UK Association of HPV Vaccine Injured Daughters (AHVID)

Who we are – What we do – Why we do it

Authors:  Freda Birrell, Chair, UK Association; Steve Hinks, Press Officer, UK Association

Who we are:

Our UK Association of HPV Vaccine Injured Daughters (AHVID) was established at the beginning of 2015.  Families and their daughters from the north of Scotland to the south of England, Wales and Northern Ireland have joined together to give support to each other and raise awareness of the dangers of the HPV vaccines, Cervarix and Gardasil.  The primary focus of this organisation is to assure our members that they are no longer on their own and by working together we can achieve so much more. In our opinion, these vaccines have caused many serious health issues which need immediate investigation.

Our facebook group ‘Parents of daughters suffering long term side effects following HPV vaccination’ is an established group for families whose young people have suffered adverse events following vaccination.  Members are from countries worldwide who give each other valuable support and comfort in times of crisis.  They understand what the families are going through and they share their experiences, good and bad, giving comfort and advice to one another when required.  They have become an international family doing their best to cope when the world outside ignores them.  Their aim is to be there for one another.

Please see the photos of some of our family members – this only represents a small section of our association – but these are real people, real families who all share one thing in common – their daughters became ill following HPV vaccination and these illnesses have lasted for many years.

UK AHVID: These are real people, real families who all share one thing in common – their daughters became ill following HPV vaccines, Gardasil or Cervarix.


Collage2jpg

What we do:

Our aims are:

  • To give support to one another and raise awareness of the dangers of the HPV vaccines;
  • To highlight how these vaccines, in our opinion, have caused serious health issues for many girls here in the UK;
  • To get our governments and the medical profession to realise that thousands of girls worldwide are also suffering from post-vaccination disorders;
  • To reassure our members that they are no longer on their own and by working together, we can achieve greater goals and gain support;
  • To encourage all families to share their experiences with their MPs and meet them face to face in the hope of eventually getting an open debate on this issue in the House of Commons and in the devolved parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland;
  • To highlight that UK parents are being advised by medical professionals, that in many cases, their daughters’ illnesses are either “psychosomatic” or a “coincidence” and yet these young people were fit and healthy prior to vaccination;
  • To establish proper in-depth investigations into why previously healthy and very active young girls are experiencing personality changes and multiple adverse health events following HPV vaccinations;
  • To ask that the sick girls and their parents in the UK get treated with greater respect, are believed and given the opportunity to be healed within our own National Health Service – this is not occurring at the moment;
  • To highlight and request the Department of Education to investigate the great loss of education which has occurred following HPV vaccination;
  • And to recognise that all of this affects the whole family who experience high levels of stress and in many cases financial loss since their daughters became ill following HPV vaccination.

Why we do it

  • Quite simple – to protect our children who have become sick following HPV vaccination and to get them made well again;
  • And to try and prevent other girls from being damaged in the same way as has been occurring since the HPV vaccination programme was introduced into the UK in September 2008.
  • To ask all families to investigate and research the HPV vaccine before giving consent – it is important they know all of the facts before they make this important decision.

Freda Birrell (Scotland) is in the Chair; Vicky Oakley (Northumberland) is Secretary, Steve Hinks (Cumbria) is Press officer and Julie Jones (Midlands) is Political Activist.

For further information, please contact Freda at jeanfreda8@btinternet.com, Vicky Oakley at vickyoakley72@icloud.com (Secretary) or Steve Hinks at steve@hinksfamily.co.uk (Press Officer)

Updated May 2016

Comments

  1. Anne Lawlor says:

    Hi. My daughter Fiona was 12 in 2012 and was a happy healthy child until she got this vaccine. She became ill almost straight away with flu like symptoms following the first dose. And flu is what we thought it was until she got the second 6 weeks later. She was bedridden on and off for months. Couldn’t wake her up in mornings, thought it was schoolitis, docs had no idea what it was, she was due to have the third but I wouldn’t give permission and wonder if she would even be alive if she had had the last dose. Three years on and she suffers from Chronic Fatigue, Fibromyalgia like symptoms, breathlessness, dizziness, headaches, nausea, eye problems, menstrual problems, really bad limb pain, sporadic numbness in her limbs causing her to just keel over, all this has brought on depression and severe anxiety to the point that she would not go out or even come out of her room is we had a visitor. Took a while but she is seeing a wonderful counsellor and is starting to deal with the anxiety but the other symptoms, although not as bad as in the beginning are still there and prevent her from having any type of normal life. she has missed most of the last 3 years in school (but still managed to sit and pass 5 exam subject). But we worry about her future. If she doesn’t get the help that she needs is she going to have this condition forever? My heart goes out to all our lovely girls and their parents. Anne Lawlor

