Pfizer Buys Scientific American

NO – I do NOT mean that Pfizer went out and bought a copy of the magazine Scientific American, or Sci-Am, as we used to call it when I was a young, foolish, chump of a science student – long before I “learned to code”.

And NO – I do NOT mean that Pfizer bought the publication, Scientific American, lock stock and barrel.

What I do mean is that Pfizer BOUGHT OFF Scientific American.

I mean that Pfizer – now an arm of CHINA – obtained a controlling leverage over the publication Scientific American. Somehow, Pfizer BOUGHT THEM OFF.

So what evidence do I have?


I may be old as the hills, but I’m not as old as Scientific American.

The above is what “vintage” Sci-Am of my era looked like.

Long before THAT, it looked like this:

As you can see, Sci-Am has been around for a while.

Sci-Am is somewhere on the border between actual scientific literature – particularly reviews and letters – and secondary literature like the “industry rags” that Pfizer whistleblower Karen Kingston was talking about. The rags – a somewhat disrespectful name, in my opinion – include Chemical & Engineering News, that magazine which I am so fond of using as a source for quality “face value” vaccine journalism.

C&EN, as they call it, is a product of the American Chemical Society.

Sci-Am, on the other hand, is a product of a scientific publisher called Springer. Here is what is written at the bottom of the Scientific American website:

Scientific American is part of Springer Nature, which owns or has commercial relations with thousands of scientific publications (many of them can be found at Scientific American maintains a strict policy of editorial independence in reporting developments in science to our readers.



Now, just because these publications do quality and unbiased work, when motivated and allowed to do so, does NOT mean they can’t be taken over and controlled by entities such as – LET’S SAY – China.

Springer and ACS may SAY that they’re not controlled by their CCP and/or Big Pharma “partners”, but anybody who has watched America’s own Hollywood turn anti-American and absolutely paralyzed about saying or doing anything that might “offend” China, understands who is REALLY the boss now.

Pfizer. And China.

Indeed, we did a post about this rather recently, which resulted in quite a few outages of this site.

Why Was Pfizer-Wuhan Demanding Military Bases as Collateral for Vaccines?

But let’s get back to now.

I was just visiting a certain store of my acquaintance which sells – somewhat surprisingly – magazines, including Scientific American.

Years ago, I frequently bought Sci-Am and other magazines at that store. Sadly, as the “science” in Sci-Am became more and more “woke”, it became less and less of interest to me.

What I would find in the THINNER and THINNER issues of Sci-Am, was more and more authoritarian virtue signaling to major media-endorsed “dubious science”, and less and less robust scientific and journalistic skepticism (to say nothing of ETHICAL skepticism, rare as hen’s teeth).

As I stood in said store, looking at the latest issue’s cover (well, the latest that said local store might have), I laughed at the BULLSHIT COVER IMAGE – a literal propaganda “shop job” – which would have never even been allowed into the cheap and cheesy “back pages” of the Sci-Am of my youth.

Good GRIEF. It’s like a cross between Madison Avenue and the Nazi school science textbook that my dear mother saved all these years. Fascist propaganda, marketed as education. Not everybody could see that in Germany at the time, and not everybody can see it now. But that is precisely what this cover is. Fascist propaganda. Virtue signaling to the regime.

The “vapor storms” propaganda is obvious, and part of the fascist climate scam, so there was no reason for me to buy this issue. I dare not give a dime to Green-Hearted Greta’s Groovy Grift. If I wanted to spend my time debunking the latest scare-scam in climate grift, I would, but that’s somebody else’s job. I can barely keep up with the COVID grift as it is.

But then I saw that little blurb up in the upper right-hand corner.

“Gene Therapy Finally Works”

Really! Well, that might be interesting.

[ You will notice that I was already “chumping out” right there – ASSUMING this would be educational. ]

So I go looking for the Table of Contents page – which turned out to be two pages – the first being the “hot stuff” and the second being “everything else”. Eventually I found what I was looking for on the first page. The “gene therapy” stuff took up the last third of the listings, but comprised over 2/3 of the listed page numbers.


