Will the 14 Colleges of the SEC live to Regret this Partnership?
We can add Pfizer to the list of 10 corporations that are now official sponsors of the immensely popular Southeastern Conference sports league. I believe this qualifies as an important (if ignored) news story as it strongly suggests that the 14 colleges that make up this league endorse the narrative that everyone should get Pfizer's vaccines (and now the company's new booster).
Such an endorsement might be uncontroversial if the shots had been proven to be effective at preventing infection and spread of the virus that causes the illness COVID-19. Still, even Pfizer executives admit this is not the case.
In other words, it seems the 14 prestigious universities that comprise this athletic conference are willing to risk their current and future credibility (and potential future liability) to heavily promote a "vaccine" that doesn't stop infection or spread and very possibly has caused millions of severe health conditions, including an unknown but perhaps large number of fatalities.
If you watch the SEC Network or any SEC football games, you've now seen this commercial "Saturdays are in the Details" numerous times. The commercial features a montage of exciting plays from previous SEC football games and footage depicting the pageantry surrounding SEC football. Iconic SEC coach Paul "Bear" Bryant is even included (The Bear would have supported the shot?).
In the commercial's final seconds, the narrator reveals the real reason for what must have been a very expensive ad buy: "Pfizer and the SEC are teaming up to remind fans to get an updated COVID Booster shot." The commercial ends with a screenshot showing the logos of Pfizer, BioNTech (Pfizer's German vaccine partner), and the SEC's logo.
I have no issue with corporations purchasing commercials to advertise a legal product. By now, I've probably seen 500 Pfizer commercials (although I do wonder if the SEC or the networks that cover its games would allow a commercial to air that told viewers to run from these vaccines). What caught my attention was that the SEC is featured prominently in this particular commercial (as in, "Prizer and the SEC are teaming up") … and the SEC allowed its logo to be included in this spot.
While Pfizer did confirm to me via an email that the company is now a corporate sponsor of the SEC, nobody in the SEC had confirmed this partnership four days after I emailed a series of articles to the league's media spokespersons. Certainly, the SEC—which is made up of 14 colleges, 13 of which are public universities that receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax-payer funding—should answer such questions.
I did find this link that lists 10 SEC corporate sponsors, and Pfizer's logo is not included, although it's possible the website hasn't been updated yet, which seems odd as this corporate sponsorship must have been inked several weeks ago. However, I did recently view a "house" commercial on the SEC Network that thanked the network and league's sponsors. Unless my memory is incorrect, this commercial did include the Pfizer logo in the spot.
My questions also deal with a controversial "vaccine," a vaccine every one of these universities has either mandated for students and faculty or strongly recommended, with those who do not comply suffering various forms of disparate and (in my view) discriminatory treatment.
It strikes me as interesting that even after so many of the early claims made by supporters of mandatory vaccines have proven to be false, these 14 colleges are still encouraging their students, faculty, and the millions of fans of these schools' athletic teams to get a booster produced by Pfizer.
How Much Money is Pfizer Paying the SEC?
Furthermore, the league and its members are now profiting from a corporate sponsorship that must be worth millions of dollars. How much Pfizer might have paid to become a "corporate sponsor" is another question Pfizer or the SEC wouldn't answer (nor would ESPN/Disney, the primary owner of The SEC Network).
According to one story I found, such sponsorship "deals are believed to be worth low-to-mid seven figures annually." As partnerships go, this one is lower key. Typically when the league signs up a new sponsor, both the conference and the company are eager to announce said "partnerships." I quickly found numerous articles where current and previous SEC corporate sponsors seek to publicize these partnerships (for example, here, here, here, and here) … which has yet to happen with the Pfizer partnership "announcement."
An Important Marketing Investment
In The Knoxville News, from a story announcing Pilot's (now abandoned) partnership deal with the SEC: "The SEC now has eight (corporate sponsors)… All are deeply involved in the conference."
One has little difficulty understanding why so many companies might want to be "deeply involved" with the SEC. Indeed, it's difficult to identify a pastime of Southerners that engenders the passion for college football. (At one point, the recent Alabama-Tennessee game had more than 17 million viewers, far more viewers than the World Series now attracts). That is, one can see why Pfizer might want the kingpins of the SEC to sign off on and endorse their vaccines and boosters.
