Talk:Chickenpox/Archive 1

Reye's Syndrome
I've added a sentence warning against the use of aspirin in childhood chickenpox due to the risk of Reye's syndrome. I'm not a doctor, but this advice is all over the aspirin and Reye's Syndrome pages, amongst others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Reason for severity in adulthood
One of the notable aspects of Chicken Pox is how it's safer for kids to get it than it is for adults. There's barely any mention of this in the article, some reference to shingles... but I can't establish from looking through it why it's less severe for kids.

Can someone with the know-how introduce an explaination for this is a prominent position? It seems highly relevant but not so well covered.

TheGreatFoo 18:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have no idea either though. I got chicken pox when I was just a teenager (13 or 14), and I was VERY VERY sick. By far the worst pain I have endured. My mom got it too, and she was even worse than I was. Malamockq 15:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Clinical studies show that chicken pox is much much wosre in adults. Why? There isn't enough knowledge about the immune system for "MODERN MEDICINE" to know why. This is a bulletin for the world: Medical Science is limited in their knowledge. They have just begun to scratch the surface. foo, you were very very sick because you were not a child. Children have milder symptoms the younger they are. And of course your mother was even worse off than you. Seems logical doesn't it? Why? We don't know yet.User:Alburger 22:44, 9 November 2006

Notation on sources people have been using
When I made an edit to format the references section from some jump links previously there, I noticed that the inital block quote on chickenpox history was taken from a testimony page arguing against mandatory vaccination. The person originally posting it as though it was from a fact page by a medical association didn't previously make that clear. I question whether that sort of essay should have been used for history but I haven't removed the quotation. Someone else who finds a good history from a more authoritative source than that can change it later. The testimony essays like the one someone pulled the block quote from are listed at AAPS Testimony. It also appears that the history section was taken from a doctor's "question and answer" page rather than a more authoritative source. I did add a reference I found on my own to to a Journal of the American Medical Association article and an external link to a CDC page. Bebop 16:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Critical views of vaccination
Views critical of vaccination, although certainly in the minority these days, are nevertheless substantial and vocal enough, and have made enough valid points that their view should be represented. Suppression of information belongs to socities that engage in book burning and other similar activities, IMHO. Louis Pasteur himself was in a minuscule and ridculized minority when he advocated vaccination; he was vindicated by experimental results and therefore by history, but supressing his views then, as supressing the views of present day vaccination critics is negative, unproductive and shameful. People seeking information on vaccination and its pros and cons should have access to all significant POV's on the matter. Intersofia 21:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't appreciate your comparison with book burning. Using Louis Pasteur is a strawman. Of course criticism of vaccination must be mentioned, but whale.to is lunacy. If Ombudsman could produce a source that does not sound like a conspiracy theorist on acid perhaps there would be grounds for agreement. JFW | T@lk  21:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, calling whale.to lunacy, is of course, in itself, a POV. Perhaps they are more extreme than others. I tend to be an inclusionist, so deleting information that is at least properly framed (the link I had restored clearly said it was a site with negative views on vaccination) is distasteful to me, so sorry if you took offense on the book burning bit. But I'm sure said people who burned books also termed them things like "lunatic" etc. Intersofia 01:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Intersofia, please be advised that placing an external link is not the same as mentioning views. The former is a random act, the latter is actual encyclopedia editing. External links are a bit of an NPOV-free zone. If your reasoning was correct we should also have external links to advocacy grounds in favour of vaccinating, which are presently lacking. I have removed the link with this in mind. JFW | T@lk  21:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not include them ? It would enrichen the page. You're of course welcome to include them. They are explicitly labeled as "External" links for that reason, of course, as you very correctly point out, they are an NPOV free zone. The world is out there. There are different views on things. As long as it is clear that those links leave the POV-neutral wikipedia zone, I see no cause for alarm. Intersofia 01:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Intersofia -- the page you are looking for is Vaccine controversy, which has a wide variety of links to webpages critical of vaccination. There is also a brief summary of the topic at Vaccine, with a link to the more specific topic. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to clutter individual disease pages with antivaccination websites. --Arcadian 22:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Then there should be a link to that article, I will check to make sure there is. Intersofia 01:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And it is. Fair enough. Still feel though that an External Links Section (which by definition people understand may take them to the wild world of extreme opinions) enrichens any page, and certainly pro / con links should be included. Intersofia 01:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It appears that a few persons are in the habit of removing links to information which is critical of vaccines and vaccination based on the perception that such infromation is "fringe" or "extreme" or "anti-vaccine", all three of which appear to be somewhat interchangeable. This world-view appears to somehow coincide with blanket categorization of vaccine info to "pro" or "anti", something which does not seem like a useful information model in general, nor for vaccines specifically.  Neither does this POV seem neutral or very rational (though it may well be internally coherent and logical if one equates "anti-vaccine" with "fringe"). Jkpjkp 17:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * To return to the issue of whether it's good to include links like the one to whale.to, can someone provide some pointers on NPOV and the External links section in Wikipedia policies, style guides, wikiquette or some other document like that, if any exist? Is there something that suggests that external links to sites like whale.to should not be in Wikipedia? Jkpjkp 18:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What Wikipedia is not states: "There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Eg. the Chickepox article has only on external link, so adding another hardly makes the link list excessive. Jkpjkp 18:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a question: the article states that the vaccine first became available in 1995, yet, later on, it says that people vaccinated thirty years ago are still showing immunity. I would guess that this arises from two different people editing, but it's still an issue that needs to be fixed.