  2. Sandy Lunoe says:

    THE GREATEST PAIN OF ALL

    It hurts when you
    lean on crutches
    in the rain
    and no-one holds an umbrella
    over you

    Pain…
    chest, stomach, back
    splitting headaches
    swollen limbs
    fatigue
    high pulse, throbbing heart
    nausea, vomiting,
    dizziness, fainting
    confusion
    sleeplessness
    blurred eyes
    burning rashes,
    freezing, sweating
    cold feet turning
    purple ……

    trembling, numbness,
    paralysis

    Pain, pain…
    to know
    that precious ones
    who were healthy and happy
    have died
    in their sleep

    It hurts
    when voices in white say it’s only nerves,
    when they hand you a piece of paper
    and say next please

    But the greatest pain of all
    is not to be believed

    ……………………

    (Sandy L)

  3. Dear parents of HPV injured daughters,

    HPV vaccine is seemingly much worse than other vaccines, but it is because it is not the first vaccine given; the girls were given many other vaccines and their immune system has been sensitised, hyped up by those previous vaccines. The harmful effects of vaccines are cummulative.

    Rapid Responses to:
    RESEARCH:
    Liew Woei Kang, Nigel Crawford, Mimi L K Tang, Jim Buttery, Jenny Royle, Michael Gold, Christine Ziegler, Patrick Quinn, Sonja Elia, and Sharon Choo
    Hypersensitivity reactions to human papillomavirus vaccine in Australian schoolgirls: retrospective cohort study
    BMJ 2008; 337: a2642 [Abstract] [Full text]
    Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

    Rapid Responses published:
    A wonder vaccine we should all wonder about
    Marian Vickers (7 December 2008)
    Something wrong with the figures: there were many more reactions than 35 after 380 000 doses of Gardasil administered.
    Dr Viera Scheibner PhD (10 December 2008)
    What bandwagon?
    Marian Vickers (15 December 2008)
    Hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis in school-based HPV vaccine programs – the Australian experience
    Peter B McIntyre, Julia M Brotherton, Andrew S Kemp, Margaret A Burgess (22 December 2008)
    ________________________________________
    A wonder vaccine we should all wonder about 7 December 2008

    Marian Vickers,
    Concerned mother
    N/A
    Send response to journal:
    Re: A wonder vaccine we should all wonder about
    So Gardasil has been given the all-clear in relation to allergies after a study of… wait for it… 25 young women. What a joke! This is typical of the shoddy science associated with this so called “wonder” vaccine we should all wonder about. Clinical trials for this vaccine only looked for injection site redness and fever/sensitivity within 24 hrs of the injection, and these are the only adverse reactions doctors will consider now.
    My 26 year old daughter has gone through 6 months of hell because of this drug. Having never previously suffered from allergies, not even hay fever, she has experienced months of distressing and debilitating symptoms including urticaria and angioedema. This involved 3 potentially life threatening episodes when her tongue and throat swelled up. She has finally been diagnosed with severe chronic urticara which is an autoimmune disease, not an allergic reaction. Her mast cells have been destabilised and we believe this was triggered by Gardasil. She received the 3 injections earlier this year, in early January, late February and the 3rd injection in mid June. Her symptoms first appeared in May and escalated markedly in July. That is, during the 7th month when the level of antibodies artificially raised by Gardasil are at a peak.
    Interestingly, while GPs won’t even consider a connection between her condition and Gardasil (maybe because they urged her to have it and are paid $6 to administer it) the higher up the medical food chain we go the more open-minded is the response. The clinical immunologist who recently diagnosed her said such a connection was worthwhile looking into. As he said, it would be interesting to know how many other young women have developed urticara within months of having Gardasil. Has there been an increase in reports of “idiopathic urticaria” since the national roll-out of this vaccine?
    On 4 August 2008 the Medical Journal of Australia published an letter “Pancreatitis following HPV vaccination”that states: “The pathophysiology linking vaccination with pancreatitis is unclear… It has been postulated that.. “molecular mimicry” could stimulate production of auto-antibodies, which react with host antigens and cause autoimmunity…Therefore, an autoimmune mechanism is possible” (p.178)
    I find it incredibly cavalier that a drug should be developed, using new “molecular mimicry” technology, and yet the only adverse reactions looked for are injection site redness and fever/allergic reaction within 24 hours. I would have thought auto immune response would be an obvious possibility and should have been ruled out before this vaccine was made widely available. My daughter is now paying the price.
    Competing interests: None declared
    Something wrong with the figures: there were many more reactions than 35 after 380 000 doses of Gardasil administered. 10 December 2008