S1 Innovations in Gene Therapy

S2 Gene Therapy Comes of Age

S3 The Gene Fix
by Esther Landhuis

S6 Graphic: Editing the Book of Life

S8 Overcoming Gene Therapy’s Long Shadow
by Tanya Lewis

S12 Success Stories
by Jim Daley

S15 High Hopes
by Marla Broadfoot

It looked like the “special report” was near the end. I found the section and thumbed though it. It looked not only readily understandable, but reasonably scientific – a lot like what I expect from C&EN.

GREAT, I thought – I can learn some more gene therapy science that I can use to understand the COVID GRIFT, since one of the mRNA vaccine platform’s primary motivations was clearly to “grease the skids” for gene therapy.

It wasn’t until I got home, that I fully realized what I had just bought.

The “special report” – 20 pages long – with only 66 magazine pages before it and 7 after it (73 total) – many of them full-page ads – was actually a kind of “infomercial advertorial“.

It was LITERALLY paid, sponsored, scientific reporting by (allegedly) free-lance scientists.

The last page explained it all. Big, blue, and in the middle, this:

This section
was produced
with support from





Don’t bother with that URL – it doesn’t work.


After ALL of the 73 pages of non-Pfizer (I checked) content AND the 20 page Pfizer advertorial, was ANOTHER 5-page Pfizer spread, boosting PFIZER’S own efforts in gene therapy. Followed, at long last, by one more ad and one numbered page – 74.

So – we have basically 75 pages of non-Pfizer and 25 pages of Pfizer, for a grand total of 25% Pfizer.

Scientific American – now with 25% Pfizer content.

So – is this a new phenomenon?

As it turns out, NO.

Pfizer apparently started on this push BEFORE COVID. Conveniently before COVID.

I have no idea how many Sci-Am advertorials they do, but I know of at least one more.

THIS ONE was in January of 2019, and it’s available online.


So – the good part of one year before the COVID release from Wuhan, where Pfizer has its nice new Chinese operation, we get a gene therapy promotional in Scientific American.

Let’s do that one in text for Zoe, and to focus on something very “Event 201”, which I have emphasized in bold.

Realizing the Promise of Gene Therapy Through Collaboration and Partnering: Pfizer’s View

Gene therapy for single-gene disorders is at a pivotal period in its evolution, with continued successful development requiring tight collaboration among industry, academic, regulatory, clinical and patient communities.

Produced with support from Pfizer.

By Anna P. Tretiakova, on January 14, 2019

Sounds about like what happened, thanks to the phony crisis, backed by Chinese PLA 4GW and our treasonous “collaborators”.

Kinda sad how media lies helped assure “patient collaboration” – right up to the death vents, murderous remdesivir, and $30K a pop for dead Deplorables – from their own tax money.

Hitler would have been proud to have pulled the COVID grift – getting the money for the gold teeth before he even got the teeth.

Now, it turns out that finding this older advertorial online, allowed me to find a URL for the new one, too.

You will notice that the non-functioning URL for this November 2021 advertorial:

… DIFFERENT from the one for the January 2019 advertorial. The printed URL does NOT work. However, this one, crafted in analogy to the older one, does:


SO – if you want to read the same gene therapy articles that I will be reading, they’re online and available for your perusal.

I could go on and add many more scandalous things about today’s Pfizer that I have in various bookmarks and tabs on my computer, but enough is enough for this post.

Ever since Trump criticized Pfizer for getting CDC to suspend the Johnson+Johnson vaccine, and ever since #PfizerLeak hit the internet…..


Stew Peters is doing great work. Sure he’s had some people on, in the past, who I was not terribly impressed with. Later, he had Jane Ruby on, with magnetic stuff that I believe is mostly disinformation. Sorry – not buying. The Magnetism Challenge: Part II – Scientific Disinformation During the COVID-19 Narrative Collapse Wherein …

… has become very clear that Pfizer has been a key player in all that has befallen us.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla can call us “criminals”, but quite frankly it’s not gonna stick any more than Hitler calling innocent Jews “criminals” stuck. We are, in fact, a rather puny and broken force, a lot like those who fought fascism the last time. We are a sad collection of allies, not even sure what unites us.