I've long held the theory that vaccine supporters and producers strategically decided to recruit as many influential "stakeholders" as possible to advance the narrative that everyone should get vaccinated. For example, if prestigious doctors' groups endorsed the vaccine, it would be far less likely large numbers of Americans might be "vaccine-hesitant."
Similarly, if every college in the SEC (with all their science and medicine professors and myriad credentialed "experts") becomes "vaccine stakeholders," the authorized vaccine narrative will become even more iron-clad. More specifically, it would seem very unlikely that 14 colleges that have signed off on a corporate sponsorship with the main vaccine-producing company would later lead any effort to discredit said vaccines and boosters.
Another 'Logic' Puzzler
The SEC's partnership with Pfizer is perplexing for another reason. The SEC is a sports league, and, as we read thousands of times 26 months ago (when it seemed that all sports might be canceled), the "first priority" of the league's leaders was, and remains, the "health and safety" of the league's student-athletes.
However, as quickly became known (and should have been known two months after the Wuhan outbreak), the "health and safety" of young, healthy student-athletes were not placed in peril by this disease, nor advanced by the "vaccines" or now the vaccine boosters.
We all now know there was never any scientific evidence that the vaccines reduced infection or spread. This outcome wasn't even studied in the clinical trials. This means the only remaining justification for the shots was that they (allegedly) reduced "severe" cases or the probability of death. This is still the only halfway plausible justification for people getting the next round of shots.
However, at least 31 months of data now prove that student-athletes face virtually no risk of developing a severe case of this disease. I have yet to find one article that mentions an SEC athlete who was hospitalized in severe condition from COVID, and there have certainly been no reports of an SEC athlete who died from COVID. This would be real-world "case studies" spanning years and involving thousands of student-athletes.
In other words, the leaders of the SEC and its member institutions of "higher learning" mandated or strongly pushed a vaccine to keep student-athletes from experiencing an outcome that has yet to be recorded.
They traded a health risk of zero for whatever risk there may be to young adults who get the shots (and this risk is certainly not zero.) Different studies produce different numbers, but the myocarditis risk for young males could be as low (or as high) as 1 in 1,000 or 1 in 3,000.
If the SEC is encouraging "everyone" to get these boosters, the conference must also be encouraging its student-athletes to get this latest shot. However, this is another question I asked that's yet to be answered: "Is the SEC encouraging student-athletes to get these shots? If not, why not?"
Playing with Fire?
Whether they know it or not, the SEC and its member institutions are probably playing with future-liability fire by continuing to endorse and support these vaccines. If it's ever conclusively proven these shots are not safe but are dangerous—and officials at these colleges had reason to know this was the case and continued to push these shots several years into the pandemic—the lawsuits that might emerge could evaporate whatever corpus sits in the endowment funds of these universities.
One also wonders if prospective science or medical (or business or humanities) students in the future will be willing to incur massive debt to let such "experts" and scholars provide their "education."
Of course, any research that might conclude the vaccines were a scam would probably have to come from any university that may still be performing real "science" (not to be confused with "NIAID-funded science.”) Is it possible the real goal of Pfizer's "investment" in these colleges and sports leagues is to prevent such studies from being conducted?
I don't know (although I'd be willing to guess). What I do know is that the colleges of the SEC apparently have no reservations about "teaming up with Pfizer" to encourage everyone to get Pfizer's booster shots. "Blood money" or not, the colleges of the SEC apparently have no qualms about cashing Pfizer's giant checks.
I also wouldn't be surprised if, one day, webmasters at America's most popular athletic conference quietly scrub any mention that this particular company was ever a corporate partner with the SEC.
UPDATE: Late Friday afternoon, [October 28], four days after first asking, I received a reply from Herb Vincent, associate commissioner of the Southeastern Conference. Mr. Vincent did confirm that “Pfizer is a sponsor of the SEC.” None of my other questions were answered. Here is the full statement: “Your questions would require us to obtain private information of individuals that we do not routinely collect, require responses that fall outside the SEC’s expertise, or would be otherwise inappropriate for us to answer. Instead, we are providing the following statement":
“Pfizer is a sponsor of the SEC. The message to which you refer reflects the guidance of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and presumes that, as with any vaccine or other medication, individuals will seek the guidance of an appropriate professional before taking action. For clarification, the Southeastern Conference does not mandate and has never mandated its employees or student-athletes to take the COVID vaccine.”