    Dr Viera Scheibner PhD,
    Scientist/Author Retired
    Blackheath NSW Australia
    Send response to journal:
    Re: Something wrong with the figures: there were many more reactions than 35 after 380 000 doses of Gardasil administered.
    Dear Editor,
    According to the Australian media reports, there were many more than 35 girls with reactions to Gardasil, serious enough to cause quite an uproar. When we also consider the reports on the Internet, it looks more like a major trail of disasters which occurred in practically all school vaccination drives. One cannot work out the overall incidence on two tertiary paediatric allergy centres, either. Even though such ‘calculations’ may look good on paper, they, in my considered opinion, are not worth the paper they are written on.
    However, what I really wish to address is the question of the ‘true’ hypersensitivity reaction’ to human papilloma virus vaccine. What’s in a name?
    Going back into the history of medical research, yes, as far back as to 1918, Goodall published and essay on serum sickness (Lancet; March 9: 361-370), in which he said a lot of things, but perhaps the most important being that in the year 1902 Richet injected into dogs a poison which he had extracted from the tentacles of certain Actiniae. He found that after an interval of a few days particular symptoms were produced. If several days after this injection, another injection of the poison was given, the animal far from having received any protection or prophylaxis from the first dose, was more vulnerable, and the symptoms occurred with greater severity and after a shorter latent period. To this condition of exalted sensitiveness, Richet applied the term anaphylaxis, by which he meant a condition which was the opposite of prophylaxis, meaning prevention.
    Subsequent observers have called the first dose of toxin or other agent the sensitising dose and the second the reacting dose. An animal cannot with certainty be known to be in an anaphylactic state until it has been shown to be the result of the reacting dose. Goodall then wrote that not every person who receives primary injection of serum is sensitised and shows a reaction even to the reacting dose. In fact, 74 out of 203, or 36% re-injected persons showed no signs of anaphylaxis (though it means that 64% did). Goodall then limited the use of the term anaphylaxis to the condition of supersensitiveness as evidence by abnormal reaction.
    Goodall further stated that in order to sensitise an animal a protein substance must be employed. The protein may be any protein, vegetable or animal, provided that, in respect of animal proteins, the protein is not derived from the same species of animal as the one under treatment, or from a closely allied species. In order to evoke the anaphylactic symptoms the same protein as used for the sensitising must be used for the reacting dose. A very small dose will sensitise; for the reacting a larger dose is usually necessary.
    Goodall also wrote that the symptoms of anaphylaxis may be different in different species, but on the whole are the same for the same species, no matter what protein is used for sensitisation.
    Today, we know that that was just the beginning of the specialty science of anaphylaxis and subsequent research demonstrated the inadequacy of the initial definitions.
    Others, such as Selye (1937. Studies on adaptation. Endocrinology; 21 (1): 169-18; 1978. The stress of life. McGraw-Hill Publ Co, Totonto; 515pp), established that even though the reaction (symptoms) vary within certain parameters, they are characteristic, but not specific to any one substance (Non-specific stress syndrome).
