Cryosupernatant plasma

[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”?

[Many Miles]

2 hours ago, Pudgy said:

...

What part of “abstain from blood” is unclear?

It's not unclear at all to me. It means we should abstain from blood the same as Noah was to abstain from blood. If Noah wanted to use a living animal's flesh as food to eat he had to kill the animal and he was to abstain from eating the blood of the animal he killed to eat.

Arguably, the same phrase also means we should abstain from unjustifiable homicide, just like Noah was to do.

[Matthew9969]

On 10/26/2023 at 9:11 AM, 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?

When I went to Israel last year, all their meat is kosher and man can you tell the difference in quality and taste. Even the double big mac I got from McDonalds taste better than here in the states.

[Pudgy]

53 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

When I went to Israel last year, all their meat is kosher and man can you tell the difference in quality and taste. Even the double big mac I got from McDonalds taste better than here in the states.

That’s because over there, it’s McDavid’s. 

[Pudgy]

3 hours ago, Many Miles said:

It's not unclear at all to me. It means we should abstain from blood the same as Noah was to abstain from blood. If Noah wanted to use a living animal's flesh as food to eat he had to kill the animal and he was to abstain from eating the blood of the animal he killed to eat.

Arguably, the same phrase also means we should abstain from unjustifiable homicide, just like Noah was to do.

Yes, that is certainly arguable.

Did Noah kill anyone?

[Many Miles]

On 10/25/2023 at 1:56 PM, Many Miles said:

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.

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.

[Pudgy]

There is NO Biblical injunction or prohibition against cannibalism … but for a moment, let’s assume God said “ABSTAIN FROM CANNIBALISM”, which all rational people would understand as “Don’t eat people”.

OK, got it. But you are a Catholic in a Castle on the coast of Valencia, Spain in 1099, under siege by the Muslim Hoards, and the people and soldiers are starving, seemingly about to be totally overwhelmed by the Moors and slaughtered. The Catholic Bishop is a guy that normally never misses a meal, even in times like these, and for  his entire life has preached “Abstain from cannibalism”, because in times like these, the issue does occasionally come up in real life.

The people are dying of starvation, but can still run HIM through with a sword, so he tells them “Any soldier or citizen killed may be eaten, as long as it does not appear to be people.” No faces, fingers, toes, genitals, etc., but brains, livers, and appendages cut into steaks are ok.

OH, and uh …. the Church leaves it up to your conscience to decide IF THESE FRACTIONAL PEOPLE ARE STILL “PEOPLE”, if the “fractions” are prepared and cooked so they are not recognizable.

The same “problem” exists with blood.

Separated  fractional blood, if it EVER WAS blood, does not ever cease being blood because of fractionalization, any more than a separated arm and a hand is not still a human arm and hand …. even when separated from the whole body.