Pudgy

I remember the times. If you search “JW Malawi MCP Party Card”, you can get the details. A great testimony of honor in the face of years of evil persecution.
If memory serves, anybody could buy the card for about 25 cents, often a half days pay there … and because there was only one political party in Malawi at the time, was roughly the same as a passport to keep you from being tortured and killed.
 

“STUFF HAPPENS” (paraphrased)

How manipulative and reckless WTJWorg is. The blood of these people and many others is on the hands of your leaders.
Be obedient to the directions, even if they are unreasonable from a human point of view, because they come from God himself.
And you, foolish man, are not able to understand the depths of the wisdom of the GB.
During the great tribulation, we may receive instructions that seem strange, impractical, or illogical. Of course, Jehovah will not speak to us personally. He will likely provide direction through his appointed representatives. That will hardly be the time to second-guess the direction or to view it with skepticism, wondering, ‘Is this really coming from Jehovah, or are the responsible brothers acting on their own?’ How will you fare during that crucial time in human history? The answer might be indicated by how you view theocratic direction now. If you trust the direction we receive today and readily obey, you will likely do the same during the great tribulation. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2022/Do-You-Trust-in-Jehovahs-Way-of-Doing-Things/

I remember the times. If you search “JW Malawi MCP Party Card”, you can get the details. A great testimony of honor in the face of years of evil persecution.
If memory serves, anybody could buy the card for about 25 cents, often a half days pay there … and because there was only one political party in Malawi at the time, was roughly the same as a passport to keep you from being tortured and killed.
 

When someone “downvotes” what is obviously satire, parody or a joke, without an explanation, they invariably are oblivious to other nuanced things. 
 

In 2000 the society made a shift to be clearer about its position on what products rendered from the donor blood supply were prohibited. It prohibited whole blood, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. If it is a product rendered from blood other than these, the policy left it up to each JW to decide for themselves free of any community repercussion.
The irony
Most JWs have some knowledge of hospital liaison committees (HLC). They have training and materials for presentations to physicians and others in the medical field. Maybe the single largest published work for use by HLCs is titled Family Care and Medical Management for Jehovah's Witnesses. This published work was a boxed 3-ring binder published in 1992. It's about 300-350 pages. But other materials published for HLCs use were as short as a single page. There is such a single-page document date stamped "Rev.4/02". Its header reads "JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES MEDICAL ALTERNATIVES TO BLOOD". The date stamp shows it's a document revised as of April 2002. At the bottom of the page there is a section titled "PERSONAL DECISION". The second item listed reads "Cryoprecipitate (contains small amt. of plasma)". There is irony in that statement.
The irony is that, on the same one-page flier, at the top is the section titled "NOT ACCEPTABLE". The third item listed is "plasma". The irony is found in the "plasma" term indicated in the PERSONAL DECISION section; it refers to cryosupernatant. The irony is, on this document, the society just calls the cryosupernatant "plasma", yet  "plasma" is in the NOT ACCEPTABLE category. I've had friends tell me cryosupernatant is not "plasma" that it is a fraction of "plasma". But, ironically, whoever put this April 2002 flier together understood that cryosupernatant is plasma. It's just cryoreduced plasma. But it is plasma nevertheless.