I have an answer: became available for public use in the US in 1995. First used/tested in 1975.

There is a large error in your reporting about the danger of the chickenpox vaccine. You write that "there have been no deaths as of yet." According to the National Vaccine Information Center:

"Can Chickenpox Vaccine Cause Injury and Death?

Yes. Between March 1995 and July 1998, the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) received 6,574 reports of health problems after chickenpox vaccination. That translates into 67.5 adverse events per 100,000 doses of vaccine or one in 1,481 vaccinations. About four percent of cases (about 1 in 33,000 doses) were serious including shock, encephalitis, thrombocytopenia (blood disorder) and 14 deaths."

14 deaths between March 1995 and July 1998! Be careful what the vaccine manufacturers want you to believe! You also state "the vaccine is exceedingly safe." Also from the NVIC:

"The VAERS data has led to the addition of 17 adverse events to the manufacturer's product label since the vaccine was licensed in 1995, including secondary bacterial infections (cellulitis), secondary transmission of vaccine virus infection to close contacts, transverse myelitis and Guillain Barre syndrome (brain disorders) and herpes zoster (shingles). There have been documented cases of transmission of vaccine virus from a vaccinated child to household contacts, including a pregnant woman. A study in 2002 confirmed that adults exposed to natural chickenpox disease were protected from developing shingles and that there is concern that mass vaccination against chickenpox may cause a future epidemic of shingles, affecting more than 50 percent of Americans aged 10 to 44 years."

You need to verify your research on this matter. .User:Alburger 22:44, 9 November 2006


 * And how many unvaccinated people died of chickenpox in the same period? Without this information it is not clear whether the risk of the vaccine exceeds the risk of the illness Littlst (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly
I'm not sure why Andrew Schlafly is given such prominence here. He's simply a lawyer who uses his law expertise as a tool for antivaccine activism, which is somewhat of a family business: His mother, Phyllis Schlafly, founder of Eagle Forum, has written against mandatory vaccination, and his brother, Roger Schlafly, maintains his own antivaccine website: www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/vaccfaq.htm. Their opposition seems to be based primarily on their being annoyed at government mandated vaccination, rather than the result of a dispassionate analysis of risks and benefits. - Nunh-huh 23:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversy Section
I removed the following as it is poorly written and smacks of a conspiracy theory. If the proponents want to rewrite it, it could go back, but it requires some more solid scientific referencing and less conjecture. Maustrauser 05:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * ===Controversey===


 * To the extent that the vaccine does indeed wear off prematurely, as with those who have indeed appeared to lose immunity after the estimated twenty years, forced immunization of children with the chickenpox vaccine is seen by many, even by some who normally accept the premise of forced vaccination as a valid government function, as a controversial risk to the next generation: they may reach adulthood and become vulnerable to the disease, when the vaccine wears off, precisely when it is most dangerous to them.


 * People who catch chickenpox as children are generally get through it healthy and become immune for life.

I agree with your assessment. This is likely to have been the work of one of our cherished vaccine skepticists. Without a source it is indeed unsustainable. JFW | T@lk  03:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've often pointed out that there are two ways of dealing with material in an article which ones finds imperfect:


 * One can fix the material, adding a reference if one is missing, changing the wording to neutral if it seems prejudiced. This is what good editors do. Wikipedia is supposed to be inclusive, giving information the benefit of the doubt.


 * or


 * One can DELETE the material, thus excluding any value it has along with its alleged flaw. This is, typically, the behavior of PoV editors pimping their own agenda. They don't really want the information present in any form, and are quite eager to find an objection and then, rather than fix the "problem", just silence it altogether.


 * Notice which path was taken here.


 * This is abhorrent behavior in any Wikipedia editor.


 * Here is a tiny fraction of the references you could have found, if you actually cared:

I am therefore restoring and expanding the Controversey section, it turns out that the issue is a bigger deal than the section was implying, up to now. Since, of course, you're NOT a PoV editor trying to censor information you don't like, I'm sure you won't object at all.Kaz 07:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is indeed controversy then of course we should mention it, but without sources material (especially volatile material) can be moved to the talkpage for discussion. This is what happened, and if you find this abhorrent then perhaps you should examine policy. Unsourced material, sometimes very weird, abounds on Wikipedia, and I have better things to do than find sources for other people's work. That's what the talk page is for.


