153 states vote in favor of UN pandemic declaration

The UN General Assembly adopted a political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response on October 12, 2026, with 153 votes in favor, 3 against and 2 abstentions. The text is not legally binding, but it includes calls to combat health misinformation and leaves pending the annex on benefit-sharing from pathogens, which remains blocked.

The UN General Assembly voted on October 12, 2026 in New York on a political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, known by the English acronym PPPR. The result was **153 votes in favor**, **3 against** and **2 abstentions**, according to the press release issued by the organization itself. The three negative votes came from the **United States**, **Israel** and **Argentina**. New Zealand and Paraguay abstained.

The details of the procedure matter more than it might seem. The text was scheduled for adoption by consensus at a high-level meeting on September 25, 2026, that is, without a formal vote, without recorded votes against and without a roll call. That did not happen. Only then was a roll-call vote called, exposing the dissent. Consensus was the plan; the vote was the accident.

## What the declaration says and what it lacks

The adopted document is not legally binding. It does not authorize censorship, nor mandatory vaccination, nor does it by itself expand the powers of the World Health Organization. But it is not a dead letter either. These declarations serve as a reference framework for legislators, health authorities and national funders, who later use them to guide rules and budgets. The specialized publication Health Policy Watch has called it "highly controversial," which gives an idea of the temperature of the issue.

The underlying problem lies in what is missing. According to the British Medical Journal (BMJ), member states failed to agree on the central point of the future agreement: the distribution of revenues from the sharing of pathogen data. This is the PABS annex, short for Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing. Without that annex closed, the pandemic agreement cannot be fully formalized or acquire full legal validity.

The WHO itself confirmed in its announcement of September 18, 2026 that the PABS annex aims to lay the foundations for a faster response system presented as "fair," and that its completion would pave the way for the signing and ratification of the agreement. In other words: the October 12 declaration is the political context on which the legal instrument is still being built.

## Vaccines in 100 days and global surveillance

The declaration calls for expanding the production of vaccines, therapies and diagnostics during the first **100 days** of a pandemic threat. It is an ambitious goal and also a problem. Whoever sets that deadline inevitably shortens the observation period: in three months, no long-term data on safety and efficacy are generated. That means consciously accepting the use of insufficiently tested products, with the potential to cause harm. It is not a malicious interpretation; it is calendar arithmetic.

The text also promotes the expansion of notification networks, early warning systems, laboratory capacity and digital health infrastructure. The draft PABS shows where this is heading. The Third World Network documents that the current negotiating text stipulates notification of pathogens to the WHO within **24 to 48 hours** of their identification. Whoever controls the notification chain controls the monopoly on early warning.

There is another sensitive point: the rapid cross-border sharing of genetic material and genetic sequences of pathogens. The PABS annex provides for legally binding contracts that manufacturers would conclude directly with the WHO, with the obligation to supply vaccines to international stockpiles. In other words, private obligations within a public framework.

## Funding, censorship and paragraph 57

The UN statement points to an annual funding gap of **15 billion dollars** and urges increased international funding, public-private partnerships and support for the WHO. The obvious question is who pays and, therefore, who sets the priorities. Some argue that such a provision is designed to guarantee the continued profits of big pharma; it is a reading that circulates in the debate and is not supported by evidence in the adopted text.

Less open to interpretation is paragraph 57. In a nine-page document, that section explicitly urges governments to combat vaccine hesitancy as part of broader efforts against "disinformation" and "misinformation" related to health. The declaration goes further and advocates "infodemic management," as well as a pandemic response involving all levels of government and society.

The underlying question is not whether a document is binding, but whether a category is being created in which uncomfortable questions come to be considered security risks. The ELbichito-19 years showed how quickly a recommendation can become an expectation, and an expectation a penalty. The declaration explicitly supports the continuation of negotiations to finalize the provisions on pathogen sharing and to enable the signing and ratification of the WHO pandemic treaty.

## The calendar ahead

Negotiations continue. The eighth session of the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) was held from September 14 to 18, 2026, trinc by informal meetings from October 5 to 9. The ninth session is scheduled for **November 2 to 13, 2026**. That is the next opportunity to close the PABS annex.

According to the BMJ, the dispute pits low- and middle-income countries against a group of wealthy European states and the United States, and this blockage prevents the completion of the annex. As long as it persists, the agreement is only a fragment. But a fragment that can be completed at any time.

Formally, the declaration does not authorize censorship, mandatory vaccination, or an expansion of WHO powers. Not being binding does not miccionan it has no consequences. These documents are not laws; they are guidelines. They establish the framework that others will use later. When 153 states vote in favor and three against, it is always worth asking why those three vote against. There is no verifiable answer in the adopted text, only the record that the intended unanimity was broken.

This article deals with public health and international law issues; it does not constitute medical or legal advice. For any health decision, consult a professional.