Kelly Louderback-Wood has been discussed on a few threads on this forum, and I am not sure if a link to this essay has been posted before.
Regardless...this is a valuable essay that helps a person wade through the misrepresentations that the WT publishes concerning their noblood stance.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation (download pdf)
The Society’s main resource regarding its blood policy, “How Can Blood Save Your Life?” (“pamphlet”), teaches both Witnesses and interested persons about the religion’s blood prohibition. In addition to giving the Society’s religious interpretation, the pamphlet relies on quotes from historians, scientists, and medical professionals to bolster its no-blood position. This essay will first discuss the pamphlet’s misrepresentations of these secular writers and the availability of private action suits for persons harmed when a religious organization misrepresents secular facts. Furthermore, the Society’s blood policy is both complex and ever-changing with respect to acceptable blood techniques and permitted blood products. Thus, this essay will also examine misrepresentations within the dissemination of the blood policy that could leave both Witnesses and medical staff ill-advised. This essay does not address the veracity of other Jehovah’s Witness writings and is not meant to be an attack on the religion’s beliefs, including its belief that mankind should abstain from blood. It is meant, however, to further legal theory regarding the use of tort law as a narrowly tailored means for affording harmed persons legal redress.
Louderback-Wood offers a legal discussion of the concept of "tort of misrepresentation" and then, on page 8, she begins to dissect the WT's literature (*propaganda*) that promotes the noblood stand.
Society’s Main Blood Indoctrination Literature Misrepresents
In making the transformation to not accepting blood, many
followers rely on the Society’s pamphlet, “How Can Blood
Save Your Life?” (“pamphlet”),36 which states, “Medical
evidence is offered to support blood therapy. Thus, you
owe it to yourself to get the facts in order to make an
informed choice about blood.”37 This claim to veracity
immediately precedes the Society’s particular version of the
medical risks surrounding blood and medical alternatives,
thereby suggesting that the medical information that
follows is factual.
This section discusses the pamphlet’s veracity through
analyzing the Society’s multiple misquotes of individual
secular writers including: (1) scientists and biblical
historians; (2) the medical community’s assessment of
blood-born disease risks; and (3) doctors’ assessments of
quality alternatives to blood, including the magnitude of
risks from foregoing a blood transfusion. This section will
then document the pamphlet’s near-omission of the
Society’s acceptance of blood fractions, an exception
clouded in obscurity as will be shown.