Tech
Buying a Bad Laptop Will Haunt You for Years. I’m Here to Prevent That
Compare Top 8 Laptops
How Much Should You Spend on a Laptop?
If you’re shopping for a laptop, you probably have an idea of how much you want to spend. But some context might help put things in perspective. The cheapest laptops cost around $200, but they can range up to $5,000. Meanwhile, the average amount people spend, according to the best data we have, is around $750. That lands decidedly in the midrange, spitting between the more expensive devices that are over $1,000 and the budget-tier machines you find below $700.
When we talk about pricing, it’s often the “starting” price of the laptop, meaning the lowest-priced configuration. This is really important to consider, as you want to compare devices apples-to-apples as much as possible. For example, a cheaper laptop might start at $750 with 256 GB of storage, while a more premium laptop might start at this same price but come with 512 GB or even 1 TB of storage. Increasingly, you can find some really decent laptops around this price, some of which we’ve listed below.
If your budget needs to be under $750, though, there are still good options. Laptops below this price tend to compromise in one area or another. Most commonly, it’s the quality of the display and touchpad that suffers, as these are things you can’t see from a spec sheet or reference photo. Chromebooks often give you the best bang for your buck, especially if you’re trying to spend $500 or less.
So, why spend more? Well, there are two primary reasons. First, you might want a more premium design, perhaps one that has a more daring aesthetic or high-end components. Take the MacBook Pro, for example. It starts at $600 more than the MacBook Air but comes with a brighter Mini-LED display, significantly better speakers, and more ports. The second primary reason to spend more than $750 or so is to get more performance. Whether for gaming or for content creation, laptops with discrete GPUs are more expensive, which is why it’s hard to find a worthwhile gaming laptop under $1,000. If you’re buying a gaming laptop, plan to spend at least $1,500.
What Are the Best Laptop Brands?
Unlike the smartphone world, the biggest laptop brands have been around in the tech industry for over 40 years now. Taking Apple out of the picture, four laptop brands stand above the rest, following the latest trends and technology, while backing that up with reliable support and services.
Lenovo is the biggest PC brand in the world, at least in terms of global shipments. It’s perhaps most well-known for its familiar sub-brands like ThinkPad and Yoga, but it also isn’t afraid to take risks with more experimental designs and advanced technology. Lenovo has also made a name for itself in the gaming space, too, with its Legion laptops, known for balancing performance and features at the most competitive prices.
Asus has quickly become a favorite, notable for its sheer number of laptops available in the consumer market. The company takes a similar approach to Lenovo, and that’s led Asus to quickly innovate on new technology and designs, while also launching premium clamshell laptops at more affordable prices than its competitors. Gaming laptops in particular are a space that Asus has come to dominate in, with the ROG Zephyrus, Strix, and TUF brands leading the way.
Dell and HP are a bit more conservative, though they aren’t without their notable designs as well. Interestingly, the companies have both gone through a significant laptop rebrand. HP has introduced “Omnibook” as a replacement for the Spectre and Envy sub-brands in 2024, while Dell started 2025 by removing its well-known sub-brands entirely, including Inspiron and XPS. Dell has since reversed course and now XPS is back.
Other laptop makers in the mix include Microsoft Surface, Samsung, Acer, LG, and MSI, though none of them have as big a footprint globally in laptops as the top four.
How Do I Choose the Right Laptop?
If none of these laptops quite rings your bell, that’s OK! There are far more laptops than we have time to test. To help you make smart choices, we put together a complete laptop buying guide. We also have the details about all the CPUs and GPUs you need to know about for 2025. We recommend sticking to these guidelines:
RAM: In most cases, make sure you get 16 GB of RAM. That’s become the new standard in even more affordable laptops. Upgrading to 32 GB is even better and means you never have to worry about running out of memory, especially if you’re a gamer or video editor. The recent memory shortage may change RAM configuration options soon (and overall laptop pricing), however, though we haven’t yet seen how exactly that will play out.
