Controversial influencer Sophie Guidolin reveals she has been hospitalised and 'just surviving' after being exposed to household toxin
The controversial social media star said in her stories on Saturday that she is 'literally just surviving' her condition.
The 36-year-old mother-of-four was exposed to the dangerous fungi after her Gold Coast home suffered damage when ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred struck the Queensland coast in March.
Taking to her Instagram stories Sophie said things got so serious for her, that she woke up in hospital to find her father had flown in from Adelaide to be by her side.
And last week the online celebrity has posted distressing shares to her Instagram revealing that her home has been invested with black mould.
'Sorry guys, since the update of hospitalisation on May 6, I am literally just surviving,' she messaged followers earlier this week.
The 36-year-old mother-of-four was exposed to the dangerous fungi after her Gold Coast home suffered damage when ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred struck the Queensland coast in March. Pictured: Sophie updated her followers with this selfie on Instagram this week
'I opened my eyes to find my dad crying at my condition, after flying from Adelaide,' she continued.
'Thanks to my best friend and the serious legends at PRD in Burleigh, allowing sight unseen whilst I was in hospital, the boys are now secure in a 6 month rental with dad caring for them and trying to navigate everything.
'Please note my phone has been off I am unable to speak and am not ignoring anyone
'Just trying too get better as as possible. Again, I will try and get back to everyone soon as possible.'
In one post she shared with her followers on Saturday Sophie included a public health service chart that detailed health symptoms related to exposure to mould.
Symptoms include sneezing, coughing, red eyes, post nasal drip and nasal congestion.
The chart also warned that exposure to black mould can also 'trigger or worsen asthma symptoms'.
This includes, shortness of breath, wheezing and a dry cough and chest tightness.
Sophie also posted a selfie in which she be seen lying in what appears to be a hospital bed hooked up to health monitors and wearing a face mask.
'I'm not ignoring anyone, just having a quick little retreat,' she joked in the caption and added three laughing emojis.
She also included a second caption that read, 'Laugh or you will cry,' and added a laughing emoji.
It appears the influencer made the post in response to her followers who sent messages asking for a health update.
Meanwhile, Sophie's followers responded with words of support on her Instagram, after he recent update.
'Cyclone Alfred has kicked her ass...the poor love,' wrote one friend, who added,'Home has been destroyed by black mould.'
'Oh honey I'm so glad your dad is here for you and helping with children,' commented another follower.
Elsewhere, Sophie expressed concern about her insurance payout and revealed she was about further spread of the mould through her home.
She also detailed an update on her condition. 'My health is very poor...' she said on Instagram.
'I've had multiple hospital admissions and four IV antibiotics and anti fungals so I am just resting and trying to heal as quick as possible.'
It comes after Sophie made headlines earlier this month after claiming that she will be out of pocket thousands of dollars due to damage from ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred.
Sophie jetted off to Europe with her twin daughters Evie and Aria, nine, before the storm made landfall.
The online personality has claimed on Instagram she will have to pay up to $4,000 a week in rent or $76,000 for three months in an Airbnb while she 'rebuilds'.
Sophie shares her twin daughters, and sons Ryder, 15, and Kai, 16, with ex-husband Nathan Wallace.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
43 minutes ago
- BBC News
Cancer campaigner dies after 14 years with illness
A woman who campaigned relentlessly for research into lobular breast cancer has died after living with the illness for 14 Susan Michaelis launched the Lobular Moon Shot Project in 2023 to fight for £20m in funding for research into the biology of invasive lobular breast Michaelis, from Horsham in West Sussex, had been due to meet Health Secretary Wes Streeting on Monday to press him on the died at home on 9 July, while wearing a Lobular Moon Shot Project t-shirt, with her husband, Tristan, and close friends. Dr Michaelis had completed a degree in marketing, though her dream was to become a saved enough money to become a private pilot, then pilot teacher before making it as an airline pilot, flying to remote communities in the challenging terrain of the Northern Territory of in 1997, Dr Michaelis collapsed mid-flight. She lost her medical certificate and never flew as an airline pilot again, but contributed to the Australian Senate carrying out an investigation and went on to become an air accident her injuries sustained as an airline pilot, Dr Michaelis completed Half Ironman triathlons and became the first Australian to receive a British Citizen Award for her work in aviation being diagnosed with lobular breast cancer, she set about campaigning for research into the illness, which she said was "just not being done".Lobular cancer makes up 15% of all breast cancer cases, but campaigners say it is under-studied and rarely recognised due to rarely forming a lump in the same way as other breast differs from more common forms of breast cancer in that it begins in the milk-producing lobule glands, as opposed to 70-80% of breast last month, Dr Michaelis was one of 22 women to take part in a vigil outside Downing Street, representing the 22 women who are diagnosed with the disease every year, a rose named the Dr Susan Michaelis Rose was launched by Harkness Roses at the Chelsea Flower meeting with Mr Streeting on Monday will still go ahead, with Dr Michaelis's husband and the Lobular Moon Shot Project continuing her work.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