    The term allergy was born and widely used. Many other terms were introduced even for hypersensitivity reactions in individual organs such as the brain (Levine et al. 1966. Hyperacute allergic encephalomyelitis: adjuvant effect of pertussis vaccines and extracts. J Immunology; 97 (3): 363-368), but the main upshot still remained that injections of a variety of substances and especially proteins were causing a variety of undesirable and harmful reactions and not making the recipients immune to them. Well, bacteria get immune to antibiotics, the natural way (I call the little critters a superior intelligence).
    Vaccines were catapulted into the front line because they became the most frequently administered foreign proteins and toxic substances. The great variety of antibiotics became the second most important foreign substances administered (Parfentjev et al. 1947. J Bacteriology; 53: 603; Kind (1959. Sensitivity of pertussis inoculated mice to endotoxin. J Immunology; 82: 32-37) and Craighead (1975. Report of a workshop: disease accentuation after immunization with inactivated microbial vaccines. J Infect Dis; 1312 (6): 749-754); Daum et al. (1989. Decline in serum antibody to the capsule of Haemophilus influenzae type b in the immediate postimmunization period. J Pediatrics; 114: 742-747) established that actually vaccines of one kind elicit and increase sensitivity to other vaccines, and related and unrelated bacterial and viral infections and other allergy-causing substances.
    One thing has not changed, though: vaccines do not immunise, they sensitise, i.e. increase susceptibility to the very diseases they are supposed to prevent and also other, related and unrelated disease.
    Even though most people (including many medical doctors) only consider an immediate reaction to vaccines and antibiotics, the reality of delayed sensitivity reactions became well-established by medical research. Rephrased, if the recipient of a sensitising substance does not react immediately, it does not mean that the story is finished; quite the opposite, that may only be the beginning.
    Here I should briefly quote my own research (Scheibner 2004. Dynamics of critical days as part of the dynamics of non-specific stress syndrome discovered during monitoring with Cotwach breathing monitor. J ACNEM; 23 (3): 1-10). Reactions (including death) to any substances, and including vaccines, follow the dynamics of critical days. These are: a few seconds or minutes, 4 and 13 hours, 48 hours, 5-7 days, 10-11th days, 14-16th days, 21st-24th days, 28th day and even the 47th day. Indeed, the reality of these critical days facilitates the establishment of the causality. The question that remains is whether the delayed sensitivity/hypersensitivity is still anaphylaxis. In my opinion it is. Allergies, asthma are also delayed sensitivity/hypersensitivity; they can be called chronic delayed anaphylaxis. Their attacks come and go and may, and do, result in fatalities.
    In the case of HPV vaccines, the emphasis was put on the immediate reactions. Since the majority of reactions are delayed, the picture of the sensitivity/hypersensitifity of this vaccine is incomplete and largely underestimated. Even the immediate reports of reactions were initially dismissed as ‘false rumours’ or ‘myth about Gardasil …spread by people who were philosophically opposed to all vaccination’ (Medical Observer 29 June 2007: front page). However, under the weight of the great number of reactions observed (not necessarily reported), it is now admitted that there are reactions along the lines of reactions to all other vaccines. Indeed, the HPV vaccine appears more reactogenic: its recipients were mostly already given a great number of vaccines, in their childhood, and are sensitised.
    These days, the initial limited definition of anaphylaxis, serum sickness, allergy, whatever other names it may have been given, is quite inadequate. No use trying to go backwards just to limit the extent of the observed and well-known reactions to HPV to ‘true’ and untrue.
    My message to Mrs Vickers: check the facts before climbing on the bandwagon. Medical literature is by far the best source of information.
    Competing interests: None declared
    What bandwagon? 15 December 2008

