Your 2 docs statement sounds accurate to me but it depends on your
definition of "little" I suppose. If they'd said "no chance", then
your two docs would be wrong.  Genital HSV1 spreads at a lower rate
than HSV2. And even the HSV2 risk is down in the  
1%-10% range depending on a few dozen individual factors.
Soooo ... is that a lot? or a little? <shrug> I dunno.
Just knowing it's possible at *all* is enough to freak some people
out. Anyhow, sounds more like a communication/interpretation prob to
me rather than a right/wrong thing.

M2

Little chance does NOT equate to no chance and they are dealing with a
subset as well so the two statements are apples and oranges to an
extent and don't actually contradict here.. Little chance is actually a
reasonable description though on its own loses a LOT of context, as the
individual risk numbers are small, particularly if you are talking to a
man and doesn't go into poopulation and time related issues. Many people
WILL equate the two and frankly its small mental leaps like this are one
of the hardest issues to deal with translating scientific information
where small differences in terms make a huge difference to layterms where
similar terms are effectively viewed as the same.

Whenever I hear statements like this I always ask 'Were those the EXACT
words' and 'What else was said'. Adding those bits in can make a huge
difference but often people will pick up just certain tidbits. However the
doc does need to try and be sure the entire picture goes over.

Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568