Talk:Varicella vaccine

message: Why are pox parties discoraged?
:Because of the risk of serious injury or death from acquiring the disease.  It's described in the "dangers of chicken pox" section, but I'll add a cross-reference. -- Beland (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parties

message: There is no mention here of the fact that "natural" immunity isn't necessarily lifelong, either. It's not as unusual as you'd think for people to get chickenpox (not shingles!) multiple times.  76.178.229.52 (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifelong Immunity 

message: ===Images===
*US trend in varicella --Una Smith (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: *US trend in varicella --Una Smith (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I didn't even know we had a chickenpox vaccine.  When was it developed?  By whom?  Which companies are currently selling it?  Is it patented? -- Beland (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: User:SONORAMA has twice added text that states pox parties are a form of child abuse. Personally, I don't disagree with his/her POV, but it is just that: a POV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a manual for social services staff. I guess if citations can be found where observers express this POV, it would be appropriate for an encyclopedia to note these views. Opinions? ... richi (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason for the mention of pox parties on the page on varicella vaccine.  If mentioned anywhere, it could be on the varicella page, or on its own page, but since it has nothing to do with the varicella vaccine, I fail to see any reason for keeping it here.  Removing it as it is not relevant to the subject of the page.  --Synaptophysin (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

text: That is a justification for inclusion on a page about Chickenpox.  Slings were a way of hurling lead "bullets" with dangerous (even lethal) velocities prior to the invention of gunpowder weapons, but one wouldn't include a section on slings on the page about guns.  Perhaps a page about projectile weapons would have information on both guns and slings, much as a page about methods to induce an immune response against disease would mention pox parties and variolation as well as vaccination. --Synaptophysin (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Vaccines are about gaining immunity.  Pox parties are about gaining immunity.  Since this article is more about immunization than the general chickenpox article, it think pox parties belongs here.  Support  --Lucas559 (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your support. David Spector (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pox party 

message: The first section titled "Dangers of Chickenpox" states that Shingles infection rates have increased because of varicella vaccination. This seems to be unsourced, and I can find no evidence for this. Can someone confirm this comment? If not, it should be deleted.Sisyphus (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As further clarification, I am finding articles and literature raising the question of increased rates occuring. Observational data from California, and also Alberta, have demonstrated increasing rates of Shingles, but in the Alberta instance, the increasing rate began before varicella immunization was implemented. The Centre for Disease Control has instituted surveillance but doesn't have any firm information yet. So far it seems to me that this is a theoretical effect of vaccination, but not proven. I'd be quite keen to see someone provide me with some further references. Cheers Sisyphus (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increased Shingles 

message: It would be useful to have some info about the makeup of and action of the vaccine--live vs. inactivated vs. processed antigenic components, etc.  There's actually very little info about the vaccine itself in the article, and more about the dangers of chickenpox, controversies, and pox parties.  The article really should be focused on the vaccine itself. Exerda (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vaccine makeup and action

message: On December 10, 2012, IP user 82.12.234.93 added a sentence about the vaccine not being available because of a statement by Tony Blair. This is patently false. Sadly the statement remained until today. The IP address was used only on Dec. 10, so it is unknown (by me at least) if other such edits were made. Interested editors are asked to be alert to such dangerous vandalism. False information in Wikipedia can only encourage the anti-vaccination crowd, leading to less immunization and the needless deaths of children.--S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Deaths reported to VAERS aren't necessarily attributable to the vaccine, so there may be no conflict.  An adverse event following immunization can be recorded and reported, with the decision being that the event is not vaccine related.  --Synaptophysin (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  deliberate factual error introduced 

message: Regarding efficacy, the introduction has facts from WHO and the body has facts from CDC - and they are not in agreement.  Should we cite a broader range in the intro and then reference both studies in the body?  --Lucas559 (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efficacy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Varicella vaccine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070808015124/http://health.yahoo.com:80/ency/healthwise/hw208205 to http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/hw208205
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Do we need to always say the vaccine is "very safe" right before saying "serious side effects are rare"? this seems to me like the scientific equivalent of puffery. Tornado chaser (talk)
::I already agreed with you... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "very safe" 

message: This article may be very misleading because those two terms are used as substitutions! There are many of them - not only Varivax and Varirlix, but also MMRV... Not to mention about vaccines under development like V212 or HZ/su. All of them had different development, studies, controversies and outcomes.
:Where are you seeing this? the only use of "Varivax" is to refer to the specific brand, I see no place where this is used as a general term. Also, Whey do you propose splitting the article? the split tag should be accompanied by an explanation on the talk page. I think I removed the essay-like part but let me know if I didn't Tornado chaser (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varivax vs Varicella vaccines in general 

message: Add mechanism of action for the vaccine, storage of the vaccine, add more information about safety in special populations.
Juliechaeoon (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundations 2 2019, Group 1c goals