    Marian Vickers,
    Concerned mother
    Camberwell VIC 3124
    Send response to journal:
    Re: What bandwagon?
    My question for Dr Scheibner: Exactly which bandwagon am I meant to be climbing onto? After the worry and stress of the past 6 months, I don’t have the energy to climb on anything!
    Medical literature may be the best source of information, if it can be deciphered. And really, if Kang et al is an example of this medical literature, I have better things to do with my time than read such irrelevant, academic twaddle. In the real world, who cares if the symptoms being experienced are “true” hypersensitivity or not? The key point, as far as I am concerned, is that the symptoms were caused by Gardasil.
    As for the checking the facts, I did so with the appropriately named Fact Sheet distributed in 2007 by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. (‘Fact Sheet on HPV Vaccines for Australians: Information for General Practitioners and immunisation providers’, National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance of Vaccine Preventable Diseases, September 2006).
    And I quote:
    “Genital human papillomavirus (HPV) is a common and usually asymptomatic infection. It is highly contagious and many people will acquire HPV within a few years of becoming sexually active. Most people clear that HPV infection within 12-24 months…
    Successfully applied molecular biology technology – recombinant DNA technology – have underpinned the development of prophylactic HPV vaccines…. When given as a three dose series, HPV vaccines elicit antibody titres many times higher than those observed in natural infection. Antibody responses peak at month 7 (one month after dose three) at between 7 and 150 times natural infection levels and appear to plateau at 18-24 months…
    It should be noted that there is no standard serological assay for detecting HPV antibodies and no protective titre has been established…
    The duration of immunity from vaccination is not yet known. It is at least five years duration, but booster doses may be required…”
    Now, to me, there appear to be quite a lot of unknowns. It all seems a little experimental. For example, an antibody response of “somewhere between 7 and 150 times” seems rather a large range. Further, no protective titre (whatever that means) has been established. Why not? Is it possible that antibody titre levels can be too high? Another unknown is the duration of this raised antibody response.
    But there’s more. To continue:
    “It is of critical importance to note that HPV vaccines are prophylactic, that is designed to prevent initial HPV infection. They are not therapeutic vaccines…
    Gardasil is approved for use in females aged 9 to 26 years. Vaccination may be considered for any female within this age group prior to commencement of sexual activity. Vaccination is not routinely recommended for sexually active women. An individual decision regarding likely benefit should be made taking into account the likelihood of past and future exposure to HPV…
    The most important preventative strategy against cervical cancer for women who are sexually active is two yearly Pap screening… “
    So, in terms of my daughter’s situation, here we have a vaccine that she didn’t need and should not have been given. In benefit/cost analysis terms, Gardasil had no benefit and, as we now know, great cost.
    When I asked my daughter whether the doctors had discussed with her the likelihood of her past and future exposure to HPV, she laughed and said the only “discussion” that occurred was the doctors continually asking her “When are you having your Gardasil vaccination?” (In fairness to the doctors, the section on vaccination not being routinely recommended for sexually active women seems to have mysteriously disappeared from the current literature.)
    In my naiveté I thought all pharmaceutical products had to be independently tested and proven safe (both in the short-term and long- term) before they could be marketed.
    Ah, Dr Scheibner, maybe I have found a bandwagon upon which to climb after all.
    Competing interests: None declared
    Hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis in school-based HPV vaccine programs – the Australian experience 22 December 2008