New reality for parents after daycare worker was charged with 70 child abuses offences
Parents are facing an agonising wait after their toddlers were tested for sexually transmitted diseases following the arrest of accused childcare predator Joshua Brown. Joshua Dale Brown, 26, has been charged with more than 70 child abuse offences, including sexual penetration of a child under 12 and producing child abuse material. The charges also include 'recklessly contaminate goods to cause alarm or anxiety,' which is understood to refer to the alleged contamination of food with bodily fluids. Days before his arrest, Brown was working in the kitchen at Papilio Early Learning Centre in Essendon and was helping with meal preparation while the chef was away. The alleged offences occurred during Brown's employment at Creative Garden Early Learning Centre Point Cook, where he worked from October 2021 to February 2024. His eight alleged victims were aged between five months and two years old and were enrolled at the Point Cook childcare centre. Following his arrest, the Victorian Department of Health and Victoria Police issued an urgent warning urging parents of 1,200 children to take them to the doctor for STI testing. The horrified parents have revealed that even with a clean bill of health, there is still a 'dark cloud' weighing on their minds, as Brown had been around their children. One mother explained her family has already suffered emotional damage and that work on their mental health is needed to put the ordeal behind them. 'Even when the urine tests come back negative, which I'm hoping and praying they do, this will always be a dark cloud hanging over our heads,' she told 'We will never have complete peace of mind or certainty over what exposure Joshua Brown had with our kids.' One father shared the traumatic experience of having his seven-year-old daughter tested for STIs. The dad claimed the testing not only affected him, his wife, and their daughter, but also that the pathologist, receptionists, and doctor were 'visibly upset.' 'My daughter was saying 'Daddy, this is really hurting me, make the lady stop,'' the father told the Herald Sun. 'The urine test was OK, she thought it was quite amusing, but the blood tests … They had to take two full vials so the needle was in her arm for quite a long time.' He labelled the tests as the easy part of the ordeal, claiming the agonising wait for the results, which could take up to seven days, filled him with anxiety. 'It's every bit as bad as you think it's going to be. Every time my phone rings … I get anxiety, every time it rings,' he said. Other parents are trying to figure out whether their children, who attended childcare centres across the state, had come into contact with Brown. Victoria Police published a list of 20 childcare centres where Brown worked over an eight-year period between January 2017 and May 2025. However, other centres not on the list have confirmed Brown was on staff. One mother, whose children attend a Milestones centre, discovered Brown was at the childcare on December 5, 2024, after using Storypark — a platform that provides parents with updates on their child's day. 'I feel so sick and upset, that's two days we now know of,' the mum told 'Will there be more days discovered and who will tell us? Or do we have to investigate with the news to be our people who find the truth?' The mum added it was sad that parents had to investigate for themselves, rather than authorities or centres being proactive in informing them. A father explained it was becoming 'sickening' trying to work out whether his child visited a centre on the same day as Brown. Another mother said she could not sleep because of the uncertainty over whether Brown had crossed paths with her children. In the wake of Brown's arrest, three of Australia's largest childcare operators have announced they would be implementing safeguards to protect children. Goodstart, G8 Education, and Affinity — which account for more than 30 per cent of long daycare providers nationwide — have already implemented safeguards, including CCTV cameras. G8 Education issued a market update to the ASX stating it would accelerate the rollout of CCTV cameras across its centres after trialling them at several locations. The childcare provider also intends to commission an independent review once Brown's criminal proceedings are finalised. 'These allegations are deeply disturbing, and our hearts go out to the children and families involved,' G8 Education Chief Executive Pejman Okhovat said. 'I am deeply sorry for the unimaginable pain caused to our families and what they are going through.' Meanwhile, Affinity is immediately installing CCTV and secure lock boxes across all its centres, a move which is set to cost around $10million. The childcare industry has also welcomed the government's move to strengthen protections for children. Brown is set to face court in September.
