Medical journal retracts COVID shot paper over ‘fabricated data’

[Stone]

Medical journal retracts COVID shot paper over ‘fabricated data’
Science Translational Medicine admitted that a study claiming that COVID shots produced protective antibodies actually contained fake data and ‘falsified images.’



COVID-19 shot with Pfizer logo
Marco Lazzarini/Shutterstock

Oct 20, 2026
(LifeSiteNews [not all hyperlinks included from original]) – A peer-reviewed medical journal has announced the retraction of a paper that purported to show that the COVID-19 shots produced antibodies protective against future infection, now admitting that it contained “fabricated data” and “falsified images.”

Science Translational Medicine, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, published in 2022 a paper titled, “SARS-CoV-2 S2–targeted vaccination elicits broadly neutralizing antibodies.” Leading the team of authors was Kevin W. Ng of London’s Francis Crick Institute, which funded the study.

The paper said it “tested whether antibodies targeting the more conserved S2 subunit of the spike protein could confer protection against infection with distinct coronaviruses” and supposedly found that “S2-targeted vaccination produced antibodies in mice that could neutralize diverse alphacoronaviruses and betacoronaviruses. These antibodies had increased breadth relative to antibodies elicited by full-length spike protein vaccination, suggesting less repertoire focusing.”

On October 14 of this year, however, Science Translational Medicine published a retraction notice that a Crick investigation had determined the presence of “fabricated data” and “falsified images” for which Ng was responsible and “admitted responsibility.”

“Further, the existence of data fabrication casts doubt on some other experiments presented in the paper, for which primary data and samples are unavailable, precluding post hoc verification,” the notice added. It noted that most of the paper’s authors concurred with the retraction, but two (Maria Greco and Hisashi Arase) did not respond.

The Epoch Times notes that Ng and some of the same authors were also connected to another paper retracted by the journal Nature in January, as well as a third paper which has not yet been retracted but which Nature amended with a disclaimer in September that “concerns have been raised regarding the reliability of data presented” in it.

Originally billed as vital (and sometimes even mandatory) to quashing COVID-19, the shots were quickly met with skepticism as they failed to prevent infection and, more importantly, were connected with a large body of evidence raising concerns about their safety.

The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 39,260 deaths, 223,046 hospitalizations, 22,583 heart attacks, and 29,299 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of September 25, among other ailments. VAERS submission are not proven cases on their own, but, in 2022, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) researchers recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.

An analysis of 99 million people across eight countries published in the journal Vaccine in 2024 “observed significantly higher risks of myocarditis following the first, second and third doses” of mRNA-based COVID shots, as well as signs of increased risk of “pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,” and other “potential safety signals that require further investigation.” In April 2024, the CDC was forced to release by court order 780,000 previously undisclosed reports of serious adverse reactions, and a study out of Japan found “statistically significant increases” in cancer deaths after third doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 shots and offered several theories for a causal link. Most recently, studies published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases and International Journal of Medical Science raised the possibility of the shots carrying risks of not only respiratory diseases but even kidney injury.

Democrats are largely united in favor of all vaccines, but the response among Republicans has been conflicted, in part due to the first Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed (OWS) initiative having prepared and released the COVID shots in a fraction of the time that any vaccine had ever been developed and tested, which President Donald Trump has refused to disavow, as he considers the record-breaking delivery of the shot a signature achievement of his first presidency.

So far, Trump’s second administration has rolled back several recommendations for the shots but not yet pulled them from the market. The administration has largely settled on leaving the current shots optional but not supporting work to develop successors and limiting recommendations to those deemed in “high-risk” groups for COVID itself. But whether it gets to the bottom of the original shots and their cover-up remains to be seen.

In a July 2025 interview, since-resigned U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary asked for patience from those unsatisfied by the administration’s handling of the shots, insisting more time was needed for comprehensive trials to get more definitive data. The FDA has begun acknowledging child deaths caused by the shots, but at the same time the Trump Justice Department is in court arguing against the revival of a whistleblower’s lawsuit against Pfizer.