

More information about the Virology mailing list