UN Votes 153-3 to Own Your Body in the Next ‘Pandemic Emergency’

Written by John O'Sullivan on October 15, 2026. Posted in Current News

Our basic human right to medical autonomy just disappeared – the UN General Assembly has voted to impose tyrannical measures to enslave us all under the banner of future ‘pandemic emergencies.’

Didn’t enough of us learn our lesson during the fake COVID19 pandemic? As the laudable British former Parliamentarian Andrew Bridgen posted on x.com:

“153 countries including the UK vote to endorse the UN / WHO pandemic preparedness and response declaration. Yes, you have guessed it the response agreed to future pandemics (declared by the WHO themselves) will be injections of mRNA gene therapy treatments developed in 100 days ( untested ). The UN/ WHO and our Governments are bought and controlled by Big Pharma Only the USA, Argentina and Israel voted against.”

It is deeply lamentable that the UN General Assembly passed a pandemic prevention, preparedness and response declaration with 153 votes in favour. Applause echoed through the chamber. But the voices that truly mattered—those of nations that refused to kneel—were drowned out by the chorus of mainstream media.

Only three countries voted against: the United States, Argentina, and Israel. New Zealand and Paraguay abstained.

The 153-to-3 margin was celebrated by the WHO as “global consensus,” when it actually exposes something deeply troubling: when the overwhelming majority chooses compliance, the few who insist on sovereignty become the outliers.

The Lie of “Non-Binding”

The first truth you need to see clearly: this declaration was officially characterised as “political and non-binding.” Sounds harmless, right?

But political declarations are never just paper. They are the stepping stone to a legally binding WHO pandemic treaty. Immediately after the declaration passed, WHO Director-General Tedros called on nations to “complete the PABS annex negotiations so that the pandemic agreement can be opened for signature, trigger the ratification process, and enter into force as international law.” The goal is explicit: first turn voluntary “political commitments” into habit, then turn habit into legal obligation.

My own country, the United Kingdom voted in favour. What the British government did not tell the British people is this: this “non-binding” declaration is paving the way for a treaty that will profoundly constrain national health sovereignty and grant the WHO quasi-emergency powers during a “pandemic.”

100 Days: Whose Pandemic, Whose Profit?

Now look at the timeline that was mentioned lightly but is absolutely critical: 100 days.

This is the so-called “100 Days Mission”—pushed by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI)—with the goal of having vaccines ready for large-scale deployment within 100 days of the WHO declaring a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern.” Pfizer executives have already laid out in detail how to achieve this: maintaining “warm” mRNA vaccine manufacturing capacity, manufacturing at risk, skipping traditional clinical trial cycles.

What can 100 days do? Not complete clinical safety trials. Not long-term side effect tracking. Not independent data review.

What 100 days can do is push an mRNA-platform-based product—without adequate human safety validation—to billions of people worldwide under the guise of “emergency authorisation.” During COVID, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine went from virus sequencing to emergency use authorisation in 326 days—already considered “too fast” by some. Now they want to compress it to 100 days .

This is not science. This is gambling. Betting that the public won’t ask questions. Betting that the word “pandemic” is enough to silence everyone.

Who Gets to Define “Pandemic”?

This is the most dangerous part of the entire architecture. What constitutes a “pandemic”? Who has the authority to declare one? The answer is the WHO Director-General.

Under the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR), the Director-General holds exclusive power to declare a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern.”

The new pandemic agreement will further strengthen this power while weakening the space for member states to challenge it.

In 2020, the WHO’s hesitation and reversals when declaring COVID a “pandemic” already exposed its politicised tendencies. Now, you are being asked to grant that same institution the power to trigger a global “100-day emergency” and activate inadequately tested medical interventions?

Slovakia’s Warning Was Ignored

During the WHO negotiation process, the Slovak government proposed a series of amendments to protect fundamental human rights and national sovereignty. Their reasoning was straightforward: during COVID, some member states adopted measures that “violated citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms,” and authorities at both national and international levels “bear shared responsibility” for this.

Slovakia cited Council of Europe Resolution 2361—on the ethical, legal and practical considerations of COVID-19 vaccines—seeking to embed specific provisions preventing rights violations into the agreement.

The result? Slovakia itself acknowledged that its proposals were “not adequately reflected in the draft agreement.”

Big Pharma’s “Partnership”

Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca—these companies earned profits unprecedented in human history during COVID. Now, they are deeply involved in shaping the rules that will govern the next “emergency.”

The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA)—the lobbying organisation representing the “innovative pharmaceutical industry”—holds official relations in WHO negotiations and continuously “provides industry expertise to help inform the debate.” The IFPMA has publicly expressed its core concern: ensuring the PABS annex “does not slow down rather than accelerate” vaccine development.

Translation: ensuring that any “benefit-sharing” mechanism does not affect their profit margins and intellectual property barriers.

Meanwhile, the civil society organisation CitizenGO pointed out at the UN Human Rights Council that the agreement “will expand the WHO’s power to shape international and national responses,” creating “the danger that unelected officials not accountable to citizens may influence or override domestic decision-making and restrict freedoms.” They called for “strict firewalls between decision-making and private funding,” and demanded “full disclosure of institutional and expert interests” .

Who Pays for “Solidarity”?

The United Kingdom voted in favour. But the British Parliament held no meaningful debate on this. Lord Strathcarron in the House of Lords called before the vote for a delay “so that we can have proper Parliamentary scrutiny of what the Government is signing us up to.”

He warned that the WHO “broke its own rules” on IHR amendments, and that the UK government’s aims in the negotiations were “woefully” lacking in transparency .

This is the true meaning of “153 votes in favour”: most governments signed a document that will constrain their future health policy autonomy—without adequate domestic deliberation, without informed public debate.

The United States voted against. Israel voted against. Argentina voted against. These three nations were portrayed by mainstream media as outliers “undermining global solidarity.”

But the real question is not “why did only three countries oppose.” The real question is “why did 153 countries so readily surrender their own sovereignty.”

Next Time, There Will Be No “Voluntary”

Once the WHO pandemic agreement enters into force (currently stalled on PABS annex negotiations, with ratification possibly in 2027), it will create a new set of international legal obligations. At that point, the “non-binding” political declaration becomes “binding” international law. National parliaments will be asked to ratify. Governments that voted in favour now will say: “We already committed at the UN; now we must comply.”

And the power to define “pandemic” will remain in the WHO’s hands. When the next Director-General declares an emergency, the 100-day clock starts ticking. Long-term untested mRNA products will receive emergency authorisation under the guise of “vaccines.” Those who question will be labelled “anti-science.”

153 countries signed this declaration. But the price will ultimately be paid by ordinary people who were never asked whether they consented.

About the author: John O’Sullivan is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball among 45 scientists) of Principia Scientific International (PSI).  He is a seasoned science writer, retired teacher and legal analyst who assisted skeptic climatologist Dr Ball in defeating UN climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the multi-million-dollar ‘science trial of the century‘. From 2010 O’Sullivan led the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists who compiled the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ debunking alarmist lies about carbon dioxide plus their follow-up climate book. His most recent publication, ‘Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon’ broadens PSI’s critiques of mainstream medical group think and junk science.