Affidavit of Civil Noncompliance with Biomedical and/or Transhuman Alteration

In the course of human history, the reaching of a mass consensus, especially when achieved in sudden urgency, has far more often presaged colossal errors than uniform correctness. All mass advances in reason, logic, and practicality which stand the test of time, rather than relying upon the cheap crutches of peer pressure, groupthink, and Presentism, are at first espoused by the few, vehemently opposed by the many, and then gradually explored, examined, and accepted by moderates in the decades if not centuries thereafter.

The reason for this is manifest to any scholar of human nature: the profoundness of our abilities is only matched by the infinity of our faults. The human animal is as capable of growing feral as any other; it is only through the careful cultivation of elders possessing some modicum of wisdom through experience that this feral nature is subdued. Time and again, our immoderation and extremism prove to be their own punishments, insomuch as they debase their indulgers until their moral compass knows no True North, their mind grasps no transcendent aim which might advance their soul beyond the rituals of reactionary selfishness, and ultimately even their own self-interest is obstructed, leading their enterprises–be it an individual life, company, mafia, army, government or nation–to perish by virtue of their own unsustainable imbalance.

By contrast, those things which last and form the fundamental bulwarks of human life, insomuch as they render human lives worth continuing to live, are the ones which prove their sustainability after nigh-unlimited analysis and even assault. This is as true of our ideas as it is of our genetics. Though in our fallibility we do not always or even often comprehend the histories of the victors, be they memes or genes, by our very preservation in a world that could just as easily not have existed, or existed but to our exclusion, we are assured that every mite of objective phenomena won its place, and that its place was hard-won. Wherever mankind opts to take an ahistorical attitude and tamper with such foundations without meditating upon their necessity and interconnectivity to the holistic environment, we risk and prove the “Chesterton’s Fence” heuristic:

Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place.

Of course, the tearing of reality’s fabric is not confined to subtraction, but also addition. Perhaps the most notorious example of an addition which–like Pandora’s Box–cannot be put back would be the creation of nuclear weapons. When J. Robert Oppenheimer famously beheld the nuclear Trinity test and quoted the Bhagavid Gita:

Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds

he spoke with a less-than-poetic literalness. The masterminds of the Manhattan Project had discussed beforehand the “terrible possibility” that their test would ignite the Earth’s atmosphere and end all life upon the planet. Instead, they merely developed the most horrific weapon ever to exist, whose presence and possibility will haunt our species forevermore. Chesterton’s Fence had received an unsightly plank at the very least–one capable of tipping it over at any moment.

As the tempo of history began to increase post-internet, it was a safe assumption–perhaps most famously anticipated in Future Shock by Alvin Toffler and The Singularity is Near by Ray Kurzweil–that we would soon be afforded the opportunity to tamper with numerous other fences that had hitherto proved unassailable. The domino effects of the COVID19 pandemic serve as an excellent example; therein our species faced a familiar viral problem, but was this time armed with infinitely more options with which to respond to it. Amongst these, perhaps the most colossal was the use of (at first) experimental treatments of the viral vector and mRNA variety. Like the Manhattan Project, this desperate action was a matter of risk and reward; left to individual choice it can only be considered an opportunity supplied by liberty. But its mandate, on the grounds that an untampered human being (one bearing an immune system capable of infection and transmission) is dangerous (one marvels at the late realization that humans are in fact dangerous creatures), supplied an awesome opportunity for the oppression of and tyranny over human beings for the mere crime of being human.

This arguably constituted the dawn of the transhumanist era, wherein, having entirely lost our appetite for grim historical realities, a majority of our species opted to intentionally increase in artificiality–a soft cyborgization to be followed by the harder options of CRISPR, implanted biometrics, etc. Yet, predictably due to the aforementioned human nature which persists no matter the advances of our technology, this otherwise-celebratory occasion was marred by our usual mob mentality and hatred of The Other. Those who declined the artifice, be it on medical, religious, or philosophical grounds, were vilified and pressured, at first merely by words, and shortly thereafter by deeds, to submit to the transhumanism which was suddenly in vogue. They became second-class citizens, if not hunted criminals, for not taking a particular action–a rather dubious precedent for democracies and human autonomy writ large. Such is instead rather reminiscent of the tales of ancient tyrants such as Nebuchadnezzar, who were wroth that their slaves would not eat a mandated diet.

But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.

Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.

10 And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king.

11 Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,

12 Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink.

13 Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king’s meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.

