Cryosupernatant plasma

[George88]

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

People should be educated, and that means sending everyone to a fishing course. Move/to displace people to live in places with water so that they can hunt for themselves and have fresh fish in their hands. This will be possible only in NW system :))

As humanity continues to deplete and harm the ecosystem, it becomes increasingly important for people to learn the essential skill of fish bleeding. In the future, it is quite possible that individuals will need to rely on fishing to sustain themselves. In this scenario, I envision two possibilities in the Northwestern region: either fish will miraculously approach humans, offering themselves to be consumed with a small amount of blood, or alternatively, individuals will need to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle, akin to the harmony observed in the Garden of Eden. Regardless, the urgency of educating ourselves about these matters cannot be overstated. It is imperative that we prioritize learning and awareness now, without delay. What is the difference between whole blood and fractured blood? Would former members object to a procedure that involves a drop or two of cow blood for transfusion purposes, even though there are numerous ex-witnesses who consider the blood issue to be repugnant, and object to it not being used, even whole blood?

At this moment, I came face to face with a cannibal who stared at me hungrily, envisioning me as a delectable feast. He sternly informed me of his intent to suspend me upside down, and let every drop of blood drain from my body, as an act of obedience to God's will. 

[Srecko Sostar]

16 minutes ago, George88 said:

As humanity continues to deplete and harm the ecosystem, it becomes increasingly important for people to learn the essential skill of fish bleeding. In the future, it is quite possible that individuals will need to rely on fishing to sustain themselves. In this scenario, I envision two possibilities in the Northwestern region: either fish will miraculously approach humans, offering themselves to be consumed with a small amount of blood, or alternatively, individuals will need to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle, akin to the harmony observed in the Garden of Eden. Regardless, the urgency of educating ourselves about these matters cannot be overstated. It is imperative that we prioritize learning and awareness now, without delay. What is the difference between whole blood and fractured blood? Would former members object to a procedure that involves a drop or two of cow blood for transfusion purposes, even though there are numerous ex-witnesses who consider the blood issue to be repugnant, and object to it not being used, even whole blood?

At this moment, I came face to face with a cannibal who stared at me hungrily, envisioning me as a delectable feast. He sternly informed me of his intent to suspend me upside down, and let every drop of blood drain from my body, as an act of obedience to God's will. 

I assume that in Judaism a special system of slaughtering animals was developed to be consistent with the idea/prohibition of eating blood. If this is true, then JWs today should only buy meat from those butchers who have such a procedure (the Jewish procedure should be the one God approved for the Israelites in ancient times, i guess).

If the purpose, of the ban on not eating blood, is not to make the meat completely free of even a single drop of blood, then any insistence on a "total ban on the use of blood" is open to criticism. This is exactly what is happening today with JW. They eat the blood in the meat, because there is always blood in the meat, regardless of the fact that most of it came out during the slaughter. However, no one at WTJWorg insists that the meat be completely bloodless. From this, we could conclude that the only important thing is to slaughter the animal, during which the blood comes out of the body unhindered. Obviously, the "prohibition of eating blood" in that case was reduced to the process/method of taking the life of an animal, and not so much to the insistence on unconditional "abstinence from blood".

I remembered the everyday situation in which our gums bleed. How many times have we swallowed our own blood. And by that, everyone like that has broken the "commandment". All such JWs should be called before the JC and asked if they are repentant or unrepentant sinners and then exclude them. :))

I don't like blood as a medical issue only because of health dilemmas, because blood controls and storage are not done properly, and everyone donates blood who shouldn't.

[George88]

23 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I assume that in Judaism a special system of slaughtering animals was developed to be consistent with the idea/prohibition of eating blood. If this is true, then JWs today should only buy meat from those butchers who have such a procedure (the Jewish procedure should be the one God approved for the Israelites in ancient times, i guess).

Slaughterhouses nowadays have a significant capacity, making it unnecessary to have a rabbi present to ensure the meat is kosher. That's part of their process as well, to pray over the meats. However, this also means that an equal amount of cow blood is left in both kosher and non-kosher meat, as well as in any meat containing blood. Given this, one might consider whether we should all become vegetarians, including those of Jewish faith. Your assessment is indeed accurate, as it is impossible to completely drain meat of blood. Therefore, an individual with a moral conscience can make an informed decision about consuming meat that may contain traces of blood, which aligns with your previously mentioned point. How else can we apply your view?

[Pudgy]

Reality tests should always be done testing sgainst reality … not compounded wit another theory for support

[Many Miles]

5 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

Reality tests should always be done testing sgainst reality … not compounded wit another theory for support

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. 

If you mean a particular conclusion should be the result of an argument that conforms to accepted conventions of logical construction, and has solid premises (that have evidence they are true but are nevertheless falsifiable), then I agree 100 percent.