 * You are free to reinsert the controversy section with authoratitive sources (individual speakers/writers speaking a titre personnel may not be a notable voice). JFW | T@lk  12:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed:


 * Additional controversy has arisen because cell lines derived from aborted fetal tissue were used in its development, and thus violates the ethics and beliefs of people who oppose the use of aborted fetal tissue in medical research. Its packaging literally warns that it may contain fetal tissue remnants.

owing to this not being a concern internationally. Perhaps it is only a US concern. If so, then that should be stated. This is an international encyclopedia and not one solely for the benefit of US citizens. I hardly call the reference authoratative either! Maustrauser 21:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That is the most laughable rationale for censorship I've seen here yet. It's bad enough that a couple people are trying to turn the article into a pro-vaccine blog, censoring documentation of controversey and using completely PoV wording, but to pretend that anything specifically of concern to the country which contains the majority of the world's natively English-speaking population should somehow be censored from an article is utterly insane. Perhaps we should just go remove all of the American television-show articles, too. And all that nonsense about presidential candidates, the alcohol prohibition...and the list of American political scandals is right out. Kaz 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd have no objection if the author had bothered to indicate that it was a US problem, but no, it is written blindly as though it is a world problem. NPOV means writing for the audience of the world, not the audience of the USA.  I'm delighted to keep all the US Television articles, US Presidential candidates etc, if they are identified as US.  Do you want me filling up ENCYCLOPEDIC articles with Australian stuff of no relevance to the world without indicating that it is Australian?  I suspect not.  As for comment that because something should be included because it comes from the country with the majority of the world's native English speaking people, then I suspect you are supporting the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  Didn't a US President have something to say about that?  I'd also made the point that the reference in question was to simply a US political website.  Hardly neutral or authoritative. Maustrauser 06:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

C-ch-ch-changes

 * "Chickenpox parties are not an "effect" of chickenpox and don't belong under "Effects'


 * "It is not uncommon for parents to have 'chickenpox parties', where their children are invited to play with a child who has chickenpox, in the hopes that all of them will therefore gain permanant immunity before adulthood."

Of course it is uncommon.


 * " due to medical resistence in other countries": or due to unavailability of vaccine or social factors or due to the fact that those not vaccinating are youg parents who have never seen anyone die of an infectious disease, or any of many equally supported hypotheses: there's no reason to believe "resistance" (with an "a") is the sole or primary reason, or that the resistance is "medical".
 * Similarly, "because of its controversial nature, " is unsupported.


 * , though the rate of shingles infection has increased for the same reason. (cite)? - 08:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There are links to solid, peer-reviewed evidence of the vaccine-caused increase in shingles infection, and the controversial nature of the vaccine, further down in the article, where it is addressed in detail. And there are more above. Kaz 21:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your references do not seem to support the points that you say they support. There's more to fix, still. - Nunh-huh 22:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, the article still reads anti-vaccination. I re-worded some POV. I also took out some non-chickenpox info. It still needs more work, not near feature article status.--FloNight 02:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No article with an anti-vaccination editor patrolling it is likely to achieve featured status. Welcome to one of those timesinks on Wikipedia where every attempt at NPOV is called "censorship". JFW | T@lk  16:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am the first author of the manuscript quoted in relation to the effectiveness of calamine lotion. I have previously made changes in the treatment section, as the contents of our paper has been somewhat misrepresented. Please do not change this back again. Marc Tebruegge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.8.139 (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Clarification Needed
"A chickenpox vaccine has been available since 1995..." & "...there are now persons vaccinated more than thirty years ago with no evidence of waning immunity." Pattersonc 04:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Immuno-suppression as controversy component
This has got a bit mushed up and while I can see the point, it isn't made well. (I suspect it is also quite wrong, if one does the arithmetic - risk of exposure * risk of death if exposed for population immunised vs population not-immunised, I might come back to that but if an epidemiologist is around ....)

"Catching chickenpox as a child through conventional means tends to result in lifelong immunity, and exposure of adults to children so infected protects adults from other varicella-related diseases, like shingles[2] . Second episodes of chickenpox are rare, but do occur, in both vaccine and naturally acquired immunity, but far more often from the vaccine; in one study, 30% of children had lost the antibody after five years, and 8% had already caught "wild" chickenpox in that five year period[3]. The mortality rate in immunocompromised patients with disseminated herpes zoster is 5-15%, with most deaths from pneumonia. The vaccine, unfortunately, is less effective among these high-risk patients, as well as being more dangerous because it is an attenuated live virus (see last footnote)."

