Vaccine rumours debunked: Microchips and ‘altered DNA’

We’ve looked into some of the most widely shared false vaccine claims - everything from alleged plots to put microchips into people to the supposed re-engineering of our genetic code.

‘Bill Gates and microchip claims’

This theory claims the coronavirus pandemic is a cover for a plan to implant trackable microchips and that the Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates is behind it.

This is false. There is no vaccine “microchip” and there is no evidence to support claims that Bill Gates is planning for this in the future.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation told the BBC the claim was false.

Rumours took hold in March when Mr Gates said in an interview that eventually “we will have some digital certificates” which would be used to show who’d recovered, been tested and ultimately who received a vaccine. He made no mention of microchips.

This led to one widely shared article headlined: “Bill Gates will use microchip implants to fight coronavirus.”

‘Altered DNA’ claims’

The fear that a vaccine will somehow change your DNA is one we’ve seen aired regularly on social media. The BBC asked three independent scientists about this. They said that the coronavirus vaccine would not alter human DNA.

Some of the newly-created vaccines, including the one now approved in the UK developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, use a fragment of the virus’s genetic material – or messenger RNA. “Injecting RNA into a person doesn’t do anything to the DNA of a human cell,” says Prof Jeffrey Almond, of Oxford University.

It works by giving the body instructions to produce a protein which is present on the surface of the coronavirus.

The immune system then learns to recognise and produce antibodies against the protein. Like all new vaccines, it has to undergo rigorous safety checks before it can be recommended for widespread use.

‘Fetus tissue claims’

We’ve seen claims that vaccines contain the lung tissue of an aborted fetus. This is false. “There are no fetal cells used in any vaccine production process,” says Dr Michael Head, of the University of Southampton.

One particular video that was posted on one of the biggest anti-vaccine Facebook pages refers to a study which the narrator claims is evidence of what goes into the vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University. Confusion may have arisen because there is a step in the process of developing a vaccine that uses cells grown in a lab, which are the descendants of embryonic cells that would otherwise have been destroyed. The technique was developed in the 1960s, and no fetuses were aborted for the purposes of this research.

Many vaccines are made in this way, explains Dr David Matthews, from Bristol University, adding that any traces of the cells are comprehensively removed from the vaccine “to exceptionally high standards”.

‘Recovery rate claims’

We’ve seen arguments against a Covid-19 vaccine shared across social media asking why we need one at all if the chances of dying from the virus are so slim.

A meme shared by people who oppose vaccination put the recovery rate from the disease at 99.97% and suggested getting

Covid-19 is a safer option than taking a vaccine.

To begin with, the figure referred to in the meme as the “recovery rate” - implying these are people who caught the virus and survived - is not correct.

About 99.0% of people who catch Covid survive it, says Jason Oke, senior statistician at the University of

Oxford.

So around 100 in 10,000 will die - far higher than three in 10,000, as suggested in the meme.

However, Mr Oke adds that “in all cases the risks very much depend on age and do not take into account short and long-term morbidity from

Covid-19”.

It’s not just about survival. For every person who dies, there are others who live through it but undergo intensive medical care, and those who suffer long-lasting health effects.