CPU: In the world of Windows laptops, you have three CPU brands to choose from: Intel, AMD, or Qualcomm. Intel’s Core Ultra Series 2 launched in late 2024, providing a huge increase in battery life. It also has the best integrated graphics of the three. Core Ultra Series 3 is just now rolling out, and based on my own testing, is extremely impressive in performance and efficiency. AMD chips have been primarily used in gaming laptops, as they’ve struggled to take much ground from Intel. Its next-gen chips, AMD Ryzen AI 400 series, are also rumored to launch in 2026. Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X chips, however, have challenged Intel in a serious way over the past year with its ARM-based chips, offering some of the best battery life we’ve ever seen on Windows machines. The second generation of these chips, Snapdragon X2, was announced last fall and will launch in devices in 2026.
Discrete graphics: Want to play AAA PC games or edit video on your laptop? You’ll likely want a standalone graphics processor, and at this point, Nvidia is the primary option. The RTX 5090 launched in 2025 as the most powerful new GPU available, but the 40-series remains a good option. Integrated graphics have improved significantly over the years though, too, especially with Apple’s M4 line.
Screen: The display depends on the size of the laptop. A 1200-pixel resolution (HD+) screen on a 13- or 14-inch laptop looks sharp enough, but you’ll want more pixels on larger displays, such as a 2560 x 1600, 2880 x 1800, or 3840 x 2400. While IPS screens will be good enough for most people, OLED or Mini-LED are becoming more common, which provide better color accuracy, contrast, and decent HDR performance.
Connectivity: Ports are important, though everyone needs something different. For most people, though, we suggest at least two USB-C ports and at least one USB-A and HDMI for those legacy devices. (Remember that nearly all laptops today use one of those USB-C ports for the power adapter.) Thankfully, most laptops still have headphone jacks, but always check, because a few daring machines have dropped it. Lastly, make sure there’s Wi-Fi 6E support or newer. Even if you don’t have a Wi-Fi 6E or Wi-Fi 7 router yet, it’s a good bet you will in the future (see our Best Routers or Best Mesh Systems guides if you need a new one).
Battery life: Battery life is extremely competitive these days, with Apple, Qualcomm, and Intel all making highly ambitious battery life claims. Most laptops with the latest chips (and without discrete graphics) will get you over 10 hours of battery life, or many more if your workload is lighter.
Intel vs. AMD vs. Qualcomm
In the world of Windows laptops, there are three primary options for CPUs: Intel, AMD, and Qualcomm. All three companies have good options, but it really depends on the type of laptop. For premium laptops, you’ll want something like the Intel Core Ultra 258V or Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite. Meanwhile, for budget laptops, Snapdragon X is the best option. And for gaming laptops, I’d recommend something from AMD like the Ryzen AI 9 365. All three companies have announced next-gen chips for 2026, though, and there’s some exciting stuff coming soon.
Intel’s latest chips, known as either Core Ultra Series 3 or codename Panther Lake, are now available to buy in laptops, such as the MSI Prestige 14 I tested. These chips are a huge step forward over the previous generation, both in terms of CPU and integrated graphics performance. It’s very impressive, but AMD and Qualcomm also have new silicon coming out soon.
Qualcomm made a huge entrance in 2024 with its Snapdragon X chips. These ARM-based chips, like Apple’s M-series chips, emphasize efficiency, which drastically improves battery life. This has been a game-changer for Windows laptops across a wide range of price points. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite is the highest-end option in terms of performance, but the Snapdragon X Plus and base Snapdragon X still offer equally strong battery life, despite showing up in much cheaper laptops. (Qualcomm recently unveiled the Snapdragon X2 platform, which includes the X2 Elite Enhanced, X2 Elite, and X2 Plus so far.)
