The UN’s “Non-Binding” Pandemic Declaration: Sequence In, Shot Out
Updated
On October 12, with little to no media coverage, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Political Declaration on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response. The vote was 153 in favor and 3 against. The United States, Israel, and Argentina voted no, and New Zealand and Paraguay abstained. The scant headlines moved on within a day, mainly because the document is non-binding, which, to many, means that it is no big deal. But is that really the case? To have a clear understanding of the ongoing and persistent dystopian agenda playing out before us, it is crucial to also understand what the declaration is quietly pushing toward, and what its larger system of treaty, technology, and crisis triggers is designed to do once the goals are met.
First, let’s take a look at the Pandemic Agreement adopted by the World Health Organization in May 2025 (the US has since left the group). On the heels of the tyrannical COVID-19 pandemic, this binding set of rules is meant to lock in the manner in which the world handles the next public health crisis, which they have repeatedly warned of. But there is a problem. A treaty is not valid until member nations sign and ratify it, and the WHO’s Pandemic Agreement has not even opened for signatures yet. So what is the holdup? It turns out that a significant attachment called Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) is still being negotiated in Geneva. PABS is the single missing piece in the WHO treaty, and without it, there is no binding agreement. Thus, the declaration adopted by the UN on October 12 is built around the WHO’s agenda and is designed to prod nations into finishing PABS. Confirming the importance of the missing link, the WHO urged its members to “finalize negotiations on the PABS annex” so the agreement can “enter into force as international law.”
What is the purpose of PABS? When a dangerous new germ appears, it often surfaces in one country, and that country physically holds the samples and genetic sequence – the digital readout of the pathogen’s code – of that germ. Once PABS is up and running, the sharing of those two things becomes a serious standing obligation. Under the PABS attachment, nations agree in advance to hand germ samples and sequence data to the WHO and its own network of designated labs the moment a pathogen is flagged as having “pandemic potential.” In exchange, Big Pharma companies that want access to the WHO-controlled pool of pathogen data agree to set aside roughly 20% of the vaccines and other products they produce from the data for the WHO to distribute to poorer nations. The reason behind this? To be fair.
With fairness as the selling point, there is, of course, a more complex story behind it. During the COVID pandemic, the WHO and its comrades asked countries to report new COVID variants the moment they found them. South Africa did just that, swiftly announcing Omicron and sharing the sequence freely. Wealthy nations and the billion-dollar pharmaceutical industry used that data to create booster vaccines, and then turned around and sold them back to South Africa, making them wait at the back of the line for a year to get them.
In this scenario, the most important part of the exchange is the genetic sequence of the pathogen, which is the exact raw material used in mRNA gene therapy technology, or, as they like to call them, mRNA “vaccines.” Traditional vaccines required that the physical virus to be grown and weakened in a lab, which takes time. But not mRNA shots. They are built from the code alone. When drug companies are given the genetic sequence, they can design a shot in mere days without ever touching the actual pathogen. Indeed, mRNA jab production time is fast enough to fit within the WHO’s stated goal, pushed throughout the pandemic, of vaccines “within the first 100 days” of a threat.
The picture is clear as to what the WHO and UN aim to accomplish with this scheme. Serving as the pipeline, PABS will pull genetic sequences of pathogens out of developing nations. The instant that an alarm sounds, those pathogens will be funneled into a central hub run by the WHO. With mRNA technology waiting in the wings as the engine, Big Pharma will turn the pathogen sequences into shots. As soon as the pipeline and the engine are connected, a single machine has been created. The WHO will have a standing global apparatus, ready at a moment’s notice to design and deploy mRNA shots against whatever gets labeled a threat. Fast, centralized, and running on a code uploaded from the other side of the world. They aim to permanently create the same tyrannical platform that drove the COVID response. Only faster next time.
The machine doesn’t start on its own, which brings us to the next question, which should concern us all. Exactly who makes the decision that a germ should set off an alarm? Obviously, someone, somewhere, has to flag a disease pathogen as having “pandemic potential.” Currently, the highest alarm, called a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), is declared by one person, the WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Tedros surely takes advice from others, but the final call is his alone, and the definition of what qualifies is loose enough to be stretched in a myriad of directions. One unelected official pulls the lever, and the sample-sharing, the sequence pipeline, and the fast-track jab deployment all switch on.
Kudos to the countries that refused to go along with the recent UN Political Declaration on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response. New Zealand abstained and said so plainly, noting that it is “very important to New Zealand that its sovereign decision making on health is protected.” Along those same lines, it also formally rejected the 2024 amendments that expanded the emergency powers possessed by the WHO. The United States, which had already withdrawn from the WHO entirely back in January, still showed up in New York to vote no, objecting to being roped toward and unfinished agreement and to what its delegate, CDC Director Erica Schwartz described as “divisive ideologies that lack definitional consensus.” Clearly, a vague phrase that avoided naming what the US actually wanted gone, that most likely included commitments to “universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services” and to mainstream “gender equality into all policies and programmes.”
Who stands to gain from what the UN’s recent declaration, aimed to push the world towards finishing the WHO’s pivotal treaty? The WHO gets roughly 80% of its money from voluntary contributions, a large share of them earmarked by private donors and rich governments. The Gates Foundation has long been among the biggest donors. A show of hands at the UN General Assembly is how that privately funded agenda is able to tout the appearance of global consent. When a massive caliber of money steers the plan, it is a safe bet that the plan will reflect the agenda of those putting up the money. Private money has believed in mRNA, and in permanent readiness, for a long time.
So no, the declaration is not binding. But it does not need to be. The recent UN vote is meant to prepare the ground, set the norms, and nudge holdouts toward signing the deep state-aligned treaty that will bind them. Sure, the United States left the WHO and voted no on the UN declaration, yet, as we previously reported, California, Illinois, and New York City quietly signed their health departments onto the WHO’s Global Outbreak and Response Network by executive action, with no vote. Washington voted no at the UN, closing the front door. But the side door is open. Wonder who will walk through next, towards the tyranny?