Cryosupernatant plasma

[Many Miles]

Cryosupernatant plasma (also known as cryo-poor plasma, cryoprecipitate depleted [or reduced] plasma) is a product rendered from blood that is left to individual JWs to accept or decline purely as a personal choice.

For whatever reason(s), cryosupernatant plasma has never been mentioned in our publications addressing use of products rendered from blood. This despite cryoprecipitate plasma finding ready reference in the general search bar at jw.org.

Medical use of cryosupernatant plasma is said to have markedly improved medical outcomes for JWs who accept it, and particularly for those suffering from acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). In this case the use of cryosupernatant is as a plasma exchange. The procedure uses an IV tube placed in a vein to remove blood from a TTP patient. The blood will traverse a cell separator to remove plasma from the blood. The non-plasma part of the blood is saved, and the donated cryosupernatant plasma is added to it (replacing the patient’s own blood plasma). The blood is then put back into the patient’s system through an IV line. This process can take a couple hours, and the plasma replacement therapy will continue daily for days or weeks until symptoms improve.

Because plasma makes up the majority of our circulating blood, as you can imagine, this procedure requires a lot of donated blood plasma.

Recently I have found this blood product cited for therapeutic use at jw.org, but not in the general search engine. To find this reference you have to navigate to the link for Medical Information for Clinicians page and use the search engine there. I’m unsure how long this reference has been there, but it is now.

So, though we don’t find this product on any of our diagrams, it is there, and it can save lives.

[Many Miles]

1 minute ago, George88 said:

This might help your research.

...

Thanks George. As my initial post suggests, I'm familiar with all these instances of our publications naming cryoprecipitate as product we can accept from donor blood, but nowhere does our publications mention the use of cryosupernatant plasma as something we can accept transfusion of.

[Pudgy]

It is depressingly sad when the WTB&TS finally adopts the right viewpoint, then screws it up listening to their accountants and lawyers to avoid being sued by indecisive people terrified of dying.

What part of “Abstain from Blood” is not crystal clear?

Stealing a car is wrong, whole, or in dozens of car parts. It’s STILL a stolen car!

If you separate whole blood into 13 components, and hook up 13 tubes to your body and pump it in, you don’t get disfellowshipped.

…. and the Society doesn’t get sued.

 

[Many Miles]

53 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

...

What part of “Abstain from Blood” is not crystal clear?

...

 

Depends on who you ask.

For starters, there is no verb, so we are forced to attribute a verb. The most likely candidate is "eat" or "eating" since nowhere were ancient faithful men and woman, like Noah and Job, ever prohibited from otherwise using blood, and it was useful and used for many purposes by ancient peoples, including medicinal transplantation as a preventative in some cases and as a therapeutic in others.

Then there is the question of what blood to abstain from, since contemporary society makes use of donor blood and not blood taken by assault (i.e., using a living animal to eat its flesh without killing and draining its blood first, which is what Noah was prohibited from doing).

That's just the tip of the questions posed by the simple statement to abstain from blood. Some aspects of these questions are addressed in our publications, and some are not.

[Pudgy]

Flesh we can eat.

Blood has to be returned to God.

He says the blood belongs to him!

It is symbolic.  A form of teaching obedience and respect … to God and the animal.

Interestingly enough, it seems to only apply to animals who have “the breath of life”.

I have never heard of anyone bleeding a fish.

[Many Miles]

2 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

Flesh we can eat.

Blood has to be returned to God.

He says the blood belongs to him!

It is symbolic.  A form of teaching obedience and respect … to God and the animal.

Interestingly enough, it seems to only apply to animals who have “the breath of life”.

I have never heard of anyone bleeding a fish.

I don't see anything said to Noah about returning blood to God. It just said he could not eat the blood of a living animal, he had to kill a living animal to use that animal as food. There is an inherent symbolic respect for life in that. But aside from eating the blood of slaughtered animals, I don't see where Noah was forbidden to use blood from those slaughtered animals however he wanted to.

Also, what was said to Noah was said of living animals and not carcasses of deceased beasts. I don't see anything prior to or after the flood about prohibiting the natural use of carrion flesh as food (and here I'm speaking of beasts that had died of their own accord and not by human hand). Carrion has been a food eaten since creation. This is a process created by God. Creation testifies to it. And, carcasses dead of natural cause have no soul to return to God. It's as true of animals as it is of persons.

[Pudgy]

Believe what you want.

No skin off my nose.

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, George88 said:

Where's the dancing frog when you need him, lol!

https://www.wikihow.com/Bleed-a-Fish

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 :))

[Pudgy]

…

 

[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.

[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.