The creation of fake vaccination records is not a modern phenomenon born from the COVID-19 pandemic. This practice has shadowed public health efforts for nearly two centuries, evolving from handwritten certificates to sophisticated digital forgeries. Understanding this history reveals patterns of resistance, government response, and the ongoing tension between individual liberty and community health.
The Birth of Vaccine Fraud in Victorian England
The story begins in 1853, when England passed , making smallpox vaccination compulsory for all infants within their first three months of life. Parents who refused faced fines or imprisonment. This represented a dramatic expansion of government authority into what many considered personal family decisions. Opposition was immediate and fierce. Anti-vaccination leagues formed across the United Kingdom, organizing protests and spreading their message through pamphlets and journals.
Within this climate of resistance, . Some doctors sympathetic to the anti-vaccine cause would sign certificates claiming a child had been vaccinated when no procedure had occurred. In other cases, local officials looked the other way, accepting questionable documentation rather than enforcing the unpopular law. The tension reached a boiling point in Leicester, where through the 1870s and 1880s. Parents who were fined or jailed became folk heroes to the movement. The 1898 Vaccination Act finally allowed conscientious exemptions, acknowledging that strict enforcement had created more problems than it solved.
American Resistance at the Turn of the Century
Across the Atlantic, the United States faced its own battles over vaccination requirements. Between 1898 and 1903, , prompting local governments to mandate vaccination for adults and children. The response from some Americans was extraordinary. According to Michael Willrich, a history professor at Brandeis University who documented this period, . Historical records describe groups of parents gathering outside schools, demanding entry for their unvaccinated children. Some parents even resorted to burning their arms with nitric acid to create fake scars that mimicked those left by the smallpox vaccine.
Officials began requiring for people to access work, attend school, ride trains, or enter theaters. Public health workers went door to door checking documentation. But . The New York Times published articles in 1904 criticizing physicians who sold worthless vaccination certificates, calling it a petty fraud perpetrated on vulnerable populations.
Because the smallpox vaccine left such a distinctive scar on the arm, for civic participation. A physician writing in 1901 proposed using the vaccination scar as verification for entering schools, voting booths, and public positions. This approach was harder to fake than paper certificates, though some determined individuals still tried to create false scars through self-harm.
Legal Battles and Government Authority
The question of whether governments could legally require vaccination reached . Henning Jacobson, a minister in Cambridge, Massachusetts, refused to comply with the city's vaccination order, arguing it violated his personal liberty. He claimed that he and his son had suffered severe reactions to earlier vaccinations. The Court ruled against him in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, establishing that when necessary for public health. The decision stated that individual liberty is not absolute and must sometimes yield to the collective good.
This legal precedent gave states confidence to prosecute those who forged vaccination records or helped others evade requirements. Doctors found issuing false vaccination certificates faced professional consequences and sometimes criminal charges. The goal was to maintain public trust in vaccination campaigns and prevent outbreaks caused by unvaccinated populations mixing with the general community.
School Vaccination Requirements Take Hold
By the mid-20th century, vaccine requirements became standard for school attendance. Massachusetts passed , initially covering only smallpox. As vaccines for other diseases became available, states expanded their requirements. The modern era of school vaccination laws began in earnest during .
Evidence showed that than states without such requirements. When Alaska faced a measles outbreak in 1976, officials strictly enforced vaccination requirements, excluding over 7,000 students from school until they provided proof of vaccination. Within a month, fewer than 51 students remained excluded, and the outbreak ended. Los Angeles had similar success in 1977, when , leading to a dramatic drop in measles cases.
These enforcement actions demonstrated that vaccination requirements could work, but they also created opportunities for fraud. Parents opposed to vaccination sought medical exemptions, sometimes from practitioners willing to provide them without proper justification.
The Medical Exemption Problem
Medical exemptions exist for legitimate reasons. Some children have conditions such as severe allergies or compromised immune systems that make certain vaccines unsafe for them. However, the exemption system has been repeatedly abused. In California, after , medical exemptions increased noticeably. Some doctors began issuing exemptions after minimal examination or for questionable reasons.
Dr. Tara Zandvliet, a San Diego pediatrician, after allegedly granting 1,000 exemptions since 2016. Someone even forged exemption forms using her name for students she had never treated. She learned about the forgeries only when schools called to verify. Another physician, Dr. Bob Sears, known for his alternative vaccine schedules, also faced disciplinary action for what medical boards considered reckless exemption practices.
To address this abuse, California passed legislation in 2019 requiring for medical exemptions. The state health department now reviews exemptions from schools with low vaccination rates and from doctors who issue more than five exemptions per year. The law also prohibits doctors from charging patients for exemptions.
Other states have taken similar steps. Connecticut temporarily suspended after she was found mailing signed exemption forms to anyone who sent her a self-addressed stamped envelope. She had never examined these patients and provided instructions telling them they could copy and distribute the forms freely. She ended her message with “Let freedom ring!” McIntosh eventually voluntarily surrendered her license rather than face a full disciplinary hearing.
The COVID-19 Pandemic and Digital Fraud
When COVID-19 vaccines became available in late 2020, proof of vaccination quickly became necessary for travel, work, education, and entering many businesses. . The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued simple paper cards to vaccine recipients, and these were easy to replicate.
Sellers advertised fake cards on Instagram, using hashtags and direct messages to connect with buyers. They migrated to encrypted messaging platforms like , where they were harder to trace. Check Point Research, a cybersecurity firm, found that from early to mid-2021. Telegram groups selling fake cards attracted over 100,000 followers, with some reaching half a million. Prices typically ranged from $25 to $200 per card.