Over on Team Red, AMD has grown into a competitive player in the gaming laptop space in particular. Its latest gaming chips are the most powerful gaming hardware you’ll find on a laptop, including the Ryzen 9 9950X3D and 9900X3D. Unfortunately, it’s still hard to find many laptops supporting these killer chips. The company also has its Ryzen AI 300 H and HX chips, which are a bit more commonly found across gaming laptops. AMD does have its mainstream chips as well, as part of the Ryzen AI 300 Series, but they haven’t made their way into as many laptops at this point and don’t have as long a battery life as Intel and Qualcomm’s latest options. AMD’s new chips are the Ryzen AI 400 series, which are also arriving soon.
I have been reviewing laptops for a decade, and WIRED contributor Chris Null has been testing these machines for 25 years. We test each laptop we review in a variety of situations, including both synthetic benchmark tests, real-world use cases, and comparisons against similar equipment. We don’t consider hardware in a vacuum: Our reviews aim to match laptops with the users that will benefit from them the most, taking performance, usability, portability, and price all into account.
We put every laptop through a gauntlet of tests before writing a review and assigning a rating.
Hands-on use: Here’s we evaluate the exterior of the device. We compare how thin and light it is against other laptops. We repeatedly open and close the lid to test the quality and ease of use of the hinge. We push on weak points like the keyboard and lid to test build quality. We furiously type on the keyboard and swipe around on the touchpad to ensure it’s comfortable and precise. These are all things you can’t see just by looking at a device’s landing page on Amazon. We use the laptop itself for many days (and sometimes weeks) to report on any quirks that might pop up, such as oddly placed ports, a surfeit of preloaded shovelware, or unexpected problems that make using the laptop difficult.
Sights and sounds: Once we boot up a device itself, it’s all about the sights and sounds of the laptop. The screen is paramount, as it’s the world through which you experience the entirety of the device. There’s a lot you can tell about the brightness, colors, and contrast of a display just by looking at it. Beyond just subjective testing, we also use a Spyder colorimeter to measure the brightness, contrast, color space, and color accuracy of a display. If it’s an HDR-capable screen, we also test the peak brightness of the display in HDR content. We also test the webcam and speakers of a laptop to see if they are worthy of your video calls and music streaming sessions.
Performance testing: Finally, we test performance. There are a lot of ways to go about this, but we always evaluate a laptop’s performance based on what it’s intended for. We don’t expect a $500 budget laptop to perform like a powerhouse gaming laptop, nor do we expect a gaming laptop to get 18 hours of battery life. Our testbed includes more than 20 synthetic benchmarks, though this is constantly evolving and is dependent on the unit’s CPU and operating system, as macOS and Snapdragon-based laptops have fewer benchmarks available. Those benchmarks include various tests within the latest versions of Geekbench, PCMark, 3DMark, Procyon, GFXBench, Pugetbench, Superposition, Cinebench, and various gaming-related tests such as 3DMark and Cyberpunk 2077. Note that WIRED does not, in general, report raw benchmark scores. In addition to paying attention to the scores these benchmarks produce, we also observe the volume and speed of the fans, the surface temperature of the laptop, and the effect it has on battery life.
It’s a lot, I know. But we’re thorough because we want to stand by our recommendations and ensure that the laptops we rate highly are worth the money.
More Great MacBooks
Read our full Which MacBook You Should Buy guide for more recommendations.
Apple MacBook Pro (M5) for $1,449: Buying a MacBook Pro is complicated right now. The latest chip is the M5, but it launched exclusively on the base 14-inch MacBook Pro. It’s in the awkward middle ground between the entry-level MacBook Air and the actual performance-driven MacBook Pros. So, while you probably won’t regret the M5 MacBook Pro, I still think most people should buy the 13-inch or 15-inch MacBook Air, which are both significantly cheaper.