The argument - if there is to be an argument advnaced rather than a random piling of facts that sound bad without a serious effort to connect them together - has to be around:- the effectiveness of the vaccine in the immunocompromised  ||  It will be more effective if they had it                                                              ||  before they got immunocompromised || hence vaccinate everyone, in case.

the risk of the immunocompromised being exposed            ||  is greater if wild Varicella is circulating || and greatest if that circulation is all that || produces population immunity

the age at which people get immunocompromised relative     ||  bad news for childhood Leukaemics tot eh age they get their first and protective             ||  and perhaps leukaemic parents of spotty children. wild Varicella infection                                   ||  (see row one)

It is complicated. I suspect it has been modelled. Midgley 11:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello Midgley:) This article has been the focus of anti-vaccine pov editors. I stop by and revert edits and re-write occassionally, others do it much more often. That's why it reads bumpy. If it's stable now, a good re-write is needed to make it read smoother. If you take the lead, I'll help. I'm sure other will help, too. --FloNight 21:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Pox Parties
Brought in from a page of that name that had been languishing, possibly loved but not very. I propose a box - bring ing the mention of it out of th text and into a slight prominence - giving it independence from the article it is within. WHen I work out how to do boxes. Midgley 20:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

---> main page box Midgley 20:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Since 1995 Chickenpox immunisation has been routine in the U.S. but not Canada or the UK. (See Chickenpox Efficacy: The vaccine adequately immunises 70-90% of recipients, attenuating symptoms in those who do later contract the disease. Women should be immune before pregnant, thus should be immunised before menarche. (See Chickenpox) Children are commonly said to have a milder course of the disease than adults. (See Chickenpox)

group at risk from virus
I deleted the remark that as 55% of the deaths in the US were in the over 20 group this group was in special danger from the virus.

Think it through - if we live even to 60, there are twice as many in the over 20 group as the under 20. SO if there was a special risk, there would be more than 67% of deaths in the over 20 group. Since we live to something heading for 80, the figure would need to be on the order of 75%.

What I have not done is to check the figure of 55%, but as given, that figure indicates that children are more likely to die from Chikenpox than adults (while Zoster is more lethal and occurs in adults, mainly, but may be confounded by there being a cause fot hat to happen). Along the lines of that argument, even if immunity only lasts until you are over 20, and the over 20s are safer from death, then immunisation looks beneficial. 01:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The entry contradicts itself re incidence in pre-school kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.79.239 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

From Talk:Pox party
Pox party now redirects to Chickenpox. I'm changing Talk:Pox party into a redirect to this talkpage. Discussions from that page before the move are as followed:

Why?
Why was this deleted? Pox Parties are, though maybe horrendeous, in existence.--SoothingR 13:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. -- PFHLai 13:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's now undeleted. Please fix it up if you can. Thank you. -- PFHLai 14:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Anne A. Gershon quote
Does anyone have a source for her quote? Slicing 07:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Better to merge it into Chickenpox
This article is not very good, and it isn't very much what I expect in an encyclopedia.

As a paragraph, or sentence, in an article on the disease, along with a note on attenuating the disease in susceptible people exposed to it, it seems more useful.Midgley 15:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added the merge tag to this article, however I would actually oppose a merge, there is enough information (or at least the capacity for information) to justify an article on this. QmunkE 17:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Almost everything about this paragraph, for instance, is below par if not definitely wrong:-
 * Any child who has been infected with the chicken pox will retain the virus in their bodies for their entire life— it "hides" in the peripheral nervous system—and is subject to reactivation later in life in the form of shingles, a painful and debilitating skin lesion. Women who are present at such a "party" risk fetal malformation, and have increased susceptibility to varicella pneumonia (and death) during pregnancy. It reminds me of the old navigational advice - better start from somewhere else.Midgley 22:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Parking "Imagine losing a child because you were dumb enough to bring him to a pox party," Anne A. Gershon, a professional on the subject, says.

There is already a paragraph on parties in Controversy in Chickenpox Midgley 23:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

right... boldly going,
to Chickenpox.

(End of text from Talk:Pox party]].) -- PFHLai 20:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Pox parties
That is really a bit of a sideshow - making it a section rather than a boxout or sidebar seems to me to put it more in the flow of the article than it needs to be or is best. I tend to like boxes and sidebars though. Midgley 17:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization?
Is there any reason that all disease names are capitalized in this article? I'd change it myself but I don't want to turn around and find out that is a rule dependent on the flavor/flavour of English or something along those lines. --Bletch 13:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Surprise (absence of) over number (absent)
I made a couple of edits - there is a list of reports of adverse reactions one of which is allergy to gelatin, which is interesting, but lacks that vital element of surprise... I removed teh assertion that there were a surprising number of adverse events reported in the literature, because even without my being able to read Russian like the IP address who added one reference, it does not look to me as though the number - th total reports - whch we are not given is going to be big enough to surprise me. I'm assuming that my threshold for surprise is a reasonable average for the community. If the ratio of reports to immunisations is surprising, eg by being say 10 times the rate for eg Tetanus or Rubella, or for some reason we should be surprised that there are any reports, then I'd l;ove to see it, and it could reasonably go into the article as an invitation to surprise us all. ALternatively, if there is an article in a peer reviewed journal, even in Russian, that says the authors are surprised by the number ... that is eminently citeable, isn't it. OK? Midgley 22:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyed text
I removed the following paragraph. The information had already been given above, and it had been copied directly from it's source.

