I like when they point out that many in the medical field view bloodless surgery as the "gold standard", without giving even one example or quote from these so-called experts. If this were really true, and they had this information at their disposal, they would've done so freely.
Well well well, I see that they are still trying to connect blood consumption with blood transfusion. I'm tired of this ignorant stance being perpetuated!!
This is the key. How is it determined(who determined this? WTS? Medical field?) which part of the blood, component or fraction, represents the life of the creature? Because I can pretty much guarantee that if you were to remove any specific component, or even a very minor fraction from the bloodstream for that matter, you're going to die. EVERY fraction spoken of in this article is necessary for humans to live. The way the WTS presents it, a "fraction" such as hemoglobin is acceptable because it would no longer represent life once fractionated from red blood cells. But let's say you removed all hemoglobin from your body - what is going to happen? Will not your life end suddenly? Of course it will! The WTS will never address this argument in print. They pretend to make it appear as if whatever is acceptable is something your body can do without.