    Peter B McIntyre,
    Director, National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases
    Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children, Westmead, Sydney, Australia 2145,
    Julia M Brotherton, Andrew S Kemp, Margaret A Burgess
    Send response to journal:
    Re: Hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis in school-based HPV vaccine programs – the Australian experience
    Australia was the first country to embark on a national level school- based human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine program using the quadrivalent vaccine (4vHPV). The study of hypersensitivity reactions identified in school-based administration of 4vHPV by Kang et al (1) from the Australian states of Victoria (Vic) and South Australia (SA) closely followed a report of anaphylaxis following 4vHPV from the largest Australian state, New South Wales (NSW) (2). As the two studies adopted different approaches and came to somewhat different conclusions it is instructive to compare and contrast them.
    In NSW, an expert panel reviewed structured clinical histories and classified the probability that the reported episode was true anaphylaxis using the Brighton Collaboration schema(3). In contrast, the study reported from Vic/SA evaluated cases of suspected hypersensitivity to 4vHPV by skin testing and rechallenge (1). We concur with the reassuring message from this study that documented IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to quadrivalent HPV vaccine is rare among the total population vaccinated. However, among the 25 girls reviewed with suspected hypersensitivity in the Vic/SA study, of the two anaphylaxis cases identified, one had a positive skin test. In contrast, in our study, none of the four cases of anaphylaxis tested was positive on skin-prick for baker’s yeast or on skin -prick testing and intradermal testing for 4vHPV, bivalent HPV (2vHPV) or polysorbate 80. The case of probable IgE-mediated anaphylaxis in the Vic/SA study had generalised urticaria following the first dose and anaphylaxis after the second dose. This suggests caution is required in the presence of urticaria, even though most such occurrences will not prove to be vaccine-related (1). A suitable clinical algorithm has been recently described (4).
    It is difficult to precisely estimate the rate of anaphylaxis after vaccination, given its rarity and differing case definitions and methods of ascertainment, but ascertainment should be most reproducible under the conditions of a school-based program. In the NSW school-based program, the seven reports judged to have a level 1 (1) or level 2 (6) certainty of anaphylaxis, according to the Brighton classification, gave a rate of anaphylaxis of 2.6 per 100,000 doses (95%CI 1.1–5.2). This is compatible with the minimal rate from the Vic/SA report, assuming that none of the cases not tested had anaphylaxis, of 0.53 per 100,000 (95%CI 0.06–1.9).
    In NSW, there were 42 notifications of suspected hypersensitivity following 4vHPV vaccination of school girls aged 15–18 years, a notification rate of 15.6 per 100,000 doses (95%CI 11.2–21.1). This is high compared with rates of notified hypersensitivity from passive surveillance systems after most vaccines (up to 2 per 100,000) (4) but again compatible with notifications from Vic/SA – 35 cases of suspected hypersensitivity from 380,000 doses or 9.2 per 100,000 (95%CI 6.4–12.8). We sought interviews with the first 26 of the 42 cases of apparent hypersensitivity and, of the 22 interviewed, 18 were judged by the expert panel to be certainly (3), probably (8), or possibly (7) due to vaccination. Of these 18, there were 13 with an urticarial rash, three with angioedema, two with blistering mucosal/skin rashes and one who had a localised immediate allergic reaction. As in the Vic/SA report, most reactions occurred after dose 1 (n=13), and 11 had a history of acute allergic reactions and/or atopic disease. We did not perform skin testing in this group but, in the five who had received another dose, the reaction did not recur in one, recurred with the same severity in two and worsened in two.
    This combined Australian experience, reported from three jurisdictional school- based HPV vaccination programs, demonstrates that hypersensitivity and, in particular, anaphylaxis is rare. However, there is a suggestion from the combined data that hypersensitivity may be more common with 4vHPV vaccine than with other vaccines. Immunisation providers need to be aware of the possibility of hypersensitivity and/or anaphylactic reactions and manage these appropriately (4). The experience of other countries embarking on large scale school-based HPV vaccination – the UK with 2vHPV and Canada with 4vHPV – will inform the accuracy of the reported Australian estimates (1),(2).
    References
    1 Kang LW, Crawford N, Tang ML, Buttery J, Royle J, Gold M, et al. Hypersensitivity reactions to human papillomavirus vaccine in Australian schoolgirls: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2008;337:a2642.
    2 Brotherton JM, Gold MS, Kemp AS, McIntyre PB, Burgess MA, Campbell -Lloyd S. Anaphylaxis following quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccination. CMAJ 2008;179:525-33.
    3 Rüggeberg JU, Gold MS, Bayas JM, Blum MD, Bonhoeffer J, Friedlander S, et al. Anaphylaxis: case definition and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data. Vaccine 2007;25:5675-84.
    4 Wood RA, Berger M, Dreskin SC, Setse R, Engler RJ, Dekker CL, et al. An algorithm for treatment of patients with hypersensitivity reactions after vaccines. Pediatrics 2008;122:e771-7.
    Competing interests: None declared
    ________________________________________
    Contact us – Privacy policy – Web site terms & conditions – Revenue sources – Site map
    HighWire Press – Feedback – Help – © 2009 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

