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  


Len
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
>delivery.

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