I spoke with my mom on the phone today and she told me of something she saw on the national TV recently (I don't watch TV). She says that some official person claimed that vaccines contain some sort of "nanoparticles" that remain in the body and can be later used to detect if a person is vaccinated or not. Unfortunately she couldn't remember more details. This was news to me and I haven't been able to find anything like that on the Internet either. I haven't even heard of this being possible, so I'm quite skeptical. To recap:

  • This was claimed on Latvian national TV, but I don't know when. It was recent though (past few weeks).
  • The person claiming that was some sort of official person, but I don't know who. Could have been the minister of health, could have been some head doctor from a large hospital, or whatever. But it wasn't a random person with no relations to vaccines.
  • I do not know what method would be used to test for these "nanoparticles", but I presume a blood test would be needed.
  • I do not know which vaccine they were talking about.

Does anything like this exist? Or is this just another conspiracy theory?

P.S. I am aware that this claim is on a shaky ground, since I can't provide much in the way "who said it where and when". I trust my mother's memory, and I trust that this was an actual claim made on the TV by someone officially-looking - but I also understand that may not be enough for this site. If so, I will accept the closing of this question.

  • 7
    I think the vagueness of the claim makes it hard to answer. There's a simple "no" answer: no, the vaccine doesn't contain any special tracking element, for which there are already questions here where the answers make the ingredients of the vaccines crystal clear to any reasonable level of skepticism, and there's a simple "yes" answer which is that your mom or the TV person or both are either confused about what they heard or trying to explain in clear language what an antibody is: not something the vaccine contains, but something the body produces afterwards that could be tested for. Oct 19, 2021 at 23:28
  • 1
    @BryanKrause - Thank you, this is what I wanted to hear.
    – Vilx-
    Oct 19, 2021 at 23:52
  • I think it would be best to close this question as a duplicate of: skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43973/… Oct 19, 2021 at 23:55
  • 1
    I recall this as a reasonably notable piece of nonsense from a few months ago: mobile.twitter.com/TomTaylorMade/status/1401154866257403904
    – CJR
    Oct 20, 2021 at 1:36
  • 2
    The claim may be a bit vague but these kinds of claims are going round a lot. The downvotes are undeserved IMO. Oct 20, 2021 at 8:50

3 Answers 3


(in this answer, I'm mainly trying to clarify the term nanoparticles; not knowing the precise claim, I'm not sure what evidence I can provide, not sure how helpful this will be).

"Nanoparticle" is a broad term that generally includes any structure smaller than 1 micrometer in diameter. For instance, Exosomes, a small sphere of fat (lipid) created and used by the human body to shuttle around various molecules, is an excellent example of a nanoparticle.

Both mRNA vaccines use essentially identical fat (lipid) spheres known as lipid nanoparticles to deliver the mRNA to the cell. In this sense, the mRNA vaccines are entirely composed of nanoparticles. However, these would be of very little use for tracking vaccination, because they are consumed performing their function and destroyed by the liver.

Lipid nanoparticles are not designed for ease of detection. Other nanoparticles, such as gold nanoparticles (sometimes referred to as quantum dots in this capacity) would be effective tracers. No such particles (or even metals of any kind) are listed on the tables of excipients discussed previously on skeptics.se. For obvious reasons, they would likely be very easy to detect as a contaminant.

Talk of nanoparticle tracers in the context of a blood test is perhaps a red herring, however, because detecting vaccination is relatively straightforward.


The talk of vaccine nanoparticles seems to mostly derive from this kernel of truth.

Storing medical information below the skin’s surface

The idea of this research was to utilize tiny amounts of copper microparticles to create an invisible pattern in the skin, storing information about the vaccination. In countries where medical record keeping is limited, this technique allows you to ensure information isn't lost by storing it on the patient.

It is not injected in the bloodstream, but instead forms a tiny and invisible tattoo. This allows the info to be read using a infrared camera. A (modified) smartphone could do it.

This technology was never put into practice. Unfortunately, it nonetheless set off "Mark of the beast" conspiracy theories.


It is the presence of antibodies that can be detected.
The website healthcare-in-europe.com has posted this:

Rapid blood test detects vaccination

A team of Johns Hopkins researchers has developed a rapid blood test that could confirm a person has been vaccinated while they wait to board a plane or enter a sporting event.

Their Covid-19 antibody test is similar to one used at home to determine blood type, where the user pricks a finger and places a drop of blood on a card. A fusion protein developed by the research team is housed on the card and detects Covid-19 antibodies, tiny proteins in the blood the immune system produces to "remember" viral encounters and provide immunity to future infections. Results come back in less than five minutes, faster than current lateral flow tests to detect antibodies at point of care, while also potentially providing a clearer result.

A "nanoparticle" is a very small thing of no specific type, so it could include antibodies. The vaccines do contain nanoparticles, but it is the antibodies which are detected. They are produced by the body's immune system.

  • I found this too, and also good reasons why antibodies shouldn't be used to detect if someone has vaccinated (it's too imprecise). However I think she would have noticed the difference, so I do think the claim was about some different kind of nanoparticles. (P.S. it's not my downvote)
    – Vilx-
    Oct 19, 2021 at 23:17
  • 1
    @Vilx the question asks "does anything like this exist?" Perhaps I should have left this as a comment, due to the third-hand nature of the report, which admits the vagueness and possible inaccuracy. Oct 19, 2021 at 23:19

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .