Furuli is a very intelligent individual, but like many such JW's (Celebrated scholars?) he has a habit of forging arguments in defense of certain facets of JW doctrine and policy that are completely incompatible with other facets of JW doctrine and policy
Here's a classic example:
A few years ago, in defense of the transfusion medicine taboo, Furuli argued for an absolute, unqualified prohibition on the "Use of blood." He flatly declared that, "All other uses [besides consumption] of blood (haima), even if not being mentioned in the Bible individually, are forbidden." http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/322/7277/37#12803
This is strictly an argument of convenience that absolves the claimant of any responsibility in demonstrating either a physical or moral equivalency between the consumption of blood and the transfusion of blood.
Unfortunately, it's incompatible with other aspects of JW policy. JW's can and do hold jobs in the healthcare industry (e.g. Doctors, nurses, lab techs, etc.) and their duties sometimes involve the "Use" of blood at least for testing purposes if for nothing else.
The JW parent organization has specifically told those individuals who have inquired in writng that as long as the blood was not being "Used" for purposes of transfusion or consumption, than such "Use" is strictly a matter of conscience.
Like I said, Furuli is an intelligent individual, but despite that, some quirk in the JW mindset seems to prevent these individuals from seeing the futility of arguing a position this is inherently inconsistent. (Like the current JW prohibition on transfusion) Constructing an argument that doesn't contradict some aspect of official policy is a virtual impossibility.