''The contagious period for chickenpox begins about 2 days before the rash appears and lasts until all the blisters are crusted over. A child with chickenpox should be kept out of school until all of the blisters have dried, which is usually about 1 week, but you do not have to wait until all the scabs fall off to let your child get back to a normal schedule.'' PrometheusX303 04:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Aborted fetuses
Don't bite me, this was my first edit. I came to wikipedia specifically to find out if the whole aborted fetuses in the varicella vaccine thing was true or not. I saw that it was in here once, but someone took it out because it wasn't "international," whatever that means. Well I put it back in with a link to the CDC.gov website, because it is a controversy about the vaccine that belongs in the article. I didn't put in the comment about how it "literally says on the label" whatever because I can't verify that. 71.196.31.6 04:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Leigh

According to the BUPA website;

"Pregnant women who get chickenpox or shingles have a higher than normal risk of developing pneumonia. In rare cases, an unborn child exposed to varicella zoster can be damaged or may be miscarried."

http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/Mosby_factsheets/shingles.html

To say that "Pregnant women not known to be immune and who come into contact with chickenpox may need urgent treatment as the virus can cause serious problems for the fetus" as quoted from wikikpedia, is excessively alarmist and may cause a pregnant woman reading to be put in a major panic, when calm caution is required.
 * Furthermore, there is no mention of what "urgent treatment" may entail. Acyclovir is not recommended for pregnant women as it can cause serious birth defects.  Tylenol and calamine lotion hardly seems like "urgent treatment".Hillgiant 17:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually if a pregnant woman is exposed to Varicella (Chicken Pox) then passive immunity can be conferred using Varicella Zoster Immune Globulin (VZIG). This makes it much less likely that she will develop chicken pox. Unlike many other infections chicken pox is not teratogenic (causing birth defects) but is most dangerous in the last trimester. There is a window (96 hours) in which VZIG is most effective so time is a factor although "urgent" may be overstating it a bit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.152.221.72 (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

chicken pox
for all thoes with chicken pox.. I have found that Watermelon is the only thing that relieved the symptoms and prevents the spots from increasing.. it has worked with both my children.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.71.15 ([[User talk:86.129.71.15|talk

I wonder if this statement is true? Can a watermelon really relieved the symptoms of chicken pox? I want to try but I'm afraid if its true? Me and my 2 yr old son is having chicken pox now.

The chicken poxs are not bad and even though they itch you should not be afraid to get them got it good. 20:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

weird data...
I'm not sure that the following sentence in the article makes sense...

"In the U.S., 55 percent of chickenpox deaths were in the over-20 age group. Every two years after that the percentage goes up 5 percent."

According to this statement, 60 percent of chickenpox deaths are in the over-22 age group (which is impossible if only 55% are older than 20) and 100 percent of chickenpox deaths are in the over-32 age group.

Another question, if 55% of chickenpox deaths are really in the over-20 age group, what % of chickenpox cases are in the over-20 age group?

Quiteokay 08:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Text that was commented out in aricle moved here
The following text was disabled in the article text. Put it back there if it's supposed to be there. --Apoc2400 13:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Chickenpox is a rash caused by a virus. The chickenpox rash usually appears less than two weeks after exposure to the virus and begins as superficial spots. These spots quickly turn into small liquid-filled blisters that break open and crust over. New spots continue to appear for several days and may number in the hundreds. Itching may range from mild to intense. The course of chickenpox will vary with each child, but a child generally will be sick with chickenpox for about 4-7 days. New blisters usually stop appearing by the 5th day, most are crusted by the 6th day, and most scabs are gone within 20 days after the rash begins. If complications set in, however, the recovery period may be even longer.