What in the world is that sentence even trying to say? Lol 

Because a person has a library at their disposal does not mean they understand what they're reading. Everyone needs help learning how to learn, learning what information means, and when or whether pieces of information do or do not have a relationship, and what that relationship is and potential consequences.
Both sources you cite can be useful though. And, I am a hearty advocate of reading. I'm also a hearty advocate of learning from everyone and everything around me, and I think everyone should be that way. We learn from one another.
I don't know that anyone here is trying to sound intelligent. It seems to me folks here are just sharing their thoughts, if they have any, on whatever the topic is.
I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion. These days I don't know of any hospital that uses a product rendered from blood purely as a volume expander. What you cite of WWII is of a desperate measure for a desperate time and place. As late the the early 21st century there are also isolated reports of extremely remote medical services that have used coconut water (NOT coconut MILK!!!) as a volume expander. But this can be very dangerous because users are gambling that the osmotic pressure of whatever coconut water they use is suitable for IV administration. If it's not, the fluid will, basically, initiate a cascading event of hemolysis where erythrocytic cells explode in the peripheral blood stream. It can be lethal. Hence, anytime a medical facility has used IV administration of coconut water it's a desperate measure, and what they're really doing is gambling to buy time for access to better therapeutics. Again, though, this is unrelated to the subject of products rendered from blood.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Administration of oxygen to a patient and that oxygen being sufficiently transported to organ tissues are separate things. There is such a thing as bleeding to death. Without enough erythrocytic cells to efficiently transport oxygen and carbon dioxide (alternatively) a patient's organs will shut down and they will perish.
What you write here paints a relatively correct picture. There are therapeutics that can stimulate erythrocytic production, but it takes time. As you say, it could be days. It could even be weeks for sufficient erythrocytic production rise to stabilize a patient. In the face of severe anemia, what fills the immediate gap is transfusion of red cells. These transfused cells will serve as transport for oxygen until the patient's own system can produce enough erythrocytes to do the job, and can sustain that production.
Neither life nor health is guaranteed. Nevertheless, humans in need of medical care are looking for the best care available for whatever is their condition. And, when the question is, "What is the scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?" it adds nothing to the discussion to, essentially, simply assert 'It does!'. So far you've ignored all the logical scriptural arguments put forth in this discussion, which is why I eventually just ignored you. But another reader thought your comments above could use a response.

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is a term coined by philosopher Antony Flew. It occurs when someone redefines a category to exclude counterexamples in order to defend a generalization or stereotype. The name comes from an example where a man claims, "No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge," but when presented with a Scotsman who does, he responds, "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." It highlights the logical flaw of moving the goalposts to maintain a belief. 
Constantly moving the goalposts is the invisible trap.
Twenty years and more of “stay alive ‘till ‘75” becomes “overlapping generations”.

My argument against  Synthetic Human Blood is two fold:
1.) it’s REALLY COWS’  BLOOD.
2.) It’s NOT synthetic human blood, it really REALLY  is …. REAL BLOOD.
Filtering it and adding supplements does not magically eliminated that fact..
——————————————-/—————-
Somebody, somewhere, at some time may have occasionally eaten carrion … partially decayed meat … but as a staple, it is a statistical impossibility.
When in the news, someone eats roadkill … IT’S NEWS!

As far as I have been able to understand from several videos, there is a problem in Japan regarding physical punishment of children and refusal of blood transfusions when it comes to children among JWs.
 
 
 

So … the task now becomes … what are the SPECIFICATIONS of the task that the men, full of spirit and wisdom, were to be put in charge of?
What is a legitimate job description?
The basic assumption is that the Congregation would be governed EXACTLY as specified in Matthew 18.
The reality at the present time is NOT EVEN CLOSE !

All things considered, the early Christian church was comprised of folks from very, very diverse backgrounds (think: Palestinians and Jews!!!) who all had one thing in common, plus one new dimension of thought. They all honestly wanted to do right by the One they looked to as their Creator, God. The new thing was Jesus.
The earliest Christians did their best to help this growing entourage attracted to the man from Nazareth, all of whom wanted to worship God in an acceptable way and all of whom heard a call to follow Jesus. They wanted to know how to do it, and the earliest church leaders did their best to help them, and before they passed away in death they left their testimony for the benefit of future followers. They worked to protect worshipers as best they could, but they were all sinners just like us. Today we have their testimony. It's up to each of us to make the best of it.

So … the task now becomes … what are the SPECIFICATIONS of the task that the men, full of spirit and wisdom, were to be put in charge of?
What is a legitimate job description?
The basic assumption is that the Congregation would be governed EXACTLY as specified in Matthew 18.
The reality at the present time is NOT EVEN CLOSE !

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is a term coined by philosopher Antony Flew. It occurs when someone redefines a category to exclude counterexamples in order to defend a generalization or stereotype. The name comes from an example where a man claims, "No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge," but when presented with a Scotsman who does, he responds, "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." It highlights the logical flaw of moving the goalposts to maintain a belief. 
Constantly moving the goalposts is the invisible trap.
Twenty years and more of “stay alive ‘till ‘75” becomes “overlapping generations”.