The Guardian
11 hours ago
- The Guardian
Can I trust my sunscreen? Choice test results have created uncertainty over SPF claims and lab testing process
Sunscreen has been in the spotlight this winter, after testing by the consumer advocacy organisation Choice found 16 of 20 brands failed to provide the level of skin protection advertised on their bottles. With Australia having one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, the Choice report left many worried and wondering: can I trust my sunscreen to protect me? Even four Cancer Council branded sunscreens were flagged in the report: its Ultra Sunscreen SPF 50+ was found by Choice to have a sun protection factor of 24. The worst result, though, belonged to Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+, which Choice's testing found had an SPF of just 4. While some brands have fiercely disputed the findings, the investigation has prompted debate over the reliability of sunscreen testing, as well as questions over the way these products are regulated. What's going on? Australians love spending time in the sun and sun safety is instilled in people from a young age. So the Choice investigation, with its results published in June, created a storm. Choice tested 20 popular SPF 50 or 50+ sunscreens from a range of retailers and prices in a specialised, accredited laboratory and found 16 of them did not meet their SPF claims. No surprise, the Choice results have been contentious. Choice has said it handed over its findings to the companies before they were released publicly. Some have produced test certificates showing that their product met the claimed SPF using the same testing method that Choice used. When contacted by Guardian Australia, the brands stood firmly by their SPF claims and said they test their products in accordance with the regulations. The Cancer Council said it stood by its previous results but, out of an abundance of caution, has submitted their four products that Choice reviewed for additional testing. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Ultra Violette, the sunscreen brand that had by far the worst-performing product according to Choice's testing, has fiercely disputed the findings. The Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50 plus Mattifying Zinc Skin Screen, a higher-end product that retails for upwards of $50, returned a result of just 4 in Choice's test. A second test returned a result of 5, Choice said. Ultra Violette has disputed Choice's findings very strongly and very publicly. It has taken the step of speaking directly to consumers via social media. One of the brand's co-founders, Ava Chandler-Matthews, posted a video on Instagram in which she strongly disputed Choice's methodology. In response, Choice has defended the rigour of its testing. The SPF or sun protection factor rating of a sunscreen measures how well it protects the skin from sunburn by indicating how much ultraviolet radiation can still penetrate the skin through the product when applied properly. For example, SPF 30 is estimated to filter 96.7% of UVB radiation, whereas SPF 50 is estimated to filter 98%. Dr DJ Kim, a senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales' school of chemistry, says the difference between SPF 30 and SPF 50 is actually 'very marginal'. Kim says SPF ratings are given by timing how long it takes skin to burn with and without the sunscreen. 'Let's say that you took 300 seconds for your skin to burn with sunscreen, and then if … it took 10 seconds to burn without the sunscreen, then 300 divided by 10, that becomes SPF 30,' he says. 'So, it's not the most scientific method to measure the SPF factor, honestly.' SPF claims in Australia are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Sunscreen brands must get approval from the TGA to sell their products to Australian consumers. To do this, they undertake SPF testing in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand standard in an approved laboratory. The accepted method is to test sunscreen on human skin. The methodology involves putting the sunscreen on 10 volunteers who are exposed to artificial solar UV radiation. This is the method Choice says it used, working with an accredited laboratory that specialises in sunscreen testing. Sunscreen brands submit their results to the TGA for approval to 'self-certify' that they have tested their SPF claims and that they stack up. The TGA does not usually do its own testing. Dr Michelle Wong, a cosmetic chemist, says she doubts the TGA would have the resources to do all of the testing itself. 'And so, in terms of the regulations, most of the time, in this sort of situation where it's a public body, there is always going to be some level of an honour system,' she says. There are potential inconsistencies in sunscreen testing. SPF effectiveness is measured by essentially getting people to put sunscreens in patches on their skin and measuring how 'red' they get over time. A TGA spokesperson says it is a known issue that there is variability in SPF testing results across laboratories because testing on humans can be highly subjective and the response to a test can differ dramatically from one individual to another. 'While progress is being made internationally toward in-vitro sunscreen testing (for example, not on human subjects), which will improve consistency of results, these methods are not yet in place,' they said. Wong, who is known for her work on social media and her blog Lab Muffin, says in-vitro testing would be easier for the TGA to run in-house, which would limit the variability of the results and stop the potential for fraud at labs seeking to make a profit. She also suggests having a limited number of designated labs that are accepted by the TGA for sunscreen testing. Wong says although sunscreen is complicated and there are 'technicalities' in the testing and regulation process, the most common problem is 'user error' in that people aren't applying enough product often enough. 'Sunscreens, in general, they work very well, and they are very effective at protecting your skin against sun exposure,' she says, noting that a sunscreen with an SPF of, say, 24 still offers very good protection. Not long after Choice published its findings, sunscreen was back in the news for different reasons. Last week, the TGA said it would begin consultation on additional controls for some sunscreen ingredients, including the controversial oxybenzone. The medicines regulator says it has conducted a review of sunscreen ingredients used in Australia and is recommending additional safeguards for three chemical compounds. The review proposes that some sunscreen products containing homosalate, oxybenzone and benzophenone be reformulated to ensure sunscreens meet what the TGA considers 'the highest standards of safety for prolonged and frequent use'. Homosalate and oxybenzone are active ingredients in sunscreen, while benzophenone arises from another ingredient called octocrylene, either as an impurity during the manufacturing process or from degradation as the product ages. The TGA has begun a consultation process to help determine the level in sunscreens at which these ingredients remain suitable for use. A week before that, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission launched legal action against the maker of two popular sunscreens over allegations it had misled consumers by falsely claiming its products are 'reef-friendly'. The consumerregulator alleges Edgewell Personal Care engaged in greenwashing. While these sunscreens do not contain oxybenzone or octinoxate, another chemical linked to coral damage, the ACCC alleges that they contain other ingredients that risk causing harm to coral and marine life. Edgewell is contesting the proceedings.
