COVID-19 prenatal infection claims unravel under scientific scrutiny – How a Spanish newspaper falsely attributed population-level claims to research that never made them.

When Science Journalism Goes Wrong: A Case Study in Media Misattribution

INGA314.ai analysis

https://www.elmundo.es/ciencia-y-salud/salud/2025/08/22/68a82071e85ece03628b4591.html

The Headline That Fooled Everyone

Last week, the major Spanish newspaper El Mundo published what seemed like groundbreaking research: “Scientists detect brain development delays in children infected with COVID-19 during pregnancy.” The story claimed that children infected with COVID in the womb show a 10% increase in cognitive development delays, and attributed these findings directly to Spain’s largest public brain research institute.

The research appeared authoritative – credited to the prestigious Instituto de Neurociencias del CSIC, led by renowned neuroscientist Salvador Martínez, and published in the respected journal Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. But when we applied rigorous logical analysis and traced the claims back to their source, we discovered something far more troubling than flawed research: the newspaper had fabricated the connection between legitimate research and unsupported claims.

Here’s what we found when we investigated the actual science.

The Real Scandal: False Attribution

When we located Salvador Martínez’s actual 2023 research in Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, we discovered the El Mundo article had committed scientific fraud through misattribution:

What Martínez’s Research Actually Did

Examined only 3 fetal brain tissue samples from 20-week gestations
Identified ACE2 receptor expression patterns in developing hippocampal neurons
Suggested a potential biological vulnerability window
Explicitly stated: “by obvious reasons, it is impossible to determine what long-term sequelae an infection in the maternal womb may have”

What the El Mundo Article Falsely Claimed He Found

A “10% increase in cognitive development delays”
Population-level epidemiological findings
Clinical predictions about autism, ADHD, and learning disabilities
Evidence about vaccination effects on cognitive outcomes

The prestigious Spanish researchers never made any of these claims. El Mundo appears to have taken legitimate anatomical research and falsely credited it with population-level statistics from unknown sources.

The Impossible Claims Multiply

Once we realized the attribution was false, the other logical problems became even more glaring:

The Vaccination Paradox

The article claims two contradictory things:

The research focused on children infected “before vaccines existed”
“Cognitive delays decreased in children of already vaccinated mothers”

This is temporally impossible. You can’t study vaccination effects in a population that existed before vaccines were available. COVID vaccines weren’t available until December 2020, while the study’s tissue samples came from 2020 abortions.

But here’s the deeper issue: COVID vaccines don’t prevent infection anyway. Current scientific evidence shows vaccines reduce severe disease but allow breakthrough infections. So even if the timeline worked, the claimed mechanism (vaccination prevents maternal infection prevents fetal effects) is scientifically false.

The “Before and After” Comparison That Cannot Exist

The article makes an even more audacious methodological claim, stating that the 10% increase was determined by comparing pandemic babies with “data from babies born before and after in the same places and under similar conditions.”

This comparison is scientifically impossible:

The Age Problem:

Pre-2020 children: Now 5-7 years old (school age with established skills)
Pandemic children: Now 3-5 years old (preschool with emerging skills)
Post-pandemic children: Now 1-3 years old (toddlers with basic milestones)

You cannot compare a 6-year-old’s reading abilities with a 4-year-old’s language development and claim this shows developmental delays.

The “Similar Conditions” Impossibility:

Pre-2020: Normal social interaction, regular healthcare, standard education, family stability
2020-2021: Social isolation, disrupted healthcare, closed schools, economic crisis, parental stress

These conditions aren’t “similar” – they’re completely opposite. Comparing children who lived through these radically different realities is meaningless.

What We Found When We Checked the Real Research

When we examined the actual scientific literature on COVID and pregnancy, we found:

International Evidence Contradicts the Claims

UK CHILDS Study (25,000 babies): No association between maternal COVID infection and developmental delays
Multiple autism studies: No increased incidence in pandemic-born children
Systematic reviews: No consistent evidence of COVID-specific developmental effects

The Pattern of Pandemic Effects

What large-scale studies actually show:

ALL pandemic-born children show some developmental impacts
Effects correlate with pandemic stressors, not COVID infection
Social isolation, healthcare disruption, and economic stress affected every family
“Delays” appear related to environmental factors, not viral infection

Sample Size Reality Check

To detect a real 10% population increase in developmental delays would require:

Thousands of participants with proper controls
Longitudinal follow-up over years
Careful matching for confounding variables

The Spanish research examined 3 brain samples. The El Mundo article never identifies the source of the “10%” statistic or explains its methodology.