Apple MacBook Pro (M4 Pro/M4 Max) for $1,749: While the M5 MacBook Pro is powerful in its own right, if you’re a video editing professional, you’re still better off with the M4 Pro or M4 Max. Regardless of whether you choose the 16-inch or 14-inch size, the MacBook Pro (7/10, WIRED Recommends), the iconic chassis hasn’t changed a bit, and that’s not a bad thing. The Mini-LED screen is color-accurate and HDR-ready, and now comes with the option for a gorgeous nano-texture screen that effectively reduces glare to nil. It’s a perfect fit for video editors. There are plenty of ports, too, and support for Thunderbolt 5. Apple is expected to announce the M5 Pro and M5 Max for the MacBook Pro series very soon.
Apple MacBook Air (M1) for $599: I don’t normally recommend tech that is four-and-a-half years old. In almost all cases, you should be able to find something newer that’ll last longer. But the M1 MacBook Air (9/10, WIRED Recommends) was a special laptop, and unlike many other MacBooks, it’s been kept around at a discounted price because of how well it’s held up.
More Great Windows Laptops
Read our full Best Windows Laptops guide for more recommendations and buying advice.
Asus Vivobook 14 for $650: Poor battery life and performance are common in budget laptops. Once prices get below $800, companies tend to rely on slow, lackluster chips. The entry-level Snapdragon X processor from Qualcomm changes that for the better. It’s not as fast as the Snapdragon X Plus or X Elite, but the resulting battery life is almost as good, as tested on the Asus Vivobook 14 (6/10, WIRED Recommended). That’s a huge upgrade for laptops at this price. Just know that the display and touchpad are both low-quality.
Asus Zenbook A14 for $750: This is one of the lightest laptops we’ve ever tested, thanks to Asus’ “Ceraluminum” material. The Zenbook A14 (8/10, WIRED Recommends) is also the first A-series laptop from the company, and it employs Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X chipset, which is the weakest and supposedly the most affordable of the Snapdragon X series. This one occasionally significantly drops in price, so try to avoid the $1,000 MSRP if you can.
Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x Copilot+ PC for $850: Lenovo’s svelte Slim 7x (7/10, WIRED Review) isn’t exciting, but it offers the best price-to-performance ratio of the many Copilot+ PCs we’ve tested. Battery life and performance are standouts, though the fan does tend to run loud. This one frequently gets a price cut down to $800, which is when you should buy it.
Asus ProArt P16 for $2,400: We’ve wanted a true rival to the MacBook Pro on the Windows side for a while now. By that, I mean a laptop that could scale up in performance to match Apple’s M4 Max chipset, but in a sleek, premium chassis. Up until we tested the Asus ProArt P16 (9/10, WIRED Recommends), we thought it was impossible. But Asus has really pulled it off. It combines an incredible 4K OLED screen with up to an Nvidia RTX 5090 GPU, in a laptop as thin as 0.72 inches. It even has an oversize touchpad with the integrated DialPad in the top left corner.
Asus Zenbook S 16 for $1,600: The best premium Windows laptop has to be the Asus Zenbook S 16 (8/10, WIRED Recommends). It’s got an AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 CPU and Radeon 880M graphics, plus a hefty 24 GB of RAM. Better still is the laptop’s battery life, with over 14 hours of running time in our testing. It’s a workhorse of a laptop in a high-end chassis, which is what elevates the Zenbook S 16. That’s likely why Asus doesn’t sell cheap configurations of it.
More Great Chromebooks
Read our full guide to the Best Chromebooks for more recommendations and buying advice.
Acer Chromebook Plus Spin 514 for $579: This Chromebook uses the same efficient MediaTek processor as the Lenovo Chromebook Plus 14, which is currently my favorite Chromebook. The Acer model is just as premium, performant, and long-lasting, but it doesn’t have the OLED panel. Instead, it gives you an option for a higher-resolution display, as well as a 360-degree hinge. It’s sold for around the same price as the Lenovo Chromebook Plus 14, and it very much exists in the same class of Chromebooks.