But we do have one thing in common.


Maybe Pfizer should tell their pet American president – their criminal president – to end the fucking mandates. Because if it doesn’t happen, people like me are going to die, but there will also be justice, and not all of the people brought to justice will live.


Nuremberg II

Featured Photo: Meeting of the War Crimes Executive Committee, which decided on the arrangements for the Nuremberg trials. Note the garage pull in the background – Exhibit F1b. I am dying of the China Virus. I had the virus itself in the latter half of January, 2020. I became symptomatic on January 18, and thus …

5 4 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


A little rest has sure done you GOOD!




Pfizer’s pre-covid investment in Sci-Am was probably to due some ‘image rehab’ because of all their other bad behavior.

Pfizer has gotten fined and had numerous court judgements against it in the past.

Good catch, boss!


one of Ancient Egypt’s Sacred Baboons
comment image



Brave and Free

Is time just me or does there look to be sheep or cow faces on the ends of the fingers?




Big Pharma’s 5 Major Minions That Everyone…Must Oppose



Last edited 16 days ago by smiley2

The vapor storms image on the cover of Scientific American reminds me of this forest swastika located in Germany:
comment image

Several have been discovered. They are thought to have been planted back in the 1930’s.


It broke my heart when I stopped my Sci-Am subscription. It had completely turned to garbage, some time in the late 80s.


It used to be (back in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s) that S-A was mostly subscription and not newsrack — that’s why their covers were mainly white. Every month they’d cover serious science in a generic STEM way — they wouldn’t go populist, but they wouldn’t assume that only biochemists would read biochemistry articles.

Then the lefties started moving in. In a manner similar to having the CDC go after gun control, or how meteorology has gone AGW, they started moving away from articles for STEM readers…..and toward screechy activists notably devoid of scientific rigor. I forget the specific article that ripped it for me, but I killed my subscription, then trashed a couple of decades of back issues. They had become an unreliable source.

Incidentally, the same thing happened with Forbes.


Completely agree about Forbes. IMO, at one time in the not-too-distant past, it was quite all right. Then it turned into a sort of “National Review for finance”. (And NR, at one time, also was quite all right. Forget it now.)


Me, too!


Oh come on man, it’s only so as you can trust the science even more /s


Propaganda through media 24/7/365. Been that way for decades. They just don’t feel they need to hide it anymore, that the sheeple have been dumbed down enough to fall for it without any thought what soever. They are correct with about half the population.

Gail Combs

I am so glad I declared my independence from the Boob-Tube in 1976! Print media in 1994 and radio in 2004.


Comment deleted.

Last edited 16 days ago by Aubergine

No, I just moved it to the daily! I am a bit flustered by events, and posted to your article. Which I will read, ASAP!

Thanks for all you do, Wolf. I don’t say it enough, but I think it everyday!




Filthy, vile pigs.

Brave and Free

Would be interesting to see some medical trade publications and see how much of an influence they have there compared to previously and when it changed.
The influence on Dr’s. and Pharmacist must be off the charts.

Sadie Slays

This reminds me of something else. Many years ago, there were a bunch of websites giving away free magazine subscriptions. I ended getting free subscriptions to a bunch of women’s magazines—Women’s Day, Family Circle, etc. Anyways, 2/3 of each magazine issue were about health problems and packed in between accompanying advertisements for pharmaceuticals. It’s like the whole damn magazine was one giant pharmaceutical advertisement. I strongly suspect some pharmaceutical company was behind those “free magazine” websites as a subtle means of duping people into consuming the pharmaceutical propaganda. It really is insidious.

Gail Combs

Wolfie, Been out all weekend and trying to catch up. Yesterday BarkerJim gave us the link to
What They Didn’t Tell You in [Market-Ticker-Nad]

I went thru and looked at all the comments. This conversation may be of interest to you Wolfie.

