Interesting conversation going here. Two things that jump out for me:
1. The WT's argument that "Jehovah's Witnesses" don't accept blood transfusions can only be interpreted a couple of ways. The first is that each Jehovah's Witness has carefully studied the matter, and independently reached a conclusion that happens to mirror the bizarre policy currently in place. The second is that there is no independent analysis happening, and that the policy is an organizational one all Jehovah's Witnesses must adopt and maintain.
This is a very important point from the the standpoint of medical ethics, as well as the law which requires the presence of informed consent. The problem the organization has is they want to have their cake and eat it too. Of course that is not possible, but they try nonetheless.
Oddly enough, from this perspective, their policy on blood fractions actually works because it allows individual Jehovah's Witnesses to reach different conclusions, and does not insist on the presence of "unity". However, the whole thing teeters and falls apart when the so called "formed elements" are involved. Here there clearly is "organizational policy" in place. There is no room for individual conscience, or informed consent. Why? Because the organization tries to enforce compliance via undue influence, i.e. coercion, manipulation, implanting of phobias, publishing of old and misleading data, shunning, etc, etc.
2. The notion that the blood transfusion ban somehow gave Jehovah's Witnesses special protection from AIDS is beyond ridiculous. The vast majority of AIDS transmission occurred via plasma derivatives, particularly the clotting factors. They are derived from very large pools of plasma donations, and expose the average hemophiliac the blood of hundreds or thousands of different donors every year. Plasma derivatives have had the Governing Body's blessing since the mid 70's.