Asus Chromebook CX14 for $189: This is the best Chromebook you can buy under $200. It lacks the high-end screen and quality touchpad, unfortunately, but that’s the reality of buying a laptop at this price. Fortunately, what the CX14 does provide is a 1920 x 1200 resolution, plenty of ports, and decent-enough performance. Something this cheap should really only be purchased for a student or if you only need something basic, but it’s the best option under $200.
Lenovo Flex 5i Chromebook Plus for $480: This was one of the first “Chromebook Plus” devices we tested, and it’s still among the best. While the newer Lenovo Chromebook Plus 14 is a higher-quality device, the Lenovo Flex 5i Chromebook Plus (8/10, WIRED Recommends) comes in a couple of hundred dollars cheaper, which makes it attractive, especially for a Chromebook. You’ll still get 8 GB of RAM and 128 GB of storage, too.
Acer Chromebook Plus 516 for $479: While the Acer Chromebook Plus Spin 514 has the higher-end screen and processor, I was surprised by how quality this larger model was. Despite being under $500, the touchpad is actually quite good, which is often a huge compromise many laptops at this price make. So, if you need a larger-screen Chromebook at a low price, the Acer Chromebook Plus 516 will do you right.
More Great Gaming Laptops
Read our full guide to the Best Gaming Laptops for more recommendations and buying advice.
Lenovo Legion 7i for $1,870: It’s one of the more expensive gaming laptops we’ve positively reviewed, but the Legion 7i’s classy, all-white look and fantastic performance ensure you get the absolute most out of the components. The Lenovo Legion 7i (7/10, WIRED Recommends) also has one of the brightest OLED panels I’ve ever tested on a Windows laptop, making for exceptional HDR performance in games.
Razer Blade 14 for $1,600: The Razer Blade 14 (7/10, WIRED Recommends) is unbelievably compact for how much performance it offers, with GPU options of either the RTX 5060 or 5070. So, while it’s not as powerful (or thin) as the larger Blade 16, it’s a fantastic option for students or anyone who wants a laptop that can handle gaming just as easily as work or school. It has an OLED display this time around, too, and gets decent battery life for a gaming laptop.
Alienware 16X Aurora for $1,301: It’s priced close to the Razer Blade 14, but the Alienware 16X Aurora (7/10, WIRED Recommends) is quite a different type of gaming laptop. It’s a large 16-inch device with a thick chassis, giving it great performance and a bright, sharp display. More than anything, if you can get this at $1,100 (as it’s sometimes sold for), it’s a killer deal.
Acer Nitro V 16 for $750: While the Lenovo LOQ 15 mentioned above is the best gaming laptop under $1,000, there’s certainly a crowd of people out there looking for something even cheaper. The Nitro V 16 represents the cheapest gaming laptop you should actually buy, featuring an RTX 5050 powering the graphics. It’s far from a perfect gaming laptop, though, so make sure to read my full review for all the details.
What Kinds of Laptops to Avoid
Amazon is filled with laptops you shouldn’t buy. Just type in “best laptop” into the Amazon search box, and you’ll find plenty of cheap laptops that no one should buy. That includes most of the Windows laptops under $500, which all use CPUs from three or four generations ago.
It gets worse when you search for “gaming laptops” on Amazon, which presents some cheap laptops that don’t even have discrete graphics. Regardless of what companies or retailers try to say, you shouldn’t expect a laptop without a discrete GPU to be able to play modern games. Some of these include laptops from knockoff brands you’ve never heard of, like this one. There’s just no reason to buy something from an unknown brand.
When it comes to gaming laptops in general, I wouldn’t recommend buying anything RTX 30-series or older in terms of graphics. You should still be able to find some decent RTX 40-series laptops that are a better bang-for-your-buck than the new RTX 50-series laptops.