Go to the Threadreader first:

@MaddMaxx. The thread you link made me smile. This guy gets the fundamental structural uncertainties created by everything that has been altered to theoretically maximize protein yield from the mRNA. To your question,

“I wonder what could go wrong codon optimizing a virus that is already adapted to its host?

What made them think maximum expression was desirable?”

Central dogma of biology (since revised/updated) was DNA encodes RNA, which then enables translation into a protein. Three-nucleotide mRNA “codons” encode an amino acid, but there is degeneracy in these codons. A string of said codons encodes a string of amino acids (an oligopeptide or a protein). See…. that shows RNA->amino acid look up table.

Say we’re encoding alanine. This can be encoded by an mRNA sequence of 5′-GCU-3′, GCC, GCA, or GCG. Maybe your naturally occurring sequence is GCU. Through extensive experimentation, maybe you find that switching from GCU to GCG ups your protein yield when you translate from mRNA to protein (i.e. in a test tube and by extension, one would hope, in the body). You also see (related to his comments further down his thread) that this will change the GC content from 66% (for this one codon) to 100%. Now, maybe you’re encoding a 140 amino acid sequence. To fully codon optimize this, you’d need to try every permutation of every possible 3-nucleotide mRNA sequence at each codon, across all 140 amino acids. Independent of knowing the amino acid sequence, I can’t tell you the number of permutations. But let’s say there’s 3 permutations available at each of 140. With some sloppy back of the envelope math, you’re looking at 3^140 possible sequences. Now there’s no way in hell someone’s going to synthesize all of those, but what will have been studied is… in most cases, what’s the best encoding for each amino acid, or maybe 2- or 3- or 4-amino acid stretch to maximize yield. And then that will be applied across the entire sequence. All we’re doing is trying to get the maximal amount of spike protein synthesized per unit of mRNA input. And maybe this process ups it 2-fold, 5-fold, 10-fold. I have no idea, as I haven’t seen the data; maybe all this work was for naught and they got a 5% yield bump.

The question is, is maximizing such a yield even desirable, and what costs come with said optimization? We don’t fully know. Marketers love to market what they CAN do, independent of what may be beneficial. This sort of optimization became all the rage years ago. In the thread you cite, there’s a GC-content graph, which basically shows that the natural spike protein has a radically different GC content across its nucleotide sequence relative to the vaccine GC-content. What are the effects of this? Well, for one, as he shows, it changes how the RNA folds (at least in terms of computer-analyzed secondary structure; nothing is said about 3D-structure in a solution, but presumably this could be radically different as well). RNases are presumed by some to be sequence agnostic in what they cleave (will cleave anything with equal propensity). This is likely not the case, as there will be sensitivities to groove sizing, fold of the RNA, etc (I don’t have papers to cite offhand… I have extensive personal experience with DNases / DNA in the lab (where they do/don’t cleave), but it’s been a decade since I read extensively on RNases/RNA / no empirical experience). So there may be some sequences introduced that cannot be broken down by RNases (or the kinetics of breakdown are radically changed among other possibilities), that may have been cleaved readily before codon optimization. (the opposite may also be true, but possibly less likely due to increased protein yields) We can’t say in the absence of data, of which there clearly isn’t any published with regard to SARS-CoV-2. (there are other reasons why such folds could be undesirable, but at this stage it would be a lot of speculation / intellectual masturbation in the absence of experimenting directly).

The G-quadruplex avenue could be a potentially dark can of worms that this thing opened. I’ll just leave it at that, as what he’s covered topically can take weeks to go through, but the main point that there is so little known currently and so many hard hitting questions glossed over, is concerning. Hopefully this starts to open some of what he’s saying; feel free to ask for clarification, and I’ll try to keep a look out on this forum. Can’t guarantee I’ll know / can knowledgeably answer what you ask, but can try.



