The claim that there are microchips in vaccines is widely circulated online. This article does not treat these arguments as proof; it catalogs the strongest arguments supporters cite, traces where they come from, and explains how each holds up when checked against primary sources and official statements.
This article is for informational and analytical purposes and does not constitute legal, medical, investment, or purchasing advice.
The strongest arguments people cite
-
“Government agencies admitted it: COVID-19 vaccines contain microchips.”
Where it comes from: Screenshot-style posts and compilations that claim “the CDC/FDA said it” or that microchips are in vaccine ingredient lists.
What can be verified: The CDC has explicitly published the opposite—stating the myth is false and that COVID-19 vaccines do not contain microchips. The FDA also published myth/fact materials stating COVID-19 vaccines do not contain microchips.
Verification test: Check the CDC/FDA page directly (not a screenshot) and compare it to any alleged “ingredient list” a post provides.
-
“A state government FAQ listed microelectronics/nanotech—this proves it’s real.”
Where it comes from: People cite state-level COVID-19 vaccine FAQ pages and interpret the mention of “microelectronics” as evidence of inclusion.
What can be verified: At least one state FAQ states that authorized/approved COVID-19 vaccines are free from manufactured products such as microelectronics, electrodes, carbon nanotubes, and nanowire semiconductors, i.e., it is presented as a denial rather than an admission.
Verification test: Read the surrounding paragraph and confirm whether the page is listing what is in vaccines vs what is not in vaccines.
-
“There are FDA-approved products that use chips/sensors in medicine, so vaccines could too.”
Where it comes from: Posts that point to real “digital medicine” or sensor-enabled drugs, sometimes linking them to vaccine makers.
What can be verified: A widely shared example is a 2018 clip of Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla discussing an “electronic pill.” FactCheck.org reports the clip predates the pandemic and was not about COVID-19 vaccines, and that it referred to a different product not developed by Pfizer.
Verification test: Identify the exact product being referenced (drug name, approval documents, manufacturer) and confirm whether it is a vaccine vs a medication, and whether it is actually injected vs swallowed.
-
“Microsoft’s ‘060606’ patent (the ‘Mark of the Beast’ patent) proves a plan to microchip people, tied to vaccines.”
Where it comes from: Viral posts about Microsoft patent publication WO2020060606, mixing in religious framing (“666”), plus claims about implants and vaccines.
What can be verified: The patent publication exists and concerns a “cryptocurrency system using body activity data.” However, fact-checking summaries note that the claim that it is about implanting microchips (or about vaccines) is not supported by the patent text as commonly presented in viral memes.
Verification test: Read the patent’s abstract/claims directly, and check whether it actually specifies implanted microchips or mentions vaccines. If a post relies on numerology (“666”) rather than technical language, treat it as rhetoric rather than evidence.
-
“ID2020 and ‘digital identity’ plans show vaccines are a delivery mechanism for tracking.”
Where it comes from: People combine real discussions of digital identity systems with vaccination campaigns, then infer a hardware implant must be involved.
What can be verified: ID2020 described work on digital identity programs and partnerships that relate to identity, including contexts connected to immunization and birth registration systems (as platforms for identity). ID2020’s current site also describes that its work and resources sit within/alongside broader “digital ID” efforts (and notes organizational changes). None of this, by itself, documents a microchip being injected in vaccines; it documents interest in digital identity and credentialing concepts.
Verification test: Separate “digital identity/records/credentials” (often software + governance) from “injectable tracking microchips”. Ask: does the document specify an injected device, or does it describe databases/credentials and interoperability?
-
“There’s a Gates-funded ‘quantum dot’ vaccine marker—people say that’s basically a microchip.”
Where it comes from: Posts that reference research into vaccine record-keeping innovations and reframe it as “microchipping.”
What can be verified: Snopes summarizes that the Gates Foundation funded a pilot study into a passive, detectable marker concept (often discussed online as “quantum dots”) designed to help identify immunization status—distinct from an injected device capable of tracking location or behavior.
Verification test: Determine what the technology is claimed to do (e.g., passive identification of vaccination status) versus what the conspiracy claim alleges (e.g., active tracking and surveillance). These are materially different capabilities.
How these arguments change when checked
Across the most-cited arguments, a consistent pattern appears: supporters often start with something real (an agency myth/fact page, a patent publication, a digital ID initiative, or a sensor-enabled medication concept), then make a leap from “this exists” to “therefore vaccines contain tracking microchips.”
When checked against primary or official sources, the most direct claims (“microchips are in vaccines,” “agencies admitted it,” “ingredient lists include microelectronics”) typically run into explicit denials by health agencies and/or a lack of documentation showing any injected microchip in authorized/approved vaccines. The CDC and FDA both state COVID-19 vaccines do not contain microchips.
Other arguments are best described as category confusion: digital identity programs and vaccine record-keeping can exist without injectable devices; patents can exist without being deployed; and sensor-enabled “digital medicine” does not automatically imply sensor-enabled vaccines—especially when viral examples are shown to be miscontextualized.
Evidence score (and what it means)
Evidence score: 12/100
-
Strong official denials: U.S. public-health regulators/authorities have explicitly stated COVID-19 vaccines do not contain microchips.
-
Primary documents cited by supporters don’t establish the claim: Frequently cited items (e.g., WO2020060606) exist, but do not document “microchips in vaccines” as claimed in viral posts.
-
Miscontextualized media examples: Viral “chip in medicine” references are often from pre-pandemic or unrelated contexts, weakening the argument as support for the vaccine claim.
-
Inference stacking: Digital identity/credential initiatives are repeatedly treated as if they imply injected tracking devices, but that inference is not demonstrated in the cited materials.
Evidence score is not probability:
The score reflects how strong the documentation is, not how likely the claim is to be true.
FAQ
Do microchips in vaccines appear in any official ingredient lists for U.S.-authorized/approved COVID-19 vaccines?
In the sources reviewed here, U.S. agencies explicitly state the opposite (that COVID-19 vaccines do not contain microchips). For ingredient verification, the best practice is to use manufacturer or regulator fact sheets and compare them to claims circulating as screenshots.
Why do people connect “digital identity” projects to microchips in vaccines?
Because both involve “identity” and “health records,” which can feel adjacent to immunization programs. But documentation of digital ID initiatives generally concerns records/credentials and governance; it does not automatically document an injected tracking device.
Does Microsoft patent WO2020060606 prove a vaccine microchip plan?
The patent publication exists and relates to body activity data in a cryptocurrency context, but widely circulated claims that it proves implantable microchips in vaccines are not supported by the patent as typically summarized by fact-checking analyses.
Is the “Pfizer CEO talked about a pill with a chip” clip evidence that vaccines contain microchips?
As commonly shared online, that clip has been described as miscontextualized: it was from 2018 (pre-COVID-19 vaccines) and referred to an “electronic pill” concept rather than COVID-19 vaccines.
What kind of evidence would be needed to substantiate the claim?
Direct, checkable documentation showing a microchip component in vaccine composition (e.g., regulator-reviewed manufacturing specs, independent lab analyses with chain-of-custody, and consistent confirmations across multiple credible institutions). In the sources above, that level of documentation is not present; instead, official sources deny the claim.