These are the most common symptoms of chicken pox: o	Mild fever. The fever varies between 101-o F to 105-o F and returns to normal when the blisters have disappeared. o	backache o	headache o	sore throat o	a rash (red spots) o	blisters filled with fluida and being gay

Death
How does one exactly die from Chicken Pox? - .:. Jigsy .:. 16:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From complications. One of these as I recall is swelling of the brain ... richi 19:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Pneumonia is a likely way. 77.100.103.108 (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)secondary infections including gangrene,pneumonia,organ faliure,necrotizing fascilitis,and encephalitis are quite common ways for a healthy pateint to die of chickenpox.in the immunocomprimised dissemenated varicella is common.169.244.148.235 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Necrotising fasciitis
This is my first time writing something for a Wiki article so please don't shoot me. I followed the links given in the sources about the necrotising faciisis complication for children with chicken pox; it led me to two studies that illustrated that yes, children can develop flesh eating disease from chicken pox but it's extremely rare, (5 cases in one hospital from 1995-2001) and shouldn't be a concern for most children. Serious complications during chicken pox seems to be on the rise, according to that article, but the way the Wiki is worded, it sounds like parents should be on definite lookout for flesh eating disease if their kid gets chicken pox. There's no mention in the Wiki about how rare the flesh eating disease complication is and I think that should be included so as not to scare parents, like myself, who come to Wiki looking for information on how to help their child when they get chicken pox. It's very scary to see it right there in the article as a listed complication as if it's common when it's not. Thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.46.104 (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It also seems to me that the citation didn't really address most of the "facts" in that graf, so I've edited it ... richi (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Home Treatment for Chicken Pox
While researching chicken pox and possible problems, etc., I realized it would be a good idea to give some "mom" advice about how to help children keep from scratching and also speed up the process of the pox. We've all heard about bathing a child in oatmeal soap baths but those are expensive and generally only 10% oatmeal. When my daughter had chicken pox, a very bad case of it, a friend with several children told me to put my daughter in the bath, lukewarm-warm water, and a sock filled with raw oats. The oats' oil brings out the pox faster and all but eliminates the itching. She had the pox so bad we thought she'd be scarred for life but she has only a tiny scar on her cheeck because she never scratched them. She was back in class in 5 days instead of the normal 10 days, according to her MD's "okay". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.225.178 (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oatmeal reduces itching, regardless of cause (or at least in a wide variety of causes). 77.100.103.108 (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Heat increases the number of spots forming. I'm unconvinced that it makes them cease to occur sooner.  More usual advice is to keep the skin cool.  "Brings them out" is a phrase I'd avoid, it smacks of determinism. 77.100.103.108 (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Geocentric introduction?
"Formerly one of the childhood infectious diseases caught by and survived by almost every child, its incidence had been reduced since the introduction and use of a varicella vaccine in 1995 in the U.S. and Canada to inoculate against the disease."

Isn't this a rather geocentric statement? AFAIK, it's not a common practice world-wide to use vaccine against this disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.130.79 (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Article cluster
For the record, the current article cluster relating to varicella zoster virus is:
 * Varicella zoster virus
 * Chickenpox
 * Herpes zoster - rated GA
 * Postherpetic neuralgia

Discussions of this cluster include:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

--Una Smith (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Diagnosis Section
I've started working on the Diagnosis section. I've never referenced before, so if I've screwed it up please tell me.Sisyphus (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of calamine lotion
In my experience using calamine lotion causes chickenpox to scar. I also used to work part time in a chemist where they stopped recommending calamine lotion for open wounds (like chickenpox once they have burst) for this very reason. Apparently it is because it is chalky and the chalky bits get into the wound and cause worse scarring than would otherwise occur. I think people should be warned about this in the wiki entry or at least that they shouldn't mention calamine lotion at all as a treatment proven or not. It may be safe in the sense that it will "only" cause scarring, but who wants scarring??58.106.72.35 (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a place for original research. I might delete the above, since it's unsubstantiated.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Adults who were exposed as children but never showed any symptoms.
I am a late 20's woman who was exposed to chicken pox as a child, yet I've never shown any symptoms. Now that I am nearing having children I am worried that I may be exposed and I could become very ill. Perhaps I was infected with the virus, but my immune system shut it down before the physical reaction could take effect (I've always had a high immune system). I've also heard that vaccinations can be dangerous for adults, yet I've read that chicken pox has put adults in hospitals. I'm conflicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.151.116 (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this really isn't the place to discuss this, because you should seek medical advice from a physician. However, you should get Varivax, live varicella zoster immunization.  By the way, I have no clue what a "high immune system" is.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You can get tested to see if you are already immune but see a doctor.--Doc James (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Chikn poox r lil' pink dots u get when u r around other ppl that have the dieese 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkey502049 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

hmm* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.82.209 (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Principal Complications of (Wild) Chickenpox
see also Chickenpox
 * Death or neurological damage: 0.002% of infected children.
 * Shingles - a recrudescence of virus dormant in a nerve ganglion, with eruption in the distribution of that nerve, pain and commonly scarring. A proportion of people will retain the wild virus, of whom a proportion will develop shingles.  The vaccine virus is not reported to do this.