The gist I got was that all of the modifications made to the mRNA in the shots 1) make it dubious whether the mRNA and its product can be treated as identical to the WT spike protein 2) the pharma companies are presenting these shots as a uniform substance that can be treated the same as an injection of spike protein to produce immune response, while instead the modifications made are likely to lead the formation of secondary and tertiary structures in the mRNA which will in turn lead to truncated proteins that could wind up being all kinds of funky structures.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not particularly interested in having a bunch of misfolded and aggregated nucleic acid injected into me, along with truncated and oddly folded proteins produced from same. Obviously brings prions to mind, but what if they produce an antigenic response that is capable of binding some important receptor somewhere in the body? Clearly something that should have been studied before going into arms but we all know how that went.

Thanks for that link, was a very interesting read. Hopefully some more in depth papers following that trail come out soon.


@chemdude, @ maddmaxx

Trying to break it down a little more for the non-graduate-level biochemistry crowd, are you basically saying that because we’ve tried to reverse-translate spike protein back into mRNA that will then going forward be translated back into spike protein by cells, that because of the codon-redundancy and other translations complexities, this is not the same as the 1:1 decoder on a cereal box and a crapload of things can go wrong in that rebuilding of the spike protein, and it could build things that were not intended instead?
And what would happen to or because of those unwanted guests? Are antibodies made for each? Could they be mutagenic or carcinogenic? Harmful or harmless? Are they gobbled up by immune cells? No one knows? I’m interested on your thoughts because I never thought about that aspect of the vaccine before.
Or maybe I am misunderstanding?
We test drugs for purity to make sure there are no unwanted substances made through incomplete or side reactions or that were not removed through purification, so we know what is in them.
But here, they just confirmed that the vaccine generates some spike protein that may or may not match the WT spike, and didn’t look to see what else is generated perhaps.
And can we assume similar issues would be there whether reverse engineered spike, or whether they could take the DNA sequence from the WT spike to generate the mRNA?


@Factsaredead The selection of different RNA sequences for the same amino acid allows optimization for species. Humans have a 40/60 GC to AT DNA split. “The genomic GC content is 40.9%” Also too many GCs in the RNA may lead to sharper turns and a hairpin that doesn’t work as well with the enzymes. In the case of these mRNA vaccines there may even be non-natural bases in the sequence, an A might be substituted with an A’ that doesn’t degrade as fast but still works like an A during protein synthesis.


Gail Combs

Oh, Good I am glad you have already seen this info. It is a bit above my pay grade but I get the gist of it and it doesn’t look good.

Add in the mucking with the Cell’s DNA and this Jab was most definitely NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME!

To repeat:
Dr Mikolaj Raszek, Phd from Merogenomics
“… A research team in Sweden recently showed in the Human cells they were studying that the Spike Protein can actually enter nucleus and the reason why this is such dramatic news… is the spike protein actually inhibits the proper fixing of broken damaged DNA….”

No wonder there is a spike in cancers.

Gail Combs

There was a lot of other interesting stuff in the Comments at Market Ticker. Here are the bits and pieces I scavieged:

Alpa & Omega Ministries: John Hopkins data-deaths before & after Jab @7:30


 “…German statistics are of much lower quality than those provided by the UK Health Security Agency. For the 60+ age category (85.6% vaccinated), we read (p. 22) that 60.9% of symptomatic cases from 11 October to 1 November were in the fully vaccinated, as were 45.1% of hospitalisations, 36% of ICU admissions, and 41.7% of deaths.”




Spike protein inside nucleus enhancing DNA damage? – COVID-19 mRNA vaccines update from Dr Mikolaj Raszek, Phd from Merogenomics

“… A research team in Sweden recently showed in the Human cells they were studing that the spike Protein can actually enter nucleus and the reason why this is such dramatic news… is the spike protein actually inhibits the proper fixing of broken damaged DNA….”


That goes along with this 2 minute sound bite from Dr Cole:

Long version: Pathologist Dr Ryan Cole Delivers Concerning Message About COVID Vaccine and Long Term Impacts



URGENT: Covid vaccines will keep you from acquiring full immunity EVEN IF YOU ARE INFECTED AND RECOVER

Alex BerensonOct 21 1,970

Don’t take it from me, I don’t even get to tweet anymore.

