One of the most effective ME/CFS treatments, the Staphylococcus toxoid vaccine, discontinued in 2005, is available once again from a new source

[Hip]

Is this readily available in UK? Do we approach our GP?

Unfortunately you can only buy this vaccine from Russia.

 

[mattie]

Package received. Starting tomorrow.

 

[Hip]

Package received. Starting tomorrow.

Excellent! Good luck!

@glazevedx on this forum started taking the Russian Staphylococcus vaccine in February 2025, but stopped after a month or so, because he was concerned about the mercury content of the vaccine. He did not take the vaccine long enough to observe if there might be any benefits for ME/CFS.

I don't personally think mercury is a major concern, as the Russian Staphylococcus vaccine contains around 100 mcg of Thimerosal (ref: here), and this breaks down in the body into 60 mcg of ethylmercury.

By comparison, one tuna steak contains around 80 mcg of methylmercury, and there is 30 mcg of methylmercury in a 150g can of tuna fish. Methylmercury is highly bioavailable, and easily enters the bloodstream when the tuna is eaten.

So if you eat a lot of tuna, you may get more mercury than you get from this vaccine. And furthermore, the methylmercury found in tuna is much more bioaccumulative than the ethylmercury found in vaccines (the half-life of methylmercury is 50 days, whereas the ethylmercury half-life is just 5 days). Plus methylmercury enters the brain 3 times more easily than ethylmercury (ref: here).

Gottfries's own study confirmed that no ME/CFS patients taking Staphypan (which contained 100 mcg of Thimerosal) appeared to have any mercury sensitivity issues, and his pharmacokinetic testing showed that the mercury from Staphypan was eliminated in 1 to 2 weeks.

That said, in order to be cautions, it may be an idea to take a selenium supplement along with these injections, as the main reason mercury is toxic is because it binds to selenium, and this deactivates vital selenoenzymes. But a study found that taking a selenium supplement may mitigate these issues.



When @glazevedx started on the Russian Staphylococcus vaccine, he began his first injection at the full 1.0 ml dose (the amount found in one vaccine vial), with no adverse effects noted, apart from some swelling at the injection site.

Whereas Prof Gottfries in his clinical trials slowly titrated up the doses, starting at 0.1 ml. When I took this Russian vaccine, I followed the Gottfries slow titration schedule.

Someone on this forum from the Ukraine once told me that starting with lower doses mitigates the risk that the vaccine might induce a fierce immune response in patients who may have an ongoing active Staphylococcus infection somewhere in their body. I am not sure if there is any truth to this. The Russian Staphylococcus vaccine instructions (found in the first post of this thread) do not mention slow titration, and say to start at a 1.0 ml dose.

When the Russian vaccine was working for me, I found that its benefits for ME/CFS would wear off after around 10 days. So I would inject another 1.0 ml dose every 10 days.

Thus it seems that the Russian Staphylococcus vaccine is a little weaker than the original Staphypan Staphylococcus vaccine used by Prof Gottfries, as the benefits of Staphypan are reported to last 3 to 4 weeks before another injection is required.

 

[mattie]

Thanks @Hip
I’m not concerned about the mercury, for the same reasons you mentioned. I already include selenium in my daily stack.

I’ll be following the slow titration protocol — that’s why I ordered 20 vials. Once I reach 1 ml, I’ll repeat the dose every 10 days.

I’ll post updates about this mini trial..

 

[Hip]

I’ll be following the slow titration protocol — that’s why I ordered 20 vials. Once I reach 1 ml, I’ll repeat the dose every 10 days.

Given that the Russian vaccine seems weaker than the original Staphypan vaccine, I wonder if titration with higher doses might be appropriate? For example, a dose titration sequence of 0.1 ml, 0.3 ml, 0.5 ml, 0.7 ml, 1.0 ml.

If the vaccine is weaker, then the low dose range of 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 ml may have little effect. What do you think?

That said, when I did my dose titration following Gottfries's guidelines, starting with 0.1 ml, then 0.2 ml the next week, then 0.3 ml the week after, etc, when I injected the 0.2 ml dose, I got a large 5 cm wide local reaction (red patch of skin) lasting several days (see the picture in this post).

Prof Gottfries says that if you get a local reaction larger than "a child's hand palm" (a child's palm is around 6 cm across), then in his clinic, they would not increase the vaccine dose at the next injection, but would keep at the same dose level for two weeks in a row.

So given my 5 cm wide local reaction, that suggests that even a 0.2 ml dose had a strong effect.

 

[mori]

I've decided that I will also be trying this treatment. I will report back when it has arrived.

 

[mattie]

Given that the Russian vaccine seems weaker than the original Staphypan vaccine, I wonder if titration with higher doses might be appropriate? For example, a dose titration sequence of 0.1 ml, 0.3 ml, 0.5 ml, 0.7 ml, 1.0 ml.
If the vaccine is weaker, then the low dose range of 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 ml may have little effect. What do you think?

Totally agree. Reactions to other vaccines have always been mild in my case. So I'll go with 0.1 ml, 0.3 ml, 0.5 ml, 0.7 ml, 1.0 ml.
Should I get a larger local reaction on injection site, I will slow things down.

 

[mattie]

Small update on taking the russian vaccine:

Injected 0.7 ml today.
No noticeable effects so far.

After the 0.5 ml injection, I had a local skin reaction — a red area about 5 cm wide — that appeared around day 3 and resolved after 2 days.

Following the 0.1 ml and 0.3 ml injections, I noticed small, hard, painless lumps at the injection sites.
ChatGPT suggested these might be granulomas caused by the aluminum adjuvant in the vaccine.
The granulomas may take quite a while to disappear.

This stuff is very viscous — impossible to draw up with a filter needle, so I had to use a regular needle to fill the syringe. Not best practice with glass vials but risk of injecting small glass particles is small.
When injecting b12 I always use filter needles.

Will take the full 1.0 ml dose this coming Sunday.

 

[Hip]

Following the 0.1 ml and 0.3 ml injections, I noticed small, hard, painless lumps at the injection sites.

@glazevedx also told me that he got these lumps when he injected the Russian vaccine, he said:

At the point where I had the last injection, I've had a lump for almost two weeks.

On the assumption that it is the aluminium hydroxide adjuvant in the vaccine that is remaining at the injection site for several days causing a granuloma lump, possibly using an aluminium chelator like silica or magnesium malate may reduce the length of time the lumps remain. Aluminium hydroxide is insoluble in water, so I imagine disperses slowly.

Although it is possible that clearing the adjuvant more quickly with a chelator might reduce the immune benefits of the vaccine. But ChatGPT says "vaccine granulomas mostly reflect the reaction to the adjuvant (eg aluminium), not necessarily the vaccine's antigen".

This post gives some info about silica as an aluminium chelator.

This stuff is very viscous — impossible to draw up with a filter needle, so I had to use a regular needle to fill the syringe.

I wonder if this viscosity is a characteristic of the new formulation of th Russian vaccine? I believe the manufacturer Medgamal stopped producing the vaccine for a few years to update their production process. The old formulation that I used in 2016 was not viscous.

 

[mattie]

wonder if this viscosity is a characteristic of the new formulation of th Russian vaccine? I believe the manufacturer Medgamal stopped producing the vaccine for a few years to update their production process. The old formulation that I used in 2016 was not viscous.

Its not like syrup or anything. But impossible to get through a filter needle.