  4. Jenny inglis says:

    Hello, my daughter had the hpv vaccine and no one could convince me that she hast suffered a significant vaccine injury. Caitlin was 13 when she received it and at the time was doing well in school and was also I in a dance school and was a normal, well, active girl. In the months after she received the vaccine she became unwell with flu like symptoms, aching all over, fatigued, sleeping all the time, days absent from school became the norm. Her mood became very low and she received counselling. I hadn’t really researched the vaccine beforehand and at this point did not make a connection. Last year Caitlin was diagnosed aged 16 with arthritis, then following an isotopic bone scan, which was normal, told it wasn’t arthritis. After many months of back and forth to gp’s and rheumatologists she was finally diagnosed with fibromyalgia last week by a professor of rheumatology. During this long drawn out process I started to research the hpv vaccine as it was niggling at me that her problems started at the time she had the vaccine. I was, and remain, horrified at the sheer volume of girls who have been adversely affected by this ‘vaccine’ that was meant to protect our children from cancer. My daughters journey has just begun, she knows and has been told by her consultant that this is a chronic life long condition. She has equipment to help her write in school, wrist splints, a lift pass cause she can’t do the stairs, a scribe and extra time for her exams. She’s only 17. I wish you all well on your journeys, xx

  5. Please if any can help that would be appreciated I’m 17 years old and at my wits end. I’ve been very poorly the past few years and none of the Drs have really believed me. Last year my hips completely gave up on me rheumatologists never could find why nether could bone specialists. I suffer severe feinting episodes and today I was reading about POTS and the link with Hpv vaccine I’m always tired and suffer depression and anxiety I wonder if anyone could help me please with similar experiences me and my mum finally think we’ve found the answer.

    • Hi Darcy, I have sent you two emails in response to your note above. Please look for them to make sure they have not gone into your spam. I believe you must be from the UK and as you can see we have a UK Association and a wonderful facebook group (2 in fact) where you will get lots of love and support. Which part of the UK are you from. Please contact me on birrell_df@btopenworld.com Hope to hear from you soon. We would welcome you as a member of our Association but just so sorry that you have been injured by the HPV vaccine. Look forward to hearing from you. I am Secretary of SaneVax Inc but also Chair of the UK Association and come from Scotland. Freda

  6. Saskia Smit says:

    My 16 year old dauther has been feeling ill for over 3 years now. We have been seeing doctors for over a few years. Her blood (and faeces) was checked 5 /7 times. We are now seeing a physical therapist to see if that helps her with her breathing, to soothe the stomach aches and to help het relax. We live in the Netherlands, but no doctor acknowledges that het problems are because of the hpv vaccine. She is always tired, has headaches, nausea, blurry vision, dizziness, stomach aches (gas), skin issues ( eczema).
    We didn’t give the vaccine to our youngest daughter, and we are very sorry we gave it to our oldest.

    • irma veenendaal says:

      Hallo Saskia,
      ik kreeg van mijn nichtje deze site door omdat we al bijna 2 jaar problemen hebben met onze jongste dochter. nu ik alles gelezen heb ga ik steeds meer denken dat het aan de vaccinatie moet liggen. ook wij hebben het aangekaart bij de huisarts, maar die gelooft er niet in. onze dochter heeft ook ademhalings teraphie., is duizelig, moe, problemen op school heeft een aangepast rooster. we zijn nu doorgestuurd naar een kinder spycholoog.

  7. Tanja Price says:

    And do not forget about the boys – there are now injured boys too.

Trackbacks

  1. […] Emily’s mother, together with other 80 families in similar situation across the UK have formed the Association for HPV Vaccine Injured Daughters (AHVID). […]

  2. […] Η μητέρα της Emily, μαζί με άλλες 80 οικογένειες σε παρόμοια κατάσταση σε όλη τη Βρετανία ίδρυσαν τον Σύλλογο Κορών Θυμάτων του HPV Εμβολίου (Association for HPV Vaccine Injured Daughters (AHVID). […]

  3. […] paesi come gli Stati Uniti, l’India,la Francia, il Regno Unito, l’Australia, la Nuova Zelanda, l’Irlanda, la Scozia, la Danimarca, la Spagna , […]

  4. […] paesi come gli Stati Uniti, l’India,la Francia, il Regno Unito, l’Australia, la Nuova Zelanda, l’Irlanda, la Scozia, la Danimarca, la Spagna, la […]

Speak Your Mind

*


*