Lastly, there’s the topic of refurbished laptops. Online retailers are full of older laptops that are marked as refurbished or “renewed.” These can be good options, especially if they come heavily discounted, such as this M1 MacBook Air. But there’s always some risk with buying refurbished. Make sure you read the retailer’s return policy. With models that are only a year or two older, however, pay careful attention to the specs, especially when it comes to RAM capacity. For example, some older M3 MacBook Air models will show up with only 8 GB of RAM, not reflecting the increased base memory in the price.
Here are some other laptops we recently tested that aren’t worth buying at their current price.
Dell 14 Premium for $1,170: It might be one of the prettiest laptops ever made, but it’s also one of the most controversial designs in recent years. The Dell 14 Premium (6/10, WIRED Review) is the renamed successor to the Dell XPS 14, sporting the same divisive function row keys, invisible haptic trackpad, and limited ports. I’d have been happy to overlook those design elements (as they make for an ultra-modern aesthetic) if only Dell had been able to upgrade this from the RTX 4050 to the RTX 5050 series graphics cards. Without that GPU performance upgrade, my excitement has dulled for what this could be.
Lenovo IdeaPad 5i 16 2-in-1 for $1,000: As I’ve said multiple times in this guide, Windows laptops at around $650 to $700 are really hard to pull off. There will almost always be some compromises. There’s no getting around that. The IdeaPad 5i 2-in-1 just barely walks the tightrope without tipping over. Like many of these devices, it has a crummy screen, a tiresome keyboard, and an imprecise-feeling touchpad. The battery life was decent, however, and I liked that the display is touchscreen and glossy. The specs aren’t half bad, but these days, you can get better laptops for this price.
Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting and exclusive subscriber content that’s too important to ignore. Subscribe Today.
Tech
The Catastrophic Swatch x Audemars Piguet Launch Was Entirely Predictable and Utterly Avoidable
The note from the communications team then, quite remarkably, lists some stats in an attempt to paint the launch in a positive light, as opposed the retail bin-fire it seemingly was: “We have received millions of clicks on our website. This new collaboration is literally making social media explode, with over 6 billion views within one week; by now, it is already 11 billion. All in all, the Royal Pop Collection is captivating the entire world, not least because the Royal Pop is, quite surprisingly, not a wristwatch.”
Audemars Piguet seems unhappy with how Swatch has handled the launch of its collaboration on the Royal Pop. AP told WIRED that “we understand the questions around the Royal Pop launch experience. As retail operations are handled by Swatch and their local teams, Swatch is best placed to comment on the operational handling of the launch. From AP’s perspective, safety and a positive experience for clients and teams remain the priority.” The brand did not respond when asked if it considered Swatch’s handling of the Royal Pop launch a “safe and positive experience”.
The madness of the Royal Pop launch is that, considering all that could have been learned from the MoonSwatch release in 2022, Swatch decided to repeat the playbook that went so badly wrong four years ago. This is a move, according to experts, that was entirely avoidable and utterly unnecessary.
Hype With No Control
“Luxury drops cannot rely on surprise, scarcity and social frenzy as the strategy, then act surprised when human behaviour follows,” says Kate Hardcastle, author of The Science of Shopping and advisor to brands including Disney, Mastercard, Klarna and American Express. “Retailers are already dealing with heightened tensions around theft, aggression and crowd management globally. Add a highly restricted product, long queues, resale economics, social media amplification and the emotional intensity attached to luxury access, and the environment can escalate very quickly if not expertly managed.”
Hardcastle confirms that what is particularly difficult for Swatch here is that the MoonSwatch launch already provided a live blueprint of the risks. “Once a brand has experienced scenes involving crowd surges, disappointment and policing,” she says, “the obligation shifts from reacting to proactively engineering a safer customer experience. Successful luxury houses increasingly control the experience with far greater precision.”