Certain witnesses gave proof somewhere. Abel, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Job, Elihu, Cornelius. All, names of men who feared (respected) God and worked righteousness, and whose worship was accepted by God. They honestly just wanted to do right by God. Really, when we read the Genesis account, that's all God ever looked for in Adam, and then Eve. Both, His creative work. Now we are where we are. The aforementioned names all testify to the points you make. Each knew and understood the ultimate authority, and their personal responsibility. Respectively, it was God, and themselves. Between themselves and the Creator, they squarely placed their loyalty to Him, regardless of personal consequence. It's scriptural.

A profound statement, and well said. Concise. Thorough. Thoughtful. Big gift in a small package. It's Christian.
The only thing I dislike is the phrase "truly Christian". Smacks of "no true Scotsman". I'm confident you understand. I'll let other readers figure it out. Life's a learning experience, after all.
PS: All underlining is added by myself for emphasis.

@Juan Rivera I finally read through this whole topic, previously only noticing some side topics of interest to me at the time.  And I see that you have often addressed me here and hoped I would offer "on-topic" comments much earlier. As I read through it, I think @Many Miles is offering exactly the kinds of responses I would have offered had I been a little more thoughtful and focused on the original topic.
I agree that Galatians contains themes about doctrinal purity and, per Miles, the limit of obedience to human authority. We get valuable perspectives on these topics as Paul writes about many different things, including his own authority, the good news, being justified by faith and not works, and the difficulties Jewish Christians had fully appreciating that last concept (coming from a background of 1500 years of "salvation by works," i.e., law). 
But it seems that you also intend to find in Galatians some evidence for an ecclesiastical, God-appointed, human authority, such as a governing body that provides a basis for the proper type of Christian unity. I know you are aware from past comments that I believe Paul goes in a different direction on that question. I do think such an authority would be extremely valuable and convenient. But I see too many scriptures that fly in the face of expecting exactly that type of authority today. That doesn't mean that a type of human governing body doesn't serve a good purpose, of course. And this doesn't mean that the congregations are without human teachers and authorities. It just means that we, if we are truly Christian, must share the responsibility with them for what we accept and believe.
Of course, just saying all that is easier than providing the scriptures and details behind it, but many of those points have already been made in this current discussion.
And I like that you are looking for a more methodical approach. I appreciated this about "Rotherham" when I often went on for many pages in discussions with him (over a decade ago). He remained in a private "theology" email discussion group that I lightly participated in for years but I now only read comments from others now and then. Is he still around? Haven't heard from "Rotherham" for years now. Do you know about his health? 
And thanks for locating that blog from Apologetic Front on the web.archive. I found many pages there with some good ideas to review:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150201214409/http://apologeticfront.com/category/faithful-slave/
https://web.archive.org/web/20150201220435/http://apologeticfront.com/category/governing-body/
 

I disagree. 
The harder life is, the more important are “military protocols”.
Even Spock realized that.

I've not suggested Furuli as a credible source on the topic. He's just one of many who've expressed the same or similar notion.
When it comes to personal experiences he's shared, I find no reason to doubt his testimony, though there is always another perspective to every experience. But some of his deductions of evidence are unsound. His idea of what the peri-flood Noah did not use as food is an unevidenced assertion. He uses this as a supporting premise, but it assumes a great deal.

Facing death is typically a new experience for each person. It’s a very personal experience. It’s difficult to judge why individuals face death however they do. 
Thomas Jefferson concluded there was a purpose for old age. It prepared a person for death. That was his view, once he achieved old age. 
My paternal grandmother faced death twice.
The first time she was terrified. I mean, just terrified. She looked at me and said, “[Name], I can tell you that no matter what anyone tells you, or how many people are around you, dying is something you have to do all by yourself, and I can tell you, it’s not fun.” She survived though physicians had said her death was sure. 
The second time she was serene. She said she just wanted to close her eyes and not wake up. She was ready to face death, and she did. She died, but not in fear. 
So maybe there was something to Jefferson’s conclusion. 
 

