A report published by The Epoch Times says that Science Translational Medicine retracted a 2022 COVID-19 vaccination paper on October 14 after an investigation by the Francis Crick Institute in London found fabricated data and falsified images, and that first author Kevin W. Ng admitted responsibility. Remedia checked the claim against the original paper, the retraction notice, statements from the Crick Institute and independent reporting by Retraction Watch.

What was claimed

The report makes several factual claims: that the journal retracted the paper 'SARS-CoV-2 S2-targeted vaccination elicits broadly neutralizing antibodies' more than four years after publication; that the Crick investigation found Ng responsible for fabricated data and falsified images and that he admitted it; that no misconduct was found among the other authors; and that Nature had earlier retracted another paper by Ng and later added an editor's note to a third.

What the evidence shows

The retraction is confirmed by primary sources. The original paper appeared in Science Translational Medicine (volume 14, issue 655, article eabn3715) in July 2022, with Ng as first author and Crick group leader George Kassiotis as corresponding author, as listed on the Crick Institute's publication page. The period between July 2022 and October 2026 is indeed slightly more than four years.

The retraction notice, dated October 14, 2026, states that the institutional investigation found fabricated data in one figure and falsified images in another, that Ng admitted responsibility, and that the fabrication casts doubt on other experiments in the paper whose primary data and samples are no longer available for verification. Retraction Watch, which reported the case independently, confirms these details and quotes a Crick statement that there was no evidence of malpractice by any other author. A journal spokesperson told Retraction Watch that the Crick asked for the retraction on September 8. One small imprecision in the report is that Ng is described as having 'worked for' the institute; according to Retraction Watch, he was a PhD student there at the time.

The related claims are also accurate. In January 2026, Nature retracted Ng's 2023 paper on endogenous retrovirus antibodies and lung cancer immunotherapy (doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05771-9) after a Crick investigation found manipulated data and held Ng responsible, as Retraction Watch reported and the Crick's research integrity page documents. On September 29, 2026, Nature added an editor's note to another 2022 paper co-authored by Ng, after concerns were raised on PubPeer. That investigation is still ongoing, so no conclusion about that paper can be drawn yet.

Important context

The report describes the paper as having claimed that vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 elicited strong antibodies. This simplification can mislead readers. The retracted study did not test any authorized COVID-19 vaccine, such as those from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or AstraZeneca, and it did not involve human participants. As its abstract states, it was a preclinical mouse study of an experimental vaccine targeting the S2 subunit of the coronavirus spike protein, asking whether such a vaccine could neutralize a broader range of coronaviruses. Its retraction therefore has no bearing on the safety or effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in use, whose evidence comes from separate clinical trials and real-world studies.

The retraction also does not, by itself, discredit the broader scientific idea of targeting the conserved S2 region. Independent groups have published their own data on broadly neutralizing antibodies against S2, for example in Science (fusion peptide antibodies) and in work on stem-helix antibodies. Those studies stand or fall on their own evidence. What is clear is that the specific results in the retracted paper, which had been cited 83 times according to Retraction Watch, should no longer be relied upon.

Conclusion

The central claim is true and supported by primary sources: Science Translational Medicine retracted the 2022 paper on October 14, 2026, because of fabricated data and falsified images, the Crick Institute's investigation identified first author Kevin W. Ng as responsible, and he admitted it. The claims about the earlier Nature retraction and the September editor's note are also accurate. Readers should keep in mind that the retracted work was an animal study of an experimental vaccine candidate, not a study of approved COVID-19 vaccines.

Sources

• Retraction notice, Science Translational Medicine (2026)
• Original paper, Science Translational Medicine (2022)
• Francis Crick Institute publication page
• Retraction Watch, October 14, 2026
• Retraction Watch, January 14, 2026
• Francis Crick Institute research integrity news