Study on Experimental COVID-19 Biologic Retracted Over Fabricated Data, Falsified Images

A July 2022 peer-reviewed study published in Science Translational Medicine about the potential benefits of another experimental COVID-19 vaccination was retracted on Oct. 14, 2026, due to fabricated data and falsified images, according to the journal’s retraction notice.¹

The original study contained four key claims by researchers: that an experimental COVID-19 shot could protect against multiple coronavirus variants, produce antibodies capable of fighting different coronaviruses, provide some protection against infection in mice, and generate a broader antibody response than repeated doses targeting the original SARS-CoV-2 virus strain.²

Researchers originally claimed their findings “establish the protective value of an S2-targeting vaccine,” an experimental vaccine designed to target a portion of the coronavirus spike protein that present across different coronaviruses, potentially better preparing the immune system to respond to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and future coronaviruses. The research was conducted in mice, not humans, and was subsequently retracted after fabricated data and falsified images were identified during an investigation by United Kingdom-based Francis Crick Institute.³

According to the retraction notice, the institute “concluded that fabricated data are present in Fig. 2, B and C, and that falsified images are present in fig. S6.” The first author, Kevin W. Ng, was responsible for the fabrication and falsification, and, according to the retraction notice, he “has admitted responsibility.”

The retraction notice said:

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. In agreement with the findings of the investigation, we are retracting the article.

Most of the authors, including Ng, agreed with the retraction.  Two authors did not respond for comment.⁴

Researcher Who Admitted to Falsifying and Fabricating Data Linked to Other Retractions

This is not the first published study in which Kevin W. Ng has been specifically identified as responsible for manipulated or unverifiable data and concerns over research integrity. In January 2026, Nature retracted a 2023 lung cancer research paper over manipulated data (Figure 5c), potentially manipulated experimental results (Figures 5d and 5e), and unverifiable antibody measurements (Figure 3c and Extended Data Figure 5c).

The 2003 Nature article retraction explicitly states, “The Francis Crick Institute’s investigation found that co-first author Kevin Ng was responsible for these analyses.”⁵ According to reporting by The Epoch Times, George Kassiotis, who still works for the institute and was the corresponding author for both papers, did not respond to a request for comment.⁶

Nature also added an editor’s note to another peer-reviewed study Ng co-authored in 2022. The Sept. 29, 2026 note reads, “Readers are alerted that concerns have been raised regarding the reliability of data presented in this article. Further editorial action will be taken if appropriate once the investigation into the concerns is complete and all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full.”⁷

Research Raises Concerns About AI, Fabricated References in Medical Literature

Reporting by The Vaccine Reaction in June 2026 covered a first-of-its-kind audit of 2.5 million academic papers that examined the prevalence of fabricated references in biomedical literature and identified more than 4,000 papers with fabricated references that could not be traced to real publications. Researchers warn that AI poses a “rapidly-growing problem” in biomedicine, with Nature noting that “the rate of fabrication in 2025 was more than 12 times greater than that in 2023.”⁸

A separate analysis by Nature, published a month prior to the May 7, 2026, Lancet audit, estimated that around 1.6 percent of publications from 2025 contained at least one reference corresponding to a nonexistent publication. Corresponding author and AI researcher Maxim Topaz says the Lancet findings are “conservative estimates,” adding, “We’re scratching the tip of the iceberg.”⁹

“The peer review process should have caught this fabricated data,” one social media user said in an X post about the most recent Oct. 14 retraction. “The peer reviewers should also be discredited and exposed.”¹⁰

Another X user, whose account focuses on scientific research and misinformation, acknowledged the significance of the retraction, writing, “What it establishes is that a published research paper contained fabricated and falsified material, and that its findings could no longer be trusted. Scientific self-correction deserves recognition. So does the uncomfortable fact that unreliable findings circulated for more than four years. The standard should be rigorous scrutiny before publication, accountability afterward, and prompt correction when the evidence fails.”¹¹

No Publicly Documented Disciplinary Action Against Researcher Despite Multiple Retractions

According to U.K. Research and Innovation (UKRI), scientists found responsible for research misconduct can face disciplinary action, removal from funded research projects, termination of research funding and temporary or permanent bans on applying for future grants. However, it remains unclear whether Ng has faced any disciplinary, financial or legal consequences beyond the retraction of his published research.¹²

If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.