 * What is "the vaccine virus"? What is a "wild" virus?  The terms don't seem to have widely-accepted definitions.  I don't believe there is vaccine of any type for any of the Herpesveridae family and a "wild virus" differs from a "virus in the wild".  Kernel.package (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Congenital Varicella Syndrome & Neonatal Varicella
Where did anyone find these definitions about the 28 weeks? I found some definitions about 20 weeks in emedicine. Diogo Bruno 15:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Awful mess
For a fairly important and common disease, this article is a mess. For example, what on earth is an "optic cap"?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 21:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The optic cup, for which `optic cap' is presumably a typographical error, is an embryonic structure that forms the retina and sclera of the eye - any school biology book will explain eye development. If developing eye structures are damaged by viruses the fetus may become blind or at best partially sighted.  A minor error, now corrected, does not make a good article into `a mess'. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting that, I've linked to the relevant article: Optic cup (ophthalmology) Smartse (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Section "Prevention" seems inconsistent with Article "Herpes Zoster"
The Herpes Zoster article (shingles) makes it sound like the shingles is the consequence of an old infection becoming reactivated. I could find no part of the article that states that adults that are exposed to the virus for the first time develop shingles. The section "Prevention" makes it sound like adults that contract the virus for the first time develop shingles. I'm not an expert, so I'll leave it to someone more qualified to clarify things. SCooley138 (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Herpes Zoster" is neither a virus nor a disease but is a convolution of 1) Herpesveridae, a family that includes: 2) Herpes Simplex I & II, and 3) Varicella Zoster Virus (Chicken Pox and Shingles), and at least two others with clinical significance.   (Items 1, 2 and 3 are what is been convoluted into "Herpes Zoster".)  Please refer to the next Discussion section.  Kernel.package (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancies due to convoluted information
With respect to text I removed, the removed text said that it was possible to prevent contacting the disease by avoiding direct contact with lesions and by avoiding contact with "respiratory droplets". This is not true. Members of Herpesviridae can survive for several days on any non-destructive fomite. because these are enveloped they are less tolerant of harsh environments as the article states, but without the destructive nature of an antimicrobial, they do survive and remain infective. For example, one member will remain infective on a tooth brush for as long as three days. (This is one reason that public health education recommends against sharing a toothbrush.)

I can find no evidence that there is such a thing as "Herpes Zoster Virus". The HerpesVirdae family has as members, Herpes Simplex Viruses I & II (aka the cause of Oral (I) and Genital Herpes (II)), Varicella Zoster Virus (Chicken Pox and Shingles), Epstein-Barr Virus (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and a risk factor for Cervical Cancer) and Cytomegalovirus (Infectious Mononucleosis).

Medical schools tend to include most of this information during the first year, so the text version is usually in notes prepared by faculty. (Frequent updates to Virology and the related microbiology make purchasing a text a bad idea). I found a good reference on the site from The University of South Carolina is one of them. Two URLs are 1) http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/book/virol-sta.htm and 2) http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/mhunt/intro-vir.htm. The second of them, not quite near the end of the page, refers to HerpesViridae.

Several websites that are "authoritative" within their domain (e.g. LA County Government, here: http://dmh.lacounty.gov/ which refers to itself as an AMA glossary). Each convoluted similar or the same information as that explained above, and the various WP articles also contain the same convolution of facts.

Examples: This URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpes_zoster reads, "... herpes zoster is not the same disease as herpes simplex, ..." but Herpes Simplex is a formal noun (so should be capitalized) and refers toa specific virus, not to a disease. Herpes Simplex I causes so-called "Oral Herpes" and Herpes Simplex II causes "Genital Herpes" (although either virus can infect either area of the body).

Wiktionary says Shingles is Herpes Zoster which is correct but fails to say that it is a disease, not an etiologic agent. To be fair, the LA County website doesn't differentiate between agents and their associated disease when defining the terms. This behavior appears common so may be the primary reason information is mixed-up in other places.

