Talk:Chickenpox

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)

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. OrangeMarlin ^{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?—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. OrangeMarlin ^{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?—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 [1]. 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.—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.—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)

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 <ref>{{cite journal| author = Otri AM, Singh AD, Dua HS| title = Abu Bakr Razi| journal = The British Journal of Ophthalmology| volume = 92| issue = 10| pages = 1324| year = 2008| month = October| pmid = 18815419| url = http://bjo.bmj.com/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=18815419| accessdate = 2009-06-20}}</ref> . 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)