The Media Corruption of Science

This case represents something more dangerous than flawed research: media corruption of scientific findings. The El Mundo article:

Took legitimate anatomical research (ACE2 receptors in fetal brain tissue)
Added unverified population statistics (the mysterious “10%” from unknown sources)
Falsely combined them as if they came from the same study
Used institutional credibility (Spain’s top neuroscience institute) to legitimize unsupported claims
Added impossible elements (vaccination effects, before/after comparisons)

This creates a false impression of scientific consensus behind claims that may have no legitimate research support at all.

The Vaccination Reality That Breaks the Narrative

Your observation about vaccination effectiveness reveals why this story never made sense:

Scientific reality: COVID vaccines prevent severe disease but don’t prevent infection. Breakthrough infections are common and expected, especially with current variants.

Article’s claim: Vaccinated mothers had children with fewer delays because vaccination prevented infection.

The problem: If vaccines don’t prevent infection, the entire explanatory mechanism collapses. Any real differences between children of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated mothers would need completely different explanations – likely related to healthcare access, socioeconomic factors, or other confounding variables.

What This Means for You

If you’re pregnant or planning to become pregnant:

Don’t panic about this story. The claims appear to be media fabrications falsely attributed to legitimate researchers who never made such assertions.

Be skeptical of dramatic headlines – especially when newspapers make claims that researchers themselves never made.

How to Protect Yourself from Science Misinformation

Here are practical steps for evaluating medical research claims:

1. Verify the source – Do the researchers actually make the claims attributed to them?

2. Check institutional websites – What do the research institutions say about their own findings?

3. Look for the original study – Are the media claims supported by the actual research?

4. Examine timelines – Do the dates and sequences make logical sense?

5. Question impossible comparisons – Are different populations, ages, or conditions being inappropriately compared?

6. Be especially skeptical of:

Claims that contradict what researchers themselves say
Studies that claim “similar conditions” during unprecedented social disruption
Population-level statistics derived from tiny samples
Vaccination mechanisms that ignore actual vaccine effectiveness data

The Deeper Problem with Science Journalism

This case illustrates how science journalism can corrupt research integrity:

Legitimate Research: Martínez’s team studies ACE2 receptors in fetal brain tissue Media Addition: Unverified population statistics about developmental delays False Attribution: Crediting the researchers with claims they never made Amplification: Other outlets repeat the false attribution without verification

The result: The public believes prestigious researchers have found concerning evidence, when those researchers made no such claims.

The Silver Lining

While this analysis reveals serious problems with science journalism, it also demonstrates the power of rigorous source verification and logical analysis.

The LAF framework caught:

False attribution of claims to researchers who never made them
Statistical impossibilities hidden behind institutional credibility
Temporal paradoxes that make claimed mechanisms impossible
Impossible control group comparisons presented as methodologically sound
Media corruption of legitimate research findings

This is why we need systematic fact-checking of scientific claims – not just the research itself, but how it gets reported and interpreted.

The Bottom Line

This story represents something worse than flawed research: media corruption of scientific findings. A Spanish newspaper appears to have taken legitimate anatomical research and falsely credited it with population-level claims that the researchers never made.

The actual scientists studied 3 brain tissue samples and found ACE2 receptors – interesting but limited findings with no clinical implications. The newspaper added unverified statistics, impossible vaccination claims, and methodologically invalid comparisons, then presented it all as prestigious Spanish research.

The result misled both healthcare professionals and pregnant women about risks that may not exist, while unfairly damaging the reputation of legitimate researchers whose work was misrepresented.

By applying rigorous logical analysis and source verification, we can protect both scientific integrity and public understanding – ensuring that medical decisions are based on what researchers actually found, not what journalists claim they found.

INGA314.ai includes source verification as a critical component of scientific claim analysis. For more information about LAF methodology or to submit studies for analysis, visit our website.

Disclaimer: This analysis is for educational purposes. Always consult with qualified healthcare providers for medical advice. The goal of logical analysis is to improve both scientific reasoning and science journalism accuracy.