This URL: http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/utilities/glossary/index.htm, which was returned in Google results is just plain wrong. The Google quote, reads in part, "Infectious disease caused by a virus called herpes zoster ... " which is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel.package (talk • contribs) 06:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Herpes zoster is not a virus, but is a disease whereby the Varicella zoster virus lies dormant for a number of years in the nerve ganglion root, and then erupts for unknown reasons. Other than that, I am not sure what point you're trying to make here.  There are a bunch of non-sequitors.  Anyways, if you see issues, make changes, just make sure you have a reliable source for any edits.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Disease name
Qwyrxian claims that a) The reason for this disease's name is irrelevant to the article, and b) The Straight Dope is not a reliable source. I think both assertions are absurd. What do you think?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  05:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't add trivia to medical articles. See WP:MEDMOS.  Also, for sourcing, we follow WP:MEDRS.  Your addition violates both.  However, I have never heard anyone confuse chickenpox with cowardly.  Never.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The etymology of a name is a VERY encyclopaedic thing. I cannot see why we would leave it out if we had reliably sourced information. HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? What are you talking about? Who said it was confused with cowardly? Did you read the deleted passage?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  09:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is an "encyclopaedic thing", but unfortunately there is no accepted origin of the name of the disease in English. For a discussion on this see Christie, AB. (1980), in Infectious Disease: Epidemiology and Clinical Practice . Here, the author argues that the word could derives from the Latin "cicer" meaning "chick-pea". But, none of the (many) other virology books I have, have anything to say on this. We can't include the deleted derivation: it is not accepted, I have never heard of it (I have worked in virology for many years), and the origin of the word has probably been lost to history. Graham Colm (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, then we should say "the origin of the name is disputed; MedicineNet claims this, Dr. Christie claims that, but in any case it is not believed to be related to chickens", not just delete it completely. Also, "Graham Colm has never heard of it" is not really a good argument for leaving out information.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  09:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is not an argument for leaving out information, but it is an argument for the inclusion of reliable sources as per WP:CHALLENGE. I have read the entry in MedicineNet, but there is no source given. I don't think the origin of the name is disputed as such – it just seems that no one is certain. I don't like arguments based on Google searches, but for what it is worth, the results for "chickenpox name" returns more results about chickpeas than chickens. Graham Colm (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS actually says "Etymologies are often helpful". And WP:MEDRS is clearly referring to sources for medical information, not English information.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  09:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be added, whether the Etymology is known or not 82.46.109.233 (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I went to this article to find out whether chickenpox has anything to do with chickens, and it's really strange that there's no information in the article that can tell me that. Some note about etymology seems called-for. Isn't Wikipedia the place to answer such questions? Thomblake (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is, but we need a reliable source, preferably one that meets our enhanced standards for medical articles in order to add the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

can i take a bath with cold water when i am carrier of chicken pox?
can i take a bath with cold water when i am carrier of chicken pox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.193.8.219 (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources
This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by checking the edit to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed. I searched the page history, and found 1 major edit by Jagged 85 (see here). Tobby72 (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Easy solution for that--I've removed the History section. That's the only part that has the trademark "The Persians and/or Arabs did it first" problems of Jagged85. I can't see the source, so since standard operating procedure for Jagged85 is to assume bad faith, removal is the safest solution. If anyone has access to scholarly sources, the source Jagged85 used was .  But until someone can actually read that, it's more likely than not that it doesn't say what Jagged85 claimed it said. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of immunity
The statement that it usually confers immunity needs explanation. I personally had it 3 times before my early teens though only doctors confirmation of its presense by 3 previously un-noted spots plus cough, made me aware of what final minor attack was. (Doctor was treating my sister when I wandered by coughing and muttering about feeling feverish). What is more significant however is that next sentence specifically states that virus can be reactivated. Not much immunity there then! JDN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not Copy-vio
In Infection in pregnancy and neonates he following lines "The implications of primary VZV infection in pregnancy for the mother and for the fetus vary with the period of gestation. For the mother, the risk of adverse effects is greatest in the third trimester, whereas for the fetus the risk is greatest in the first and second trimesters." have been directly taken from

Reason: I believe that the way to vary the presentation of this text is extremely limited.

I feel that this would not be considered as a copyright violation. In case anybody does, please take the pain to modify the text as deemed fit, rather than deleting the text.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 09:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have changed the text in question to: "During pregnancy the dangers to the fetus associated with a primary VZV infection are greater in the first six months. In the third trimester, the mother is more likely to suffer from the adverse effects of the infection." Graham Colm (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Resources
Much valuable information can be added from the following resource: Requesting interested editors to utilise the above mentioned resource to enrich this article.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 13:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * and the references it cites.
 * and

Chicken Pox
Is it possible to have the chicken pox virus with rash but not show signs on the face? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.30.249 (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's quite common. ( Disclaimer: we can't help you with a diagnosis.  If you think you might have a disease, please see a doctor. )    D b f i r s   17:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Not to be confused with - My Opinion
I'm no genius, but I occassionally confuse varicella (chickenpox) with variola (small pox). I think the names are similar enough to justify a disclaimer at the top. (Especially since Not to be confused with fowlpox" seems very very unlikely). If I'm not in the small minority, someone should add it, imho.216.96.76.190 (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

In regards Pathophisology section first paragraph
The last sentence of the first paragraph is saying citation needed. I am a bit unsure about the need for a citation there as the three conditions listed are links to other wikipedia articles which are more than clear (and cited) about the relationship between the virus and the mentioned VZV reactiviation diseases. In addition, at least one of the mentioned diseases turns up later in its own section later in the article and is cited there.

Am I way off base here? or am I correct in suspecting that a citation is not required at that point?

I want to get a better feel for standards and practices in these matters.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mce128 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

wrttien by sourabh......thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.8.36 (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Also in this section, is the sentence about the number of cases resembling number of people born important? Is there actually some sort of link between the number born and number infected? There is an implied relationship being made that I don't think is justified, since most people infected are not infants. Perhaps there is a better way to word this that avoids such a correlation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailor7sakura (talk • contribs) 05:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)