Neil Saunders, managing director of retail at Global Data, is even more candid. “The chaos does not reflect well on Swatch, and it probably makes Audemars Piguet wonder what on Earth it has gotten itself into,” he says. “Wanting to create some hype is understandable, but not being able to control it becomes damaging both commercially and for the brand image. Swatch should understand this better than most as it has been through this before with MoonSwatch.”
Not only Saunders and Hardcastle, but scores of commenters on Swatch’s Instagram post, point out well-known and obvious solutions that would have mitigated or entirely avoided the Royal Pop’s shambolic release.
“We have seen other premium or limited launches use staggered collection windows, verified appointment systems, geo-ticketing, VIP allocation tiers, timed QR access, private client previews and controlled queue technology to reduce volatility while preserving excitement,” says Hardcastle, adding that some combine digital ballots with curated in-store experiences so consumers feel part of an occasion rather than participants in a scramble.
Tech
The Backward Logic of Chickenpox Parties
Anyone who has had chickenpox shares one distinct memory: the relentless, all-consuming itch.
Ciara DiVita was only 3 years old when she caught the virus, but she remembers it well—along with the oven mitts she was made to wear to stop herself scratching. She also recalls being taken to hang out with her cousin while covered in blisters, in the hopes of deliberately infecting them.
DiVita, now 30, was actually the second in the chain, having been taken by her parents to catch chickenpox from an infectious friend. “I imagine the chain continued and my cousin gave it to someone else at a chickenpox play date,” she says.
A lot has changed over the past three decades, most notably the development of a chickenpox vaccine, meaning the virus is no longer the childhood rite of passage it once was.
Thanks to the vaccine’s success, children today are much less likely to be exposed to the infection at school or on the playground.
Chickenpox parties are also largely considered a relic of the past—a strategy many Gen X and millennial children were subjected to before vaccines became routine. But much like the virus itself—latent, opportunistic—they haven’t disappeared entirely.
Before a vaccine existed, chickenpox, which is caused by the varicella-zoster virus, felt unavoidable. In temperate countries like the UK and the US, around 90 percent of children caught the virus before adolescence (in tropical countries the average age of infection is higher).
It’s nothing to do with chickens. The splotchy, scratchy, highly contagious disease is possibly named after the French word for chickpea, pois chiche, according to one theory, because the round bumps caused by the virus resemble their size and shape. While most infant cases are mild, adolescents and adults are more likely to develop severe complications.
This is where the idea of “getting it over and done with” emerged from, according to Maureen Tierney, associate dean of clinical research and public health at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska.
“You were trying to have your child get the disease when they were at the greatest chance of not having complications,” Tierney says, explaining that, generally speaking, the older the patient, the more severe the infection can be.
While varicella-zoster is usually a mild, self-limiting disease in children, it can be much more severe—and sometimes life-threatening—in adults.
“I had an otherwise healthy adult patient who died of chickenpox pneumonia when I was first practicing,” Tierney says. “You never forget those scenarios.”
The virus spreads rapidly through respiratory droplets and contact with fluid from its characteristic blisters, meaning if one child contracts it, siblings and classmates are likely to be next, if unvaccinated.
Before the existence of social media, the idea that children should deliberately infect each other spread just as rapidly around communities—in conversations in the school yard, church groups, and pediatric waiting rooms—leading to the popularity of so-called chickenpox parties.
Parents swapped advice about oatmeal baths and calamine lotion and arranged to bring children together when one was thought to be infectious—despite the practice never being an official medical recommendation.
“They thought, well, if it’s going to happen to my kid anyway, it might as well happen in a controlled environment,” says Monica Abdelnour, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital. “The families were ready to encounter this infection, deal with it, and then move on.”
While the majority of children who develop chickenpox feel well again within a week or two, around three in every 1,000 infected experience a severe complication such as pneumonia, serious bacterial skin infections, encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), or meningitis.