14 So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days.

15 And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king’s meat.

16 Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink…

Daniel 1

Unlike the prince of Nebuchadnezzar’s eunuchs, having no especial love for the willfully unvaccinated–nor the curiosity and foresight to even entertain that the mandated “diet” might not be the universally appropriate one–the world leaders of the early 2020s lazily reverted to the typical genocidal rhetoric of the 20th century leaders they so often negatively invoke:

We have a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

Such statements are devilishly lowly in sentiment, in addition to being factually untrue as proven by so-called “breakthrough” cases of COVID19. Nonetheless, one is all-to-aware that the fate of those who question such frantic consensus is to be ignored until the conclusion they espoused proves so blatantly borne out that the entire mob changes its tune, usually long after the originator’s demise. Independence must ever be its own reward. That being said, when such persecution is upon the horizon one feels compelled to batten down the hatches despite the futility of such actions. Therefore, one feels compelled to raise the following points although it is information already accessible and available to anyone of average intelligence.

The Nuremberg Code of 1947, ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, and codified in numerous national jurisdictions and forms of jurisprudence such as the United States Code of Federal Regulations, renders it unlawful to conduct medical research under any circumstance without securing the informed consent of all potential participants. Individual consent is “absolutely essential” (Nuremberg)–the original incarnation of “My Body, My Choice.”

Medical and religious exemption differ by jurisdiction but are at least partially represented in any jurisdiction which wishes to avoid the appearance of total tyranny. Those with preexisting medical conditions or documented religious objections, for example, are more likely to be granted exemption to biomedical mandates.

For literal example, by virtue of being true:

I, Christopher Lee Winn, am a professing Christian. Theologically I am a Protestant; denominationally I have been a member of Baptist and Methodist churches, and was baptized at First Baptist Church of Rome, Georgia by Dr. Joel Snider. I have professed my religious objections to biometrics (aka candidates for “The Mark of the Beast” as described in Revelation 13) at length in private conversation and public publications such as my short story “Wastrel” and numerous blog posts at Additionally, I am religiously opposed to any biomedical practice or treatment which bears a connection to the morally abhorrent practice of abortion, a tenant shared by practically every extant Bible-espousing establishment.

“The Church believes it to be definitely inadmissible to use the methods of so-called foetal therapy, in which the human foetus on various stages of its development is aborted and used in attempts to treat various diseases and to “rejuvenate” an organism. Denouncing abortion as a cardinal sin, the Church cannot find any justification for it either even if someone may possibly benefit from the destruction of a conceived human life. Contributing inevitably to ever wider spread and commercialization of abortion, this practice (even if its still hypothetical effectiveness could be proved scientifically) presents an example of glaring immorality and is criminal.”

The Social Life Document of the Russian Orthodox Church

In the United States, under the Congressional 2005 PREP Act, pharmaceutical companies which produce EUA (emergency use authorized) medicines are (unfortunately) shielded from liability related to injuries and damages. However, the same protection is not afforded to employers, schools, or any entity or person who mandates such EUAs. The same EUA designation applies to all “COVID19 masks” be they surgical, N95 or respirator, and all “COVID19 tests” including the “PCR.” According to 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I-III) of the FD&C Act, “individuals to whom the [EUA] product is administered are informed…of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available of their benefits and risks.” These EUA protections were even extended to U.S. military under Doe #1 vs Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (2003). “…the United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs.”

The following links expound upon the bolded above at length, including offering materials with which to furnish one’s place of employment or education to advise them of one’s rights.

Religious Exemption & Other Resources by Andrew Torba

Employer & School Disclosure Forms by The Solari Report

Therefore, I henceforth testify in this sworn document that I consider the above protections, legal and natural–even at such a time as the EUA designations be altered–to vouchsafe me against any mandated biomedical or transhumanist alteration/molestation (regardless of the semantic distinctions it may be described by). As a sovereign, autonomous human being, granted fundamental and inalienable rights by God as defined by the Bible, and as a citizen of the United States as defined by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I respectfully pledge total civil noncompliance with any such assault upon my person no matter the excuses offered. I ask only to live as every other human has at every other time when not oppressed–free to work and rest for the betterment of myself and others, with the body I was born into and shall die in. And should it be that a misguided power ever intends to biomedically or transhumanistically alter me by force, I would formally appeal to whatever sense of mercy or propriety it may yet possess to allow me to immediately die by execution as I am.


Christopher Lee Winn

August 3rd, 2021

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s