The packed red blood cells do provide a protein to help 
OXYGYEN…the oxygen is what it’s all about…go anywhere on line away from the societies writings and you will read that.
i think miles as you may have some interesting stories to tell I think your a stirer  who  at times just want to sound of hearing your own voice and over the dumbest subjects..I’d like to know your other alias names you use on line.
there is something familiar out you…and sadly I don’t think it’s good 
 

Some treatments are associated with great risks. I agree that blood and blood products can have negative aspects. But that is a risk that the patient should weigh up.
If you want to point out that disobedience to God's commandment is the cause of death for those who are disobedient, then that's not really an argument. Because on the other hand, obedience to God is also the cause of death. There are biblical examples and examples of JWs who gave their lives for the "idea", for the "faith" because of obedience to doctrine.

Enter Paul's ministry ...
Between Jews converting to Christianity and Gentiles embracing Christianity, we find that each has persons whose worship God accepted.
But Jewish Christians had just learned something new. There were Gentiles who aside from all the Jewish tradition and ritual, had worship that God accepts, just as it was at the time.
Just reading the room a bit, when Cornelius and his household met Peter and his entourage it is a bit more than evident God was nudging the gentiles toward Christianity. Though He accepted their worship, there was something more He was looking for in them. Hence, though their worship was already acceptable, God was showing them something new too. But the new for them was not extensive ritualistic law codes. Rather, it was embracing Jesus and becoming followers of him. Peter immediately offered baptism in the name of Jesus, and these holy spirit bearing gentiles were thus baptized.
Leaping
Between the Jewish Christians and the gentile Christians, one could argue the Jewish Christians needed to make a bigger leap than the gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians learned their expectation of fellowship with gentiles would need them to do a seriously large downsizing. For fellowship with gentiles they basically needed to rip the entire Mosaic Law code out of their head. It obviously wasn't needed for acceptable worship, and insisting on its provisions would certainly hamper brotherly fellowship with gentile Christians, when they should all be siblings in faith.
Holy spirit entered the picture by pointing to standards of behavior held out for all men that existed prior to Mosaic Law and all its associated ritualism. It boiled down to a few items that were not Mosaic Law but were more than natural law. It boiled down to the letter issued as an apostolic decree and found in Acts 15. This decree filled the gap for sibling fellowship for al Christians, no matter their decent.
Enter Paul
Paul knew God had already accepted gentile worshipers as they were, which was made evident by holy spirit falling upon them. This is not to say that the worship of all gentiles was acceptable to God, but of some of them it was (such as Cornelius). Hence in his words to them he didn't argue to ignore the apostolic decree but, rather, it appears he was telling them not to go to extremes in relation to it. Hence, what was sold in a meat market, unless they knew it was something contrary to the apostolic decree then don't worry about it. As Paul said, 'Make no inquiry'. Regarding food used in idolatrous ceremony, it was not the food's fault how it had been used. But once the ceremony's over why waste food that's perfectly edible!? Paul wasn't advocating that idolatry was okay. He was only pointing out that nitpicking about where food had been is nonsense and should not interfere with eating something that's perfectly edible. Don't make a big deal out of it!
Then Paul says to Timothy, " For every creation of God is fine, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." That statement would, by itself, stand in stark contrast to the apostolic decree that had been issued with help of holy spirit. But this statement does not stand alone. Paul prefaced this statement by saying he was speaking of "foods that God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving..." It just happens to be the case that of the foods "God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving..." there was a provision that God had expressed to all humankind that should be observed out of respect for life. That was to abstain from eating blood of animals killed to eat their flesh. This was the "blood" and "things strangled" cited in the apostolic decree.
Jesus speaks
He said, ". . . It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.” Jesus also said, "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks"
Aside from what natural law would tell a person, I ask the question: what would come out of the mouth of someone who understood God's sentiments on respect for life and what He expected in demonstration of that respect? That, out of respect for life and God's sentiments of it, it would be right and proper to abstain from eating blood of animals killed to eat their flesh. This is the "blood" and "things strangled" cited in the apostolic decree that should be abstained from. The worship Jesus spoke of was not based on technical things but, rather, what is in the heart. The heart of anyone who worships God wants to please Him out of fear (respect) of his dominion over them and their wanting to please Him in how they live their lives, which in the end is our worship. Our worship is how we live our life, and it's done authentically only from the heart.