Tech
A Danish Couple’s Maverick African Research Finds Its Moment in RFK Jr.’s Vaccine Policy
In 1996, Guinea-Bissau seemed like an ideal research post for budding pediatrician Lone Graff Stensballe. Her supervisor, a fellow Dane named Peter Aaby, had spent nearly two decades collecting data on 100,000 people living in the mud brick homes of the West African country’s capital.
Aaby and his partner, Christine Stabell Benn, believed that the years of research in the impoverished country had yielded a major discovery about vaccines—and what they described as “non-specific effects”: The measles and tuberculosis vaccines, which were derived from live, weakened viruses and bacteria, they said, boosted child survival beyond protecting against those particular pathogens.
But, the scientists said, shots made from deactivated whole germs, or pieces of them, such as the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) shot, caused more deaths—especially in little girls—than getting no vaccine at all.
The World Health Organization repeatedly and inconclusively examined these astonishing findings. They tended to elicit shrugs from other global health researchers, who found Aaby’s research techniques unusual and his results generally impossible to replicate.
Then came Donald Trump, Covid, and the administrative reign of anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Suddenly, Aaby and Benn weren’t just sending up distant smoke signals from a far corner of the planet. They were confidently voicing their views and policy prescriptions online and in medical journals. The “framework” for “testing, approving, and regulating vaccines needs to be updated to accommodate non-specific effects,” their team wrote in a 2023 review.
And the Trump administration has taken notice.
“They became more strident in saying that their findings were real and that the world needed to do something about it,” said Kathryn Edwards, a Vanderbilt University vaccinologist who has been aware of Aaby’s work since the 1990s. “And they became more aligned with RFK.”
Kennedy, as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, cited one of Aaby’s papers to justify slashing $2.6 billion in US support for Gavi, a global alliance of vaccination initiatives. The cut could result in 1.2 million preventable deaths over five years in the world’s poorest countries, the nonprofit agency has estimated. Kennedy has frozen $600 million in current Gavi funding over largely debunked vaccine safety claims.
Kennedy described the 2017 paper as a “landmark study” by “five highly regarded mainstream vaccine experts” that found that girls who received a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, or DTP, shot were 10 times more likely to die from all causes than unvaccinated children.
In fact, the study was far too small to confidently make such assertions, as Benn acknowledged. In a study of historical data that included 535 girls, four of those vaccinated against DTP in a three-month period of infancy died of unrelated causes, while one unvaccinated girl died during that period. A follow-up published by the same group in 2022 found that the DTP shot by itself had no effect on mortality. Critics say the 2017 study, rather than being a landmark, exemplified the troubling shortfalls they perceive in the Danish team’s research.
As Aaby and Benn’s US profile has risen, scientists in Denmark have set upon the work of their compatriots. In news and journal articles published over the past 18 months, Danish statisticians and infectious disease experts have said the duo’s methods were unorthodox, even shoddy, and were structured to support preconceived views. A national scientific board is investigating their work.
Stensballe, who worked with Aaby and Benn for 20 years, has been among those voicing doubts.
“It took years to see what I see clearly today, that there is a strange concerning pattern in their work,” Stensballe said in a phone interview from Copenhagen, where she treats children at Rigshospitalet, the city’s largest teaching hospital. She said their work is full of confirmation bias—favoring interpretations that fit their hypotheses.
-
Entertainment6 days agoConan O’Brien hat tricks as Oscar host
-
Tech1 week agoCould Contact-Tracing Apps Help With the Hantavirus? Not Really
-
Fashion5 days agoItaly’s Zegna Group’s Q1 growth boosted by strong organic performance
-
Entertainment1 week agoMartin Short: Facing tragedy with joy
-
Entertainment1 week agoTom Brady gets back at Kevin Hart during Netflix roast
-
Sports1 week agoJacob Fatu unleashes vicious assault on Roman Reigns after World Heavyweight Championship loss at WWE Backlash
-
Entertainment1 week agoMartha Stewart: How to make an omelet
-
Tech1 week agoCUDA Proves Nvidia Is a Software Company



