Vaccine Passports: Another Assault on Human Rights


Vaccine passports have been much debated on social media and around the internet. Despite many claims otherwise, it seems numerous governments are pressing ahead with these; some claim by stealth.

Last April, UK Secretary of State, Matt Hancock floated the idea of “immunity passports” to end the lockdowns. In response, Voyager Medical published their “Community Pharmacy COVID-19 Immunity Certification Service Proposal”, noting:

The technology listed above already exists within the hubnet.io, however, it will need to be skinned and formatted to suit this purpose, this would take around 7 days. In addition, we can add our clinical governance module to ensure the pharmacists follow clinical standard operating procedures and document and errors or issues which may occur.

*emphasis added

Ledger Insights reported:

The COVID Credentials initiative (CCI) has launched to use digital identity to address the spread of COVID-19. The aim is to develop “immunity passports” and much more. The group includes individuals who are part of Evernym, ID2020, uPort, Dutch research organization TNO, Microsoft, ConsenSys Health and consultants Luxoft. So far, at least 69 have signed up.

Neil Clark has concerns that the passport will morph into a social credit system based on jab status:

Mandatory vaccination as such was always a red herring. The government was never going to ‘directly’ force people to take the jab; that would be in clear breach of the law and would be disastrous from a public relations viewpoint. And official government ‘immunity passports‘ are also unlikely – at least at this stage. But what is a very real possibility is that people will be coerced into taking the jab through indirect mechanisms – imposed not by the government, but by companies who will be allowed to do so by the authorities, or even positively encouraged.

*emphasis added

Similar claims have been rejected by jab proponents, but there are other legitimate human rights and privacy concerns. Last year, Ledger Insights reported:

Elizabeth M. Renieris, a Harvard lawyer on the ID2020 technical advisory committee, has resigned from the ID2020 Alliance. The organization aims to enable digital identity for those that lack one, and is especially active with refugees and marginalized groups. Renieris’ resignation was driven by concerns that the organization will get involved in COVID-19 immunity passports, as Coindesk first reported

The ID2020 Alliance was founded by Accenture, Microsoft, Gavi, Rockefeller Foundation and IDEO. Partners include Mastercard, which joined last week, as well as NGOs and UN agencies. 

Elizabeth M. Renieris and colleagues Dr. Sherri Bucher, and Christian Smith, later published an article on Medium, “The Dangers of Blockchain-Enabled “Immunity Passports” for COVID-19 – A Legal, Public Health, and Technical Perspective”, concluding”

At this stage, based on the state of public health and scientific evidence surrounding COVID-19, we remain unconvinced that “immunity passports” or even immunity certificates are possible, let alone desirable. Should they become possible, we are also unconvinced of their necessity, given the limited precedent for such artifacts among other infectious diseases. And even if they should become possible and necessary, we believe the use of VCs, DIDs, and blockchain in connection with their issuance would be excessive. Finally, we would be skeptical of any solutions put forward by private sector actors, without significant public sector, civil society, and other stakeholder engagement.

The prospect of severely curtailing the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals through ill-thought-out plans for “immunity passports” or similar certificates, particularly ones that would leverage premature standards and a highly experimental and potentially rights-infringing technology like blockchain, is beyond dystopian. We urge law and policymakers to think twice before entertaining such industry-driven, technology-first solutions to complex public health and humanitarian crises. Rather, we should pursue more ethical, scientifically sound, and human rights-preserving alternatives spearheaded by a diverse group of stakeholders, and which rely on tested and proven technologies that exist within a clearer legal framework. If ever there was a time to avoid moving fast and breaking things, this is it.

*emphasis added

Australia’s TGA passed the Pfizer “Comirnaty” jab “provisionally” on 25 January 2020, noting:

Provisional approval of this vaccine is valid for two years and means it can now be legally supplied in Australia. The approval is subject to certain strict conditions, such as the requirement for Pfizer to continue providing information to the TGA on longer term efficacy and safety from ongoing clinical trials and post-market assessment. COMIRNATY has been shown to prevent COVID-19 however it is not yet known whether it prevents transmission or asymptomatic disease.

*emphasis added

and the AstraZeneca jab on 16 February 2020:

Provisional approval of this vaccine is valid for two years and means it can now be legally supplied in Australia. The approval is subject to certain strict conditions, such as the requirement for AstraZeneca to continue providing information to the TGA on longer term efficacy and safety from ongoing clinical trials and post-market assessment. COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca has been shown to prevent COVID-19 however it is not yet known whether it prevents transmission or asymptomatic disease.

*emphasis added

So, the TGA acknowledge it hasn’t been proven that either jab prevent transmission or “asymptomatic” disease, and that “long term efficacy and safety” is still being established from “ongoing clinical trials and market assessment”. That is an experimental drug!


Some experts, including Dr Irina Metzler, FRHistS, and Professor Dolores Cahill, recently speaking at the Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination, have warned there is a possibility that flu jabs and the Covid19 jabs may cause hyper-immunity in some people.

A study done by Greg Wolff entitled, “Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017–2018 influenza season” concluded:

Receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population. Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.

Indeed, animal trials of previous SarsCov vaccines have produced exactly that result.

Conclusions: These SARS-CoV vaccines all induced antibody and protection against infection with SARS-CoV. However, challenge of mice given any of the vaccines led to occurrence of Th2-type immunopathology suggesting hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV components was induced. Caution in proceeding to application of a SARS-CoV vaccine in humans is indicated.

*emphasis added

Tseng CT, Sbrana E, Iwata-Yoshikawa N, Newman PC, Garron T, Atmar RL, Peters CJ, Couch RB. Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35421. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035421. Epub 2012 Apr 20. Erratum in: PLoS One. 2012;7(8). doi:10.1371/annotation/2965cfae-b77d-4014-8b7b-236e01a35492. PMID: 22536382; PMCID: PMC3335060.

The Lancet recently published a paper called “F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT findings in a systemic inflammatory response syndrome after COVID-19 vaccine”, which noted:

The patient’s symptoms resolved 3 days after the vaccination. Given the imaging findings, the temporal relationship of the symptoms to the vaccination, and negative test results from an extensive work-up for malignant and infectious causes, we believe, the diagnosis was a local and systemic immune response following vaccination. However possible masking effects of broad-spectrum antibiotics cannot be excluded.

The local response was demonstrated by hypermetabolism within the axillary lymph nodes draining the site of intramuscular injection; diffusely increased splenic activity suggests a systemic response—corroborated by elevated inflammatory markers.

As the global vaccination effort continues, more patients will undoubtedly require assessment and investigation shortly after immunisation. Imaging and laboratory findings consistent with a systemic immune response might result in further unnecessary evaluation or interventions. However, findings overlap with other diseases—notably those of the 18F-FDG PET/CT scan in patients with malignancies. Recognition of the clinical and imaging features of the systemic immune response to vaccination might become essential in the coming months (video).

*emphasis added

Evidence suggests introducing such a vaccine/immunity passport would be unconscionable, and could lead to a social credit type system, severely curtailing human rights.

This petition has been started by a contributor to the Advocate Me forum. It is another easy action you can take, right now, to protect the human rights of your family, friends and community.

Petition EN2463 – Government to commit no rolling out any e-vaccination status/immunity passport

Leave a Reply