This was not a victimless fraud. Real cases demonstrate the serious consequences. , used the Instagram handle @AntiVaxMomma to sell approximately 250 fake vaccination cards. She worked with Nadayza Barkley, an employee at a medical facility, to fraudulently enter at least 10 people into New York's immunization database. At least 13 buyers were healthcare workers in hospitals and nursing homes, people whose jobs put them in daily contact with vulnerable patients.
, became the first person to face federal criminal charges for COVID-19 vaccination card fraud. She sold homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets, falsely claiming they provided lifelong immunity to COVID-19. She also provided fake CDC vaccination cards, sometimes filling them out herself with fabricated lot numbers for Moderna vaccines she never administered.
, was charged with stealing 125 authentic CDC vaccination cards and selling them on eBay for about $10 each. He faced 12 counts of theft of government property, each carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. And in one of the largest cases, , demonstrating the industrial scale some operations reached.
Government Response and Legal Consequences
Federal and state governments responded aggressively to this wave of fraud. that creating, buying, or using fake vaccination cards is a federal crime. Because the cards bear the official seal of the CDC, and carries up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Additional charges could include wire fraud (using electronic communication for fraud, punishable by up to 20 years), mail fraud (using the postal service for fraud), and theft of government property (punishable by up to 10 years per count).
States also updated their own laws. making it a state crime to possess or use a falsified vaccination card. The penalties range from a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail) for simple possession to a Class C felony (up to 15 years in prison) for first-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument. New York also made it a Class E felony to intentionally alter computer systems to falsely indicate someone was vaccinated.
from state attorneys general to remove sellers of fake cards from their platforms. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok all announced that selling fake vaccination cards violated their terms of service and that accounts caught doing so would be suspended or permanently banned. in shipments from China. In August 2021, agents in Memphis and Anchorage intercepted 6,000 fraudulent cards with CDC logos. The cards had spelling errors and poor print quality that revealed them as counterfeits.
Prosecutors also went after buyers, not just sellers. involved in a scheme to manufacture fake vaccination cards. Two were sellers, and 13 were buyers. The buyers included healthcare workers who faced losing their jobs and professional licenses, as well as criminal penalties. A Miami couple was arrested while attempting to enter Hawaii with fake cards and faces $8,000 in fines under the state’s travel requirements.
The Medical Community Under Scrutiny
Medical professionals who spread vaccine misinformation or issued fraudulent exemptions faced consequences from licensing boards. that physicians who spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation could face disciplinary action, including suspension or revocation of medical licenses. The organization stated that providing misinformation contradicts physicians’ ethical and professional responsibilities.
State medical boards investigated doctors who issued suspicious numbers of exemptions. In Connecticut, to have been providing blanket exemptions, the state Department of Public Health sent an advisory to all long-term care facilities requiring them to review any exemptions she had signed. While the exact number of fraudulent exemptions was never publicly disclosed, the case highlighted the vulnerability of the exemption system.
California’s became particularly aggressive in investigating physicians who wrote large numbers of exemptions. The state's new law gave health officials the authority to review exemptions and take action against doctors found to be issuing them without proper medical justification.
However, not all prosecution efforts succeeded.
against Dr. Michael Kirk Moore, a Utah plastic surgeon accused of throwing away COVID-19 vaccines, giving children saline shots instead, and selling fake vaccination cards. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Moore “gave his patients a choice when the federal government refused to do so” and that “he did not deserve the years in prison he was facing.” This reversal reflected changing political attitudes toward pandemic-era prosecutions.
Lessons from History
The history of fake vaccination records reveals several persistent themes. First, whenever governments mandate medical interventions, some portion of the population will resist, sometimes through deception. Second, fraud methods evolve with technology. Victorian parents used nitric acid to fake scars; modern fraudsters use Instagram and Telegram. Third, enforcement is difficult and often inconsistent. Wealthy, educated people have typically found it easier to obtain exemptions or fake documentation than poor or immigrant populations.
The tension between individual liberty and collective health remains unresolved. Supporters of mandates argue that vaccination protects vulnerable people who cannot be vaccinated themselves and prevents outbreaks that threaten entire communities. Opponents see mandates as government overreach that violates bodily autonomy and personal choice. These competing values create conditions in which fake vaccination records emerge as a compromise (though an illegal one) for those caught between conviction and consequence.
Public health officials have learned that overly harsh enforcement can backfire, creating martyrs and strengthening opposition movements. The experience in Leicester, where rigid prosecution of unvaccinated parents eventually collapsed under public pressure, demonstrated this reality. Yet too little enforcement undermines the effectiveness of vaccination requirements and puts communities at risk.
The COVID-19 pandemic brought these old tensions into the digital age. The ease of creating and distributing fake vaccination cards online, combined with strong political polarization around vaccines, made for a perfect storm. Government responses improved over time. States developed better verification systems, linking vaccination records to centralized databases that were harder to fake. QR codes and digital health passes added layers of security that simple paper cards lacked.
As we move forward, the question is not whether there will be future vaccination requirements (there almost certainly will be) or whether some people will try to evade them (history suggests they will). The question is whether governments, medical professionals, and technology companies can work together to create systems that are both effective and respectful of legitimate concerns. Finding that balance has eluded public health authorities for nearly two centuries. The challenge remains as pressing today as it was in Victorian England or Progressive-era America.
Additional Readings and Resources
If you’re interested in learning more about this subject, here are some recommendations:
- “Jacobson v Massachusetts: It’s Not Your Great-Great-Grandfather’s Public Health Law” available at
- “Protecting the Populace: The History of Vaccination Regulation in the United States” available at
- “First U.S. vaccine mandate in 1810 launched 200 years of court battles” available at