Take it from a little place I call the British government. Which admitted today, in its newest vaccine surveillance report, that:

“N antibody levels appear to be lower in people who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination.” (Page 23)….

comment image
(Unfortunately the good stuff is behind a pay wall.)


Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance

Prevention & Treatment Protocols for COVID-19

I-RECOVER Management Protocol for Long Haul COVID-19 Syndrome (LHCS)

Gail Combs

This deserves a separate comment. I have given Dr Martin the side-eye, because he ASSIGNED statements made by FauXI to President Trump’s EO

Here is his LAST public appearance (60 minute talk) the one after the Weston-Price talk already linked earlier.

In that video he NAMES NAMES of those behind the Clot Shot Genocide Jab.
comment image

he especially goes after Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz with a vengeance.

FORBES: These Billionaire Donors Spent The Most Money On The 2020 Election

5. Dustin Moskovitz & Cari Tuna

Net worth: $18.1 billion

Contributions: $51.8 million

Equivalent donation for median American household: $353

At 36, Facebook cofounder Moskovitz is the youngest megadonor on this list. He and his wife, Cari Tuna, spent $25 million in 2016, then doubled down with a $47 million donation to a pro-Biden super-PAC in 2020, helping fuel an advertising blitz in the final months of the campaign.

The talk has a couple more ‘Tells’

He mentions the Treaty of Westphalia. (Independent autonomous nations)
40:00 “…Because the real nation state isn’t a nation state. The Treaty of Westphalia, the stupid idea of drawing lines on maps and calling them countries has long been dead. The real control is that, what I call the Atlantic Coalition of Doom. Blackrock, AXA, International Monetary fund, HSBC, ICBC ands United Healthcare…”

@43:36 “We the people should take responsibility…. Our inalienable condition (NOT RIGHTS)…Free and open commerce” aka FREE TRADE??? HMMmmmm

46:30 “…We are organically undefiled from birth to death. Now many of you think I mean injection or ingestion, but that’s not what I mean, I mean those two things, but I mean the third and more important, and most important of all, We have the right that what goes into our ears, does not defile us. We have the right to be exposed to frequencies of truth, integrity, harmony with life, harmony with the universe, harmony with the ability to be human and we are entitled to that by virtue of our existence….” Is he advocating CENSORSHIP???

We are going to move forward, we are going to actively take on … block chain evidence.. releasing that, anyone familiar with Gamestock… we are going to build a community that let’s every individual to take action to make sure these institutions and individuals are held accountable financially…. And we are going to use the proceeds of that, listen carefully, to make sure we fulfill the social contract that We The People have Failed… because the social contract is this, there are tons of men and women, children injured… we are going to use the proceeds of the transactions we do to make sure We The People are ACCOUNTABLE to the families of vaccine injured children. This is about making abundantly clear, ladies and gentlemen if we the people are going to say we are going to make a more perfect union we need to start acting like it. This is not about declaring our INDEPENDENCE this is about declaring our INTERNATIONAL, INEXPLICABLE, INTERDEPENDENCE and ACCOUNTABLITY. In our name harm has been done and in our name we are going to reconcile that harm with a better humanity.”
WHAT THE F…K??? Since WHEN am I responsible for the CRIME some yahoo I don’t know did? And INTERNATIONAL INTERDEPENDENCE??? That is STRAIGHT OUT OF AL GORE’S MOUTH! And  Pascal Lamy’s, a former director-general of the World Trade Organization.

Some of the slides in the video:
comment image

Who is David Martin by Omar Jordan
Seems Omar distrusts Martin as much as I do.


Finally got to read this!

I think any and all print media is pretty much like all other media. That is, a target for Chinese influence.

The Chinese are very good at what they do. They take over while convincing people they are benign. They’ve done it in schools, all the way from kindergarten to university.

They do it by giving “free money” that turns out not to be free. Like the Pfizer money to SA. Which is actually China money in reality.

I don’t believe anything I can readily find in print. I am skeptical of it ALL.