You might also just be pointing out that things we say are real should be able to be proven as real and not just some theory invented as persuasion. If this is what you mean, I also agree 100 percent.

If you mean something else then I'm not sure how to respond.

[George88]

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

You might also just be pointing out that things we say are real should be able to be proven as real and not just some theory invented as persuasion. If this is what you mean, I also agree 100 percent.

I completely agree that individuals should substantiate their claims in their posts. However, the challenge lies in fostering a culture of embracing this practice. The concept of synthetic blood and fractured blood is not new; it has been studied for quite some time.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29580857/
 

[Pudgy]

Before WWII Hitler commissioned German industry to design and build a “Peoples’ Car” so that every citizen could own a car. German citizens paid in advance on the “installment plan” to finance the factories and hire the workers. “Peoples’ Cars”, or “Volkswagens” factories sprang up all over Germany. Those that paid for their cars first were entitled to get their cars first.

But some decided to get their cars early, and found ways to smuggle out parts to take home and assemble on their own.

But upon assembly they grumbled and complained among themselves “No matter how many times I put this together, take it apart, and put it back together, it always ends up a machine gun.”

If it EVER was blood, blood is always blood, no matter how the parts are separated.

All else is irrational fantasy.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

17 hours ago, George88 said:

Slaughterhouses nowadays have a significant capacity, making it unnecessary to have a rabbi present to ensure the meat is kosher. That's part of their process as well, to pray over the meats. However, this also means that an equal amount of cow blood is left in both kosher and non-kosher meat, as well as in any meat containing blood. Given this, one might consider whether we should all become vegetarians, including those of Jewish faith. Your assessment is indeed accurate, as it is impossible to completely drain meat of blood. Therefore, an individual with a moral conscience can make an informed decision about consuming meat that may contain traces of blood, which aligns with your previously mentioned point. How else can we apply your view?

Well, I'm just emphasizing the problem in the definition of "abstaining from blood", as well as in the interpretations of that definition.

What is the difference if you eat 10 drops of blood in meat or receive 3 deciliters during a transfusion?
Does the amount of blood make a difference? If this is the intention of the legislator, then it should not be extended to something that is not written, and say that eating through the mouth is the same as injecting into the veins.

[Many Miles]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Well, I'm just emphasizing the problem in the definition of "abstaining from blood", as well as in the interpretations of that definition.

What is the difference if you eat 10 drops of blood in meat or receive 3 deciliters during a transfusion?
Does the amount of blood make a difference? If this is the intention of the legislator, then it should not be extended to something that is not written, and say that eating through the mouth is the same as injecting into the veins.

Of the biblical decree of record to Noah, since he had no means of removing every trace of blood from an animal slaughtered as food, I think it most reasonable to conclude it was sufficient to make an effort to bleed out an animal before eating of that animal. Also, Noah was not to eat the blood he let drain out. Other than this, Noah was not prohibited from using the blood for other purposes, and neither was he required to use blood for anything in particular (e.g., sacrifice). The act of bleeding out an animal (and animals are souls) appears to be intended as an act of respect for the taking of a life when killing an animal to eat it as food. On the other hand, and unlike killing animals, to kill a human was depicted as a capital offense worthy of life forfeiture of the offender.

As for eating blood being equated with IV administration of blood, transfusion of products like red cells is demonstrated to offer no nutritional support when administered intravenously. Oddly enough, the products from blood proven to have efficacy as parenteral nutrition are products JWs can accept as much of as they want, as a personal decision. Those parts would be, primarily cryosupernatant but also cryoprecipitate.

[Pudgy]

That is like saying that the 1791 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “… the right keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” means you are prohibited from selling rifles to bears. 

What part of “abstain from blood” is unclear?

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

The act of bleeding out an animal (and animals are souls) appears to be intended as an act of respect for the taking of a life when killing an animal to eat it as food.

Symbolism. 
It's not exactly a sublime example, but the instruction, the commandment to bury your excrement in the ground is massively disobeyed even by JWs today. We all flush our by-products into the toilet bowl, which goes somewhere via the water. Somewhere there are processing systems, and somewhere else it is different.
It is about the following. Regulations written by law or spoken orally by God probably (must) have the same value. So, the Law (through Moses) ended and all that time disappeared along with its systems. The Apostolic Rule lists only 4 things as obligatory for newly arrived believers. There are very few rules. Where are all the other important things? Did these "newly baptized" behave correctly even before baptism? Obviously yes, despite the assumption that they were influenced by other religious ideas and affiliations. The apostles do not mention such details.
Some NT descriptions of how individuals became followers of Jesus do not speak of months of studying the teachings of Jesus, like today's BS practiced by JWs. It is actually interesting and significant.

"Abstain from" something means that sometimes you won't be able to refrain.

[Pudgy]

Only four things?

How about “… don’t go swimming until an hour after you eat”?