In [68] it is reported that "the existence of common fetal 'appendages', in particular the common placenta, can lead to the connection of 2 placental circulations." In [69] we read: "In monochorionic pregnancy, there is always blood circulation between the fetuses, but all anastomoses function in two directions and the vasculature is balanced." The website "Science and Technology"59 contains an article [71]. It is about the Nobel laureate Peter Brian Medawar. In particular, we find the following lines: "Medawar and Burnet were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1960 "for the discovery of acquired immunological tolerance." That is, starting from 1947, scientific research continued, which by 1954 culminated in a scientific discovery, which was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1960 by the scientific world. What is the essence of the discovery? The bottom line is that the blood of a person or animal may contain the so-called chimerism by blood groups, that is, "... at birth, throughout life, a person has erythrocytes that react with both anti-A and anti-O serum. This phenomenon is explained by the fact that in twins with developed vascular connections during intrauterine life, erythrocytes of group A enter the body of the twin with group O, "take root" there and reproduce throughout life" [72].

In [73] we find even more interesting information:

"However, cross-circulation between dizygotic twins occurs, since chimerism by blood groups has been found. Several cases of the presence of a small population of erythrocytes in a dizygotic twin, differing in group affiliation from the rest of its erythrocytes, have been described. The primordial hematopoietic cells of the second twin "settled" in the body of the chimera twin during intrauterine development. In all such cases, the chimera twin has immunological tolerance - engraftment of a skin graft from the other twin. Sometimes both twins are chimeras, and sometimes only one of them. In dizygotic twins, the same cross-exchange of leukocyte precursors is possible. In boys descended from a dizygotic pair of opposite-sex twins, characteristic polymorphonuclear leukocytes with "drumsticks" typical of female leukocytes were found (see page 28). In several cases, when studying the chromosomal set of leukocytes, a karyotype characteristic of the other sex was found, i.e. in female twins, some cells belong to type XY."

Thus, the possibility of blood exchange in twins was known at almost the same time that Jehovah's Witnesses proclaimed their law on "abstaining from blood" in the mid-1940s, attributing its authorship to Jehovah.60 Moreover, Siamese twins, who share part of their circulatory system, were born before the conclusions of Jehovah's Witnesses, and the anonymous authors of the OSB publications were probably aware of their existence. By their reasoning, Jehovah's Witnesses placed the twins "outside the law" supposedly given by God.

It turns out the following: on the one hand, the "law" of Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, the exchange of blood in twins. Note that blood exchange occurs regardless of the desire or unwillingness of specific people. There can be two consequences from this: 1) either the twins are sinful from birth, because they have broken the law, according to the customs of Jehovah's Witnesses, they are outside of communication, 2) or there is no law at all. To accept the first is akin to accusing a man who is blind from birth that he is blind. The second is much more likely.

***

The ignorance of OSB in medical matters, in particular in matters related to blood, its functions in the human body, its properties, etc., extends to the point that they compare blood transfusion with eating it, and even more so, identify it.

"Jehovah God told our common ancestor, Noah, that blood should be handled in a special way.—Genesis 9:3,4. Later, God's law given to Israel emphasized the sanctity of blood: "If any man be of the house of Israel, or of a stranger . . . if he eats any blood, then I will turn My face on the soul of him who eats blood." An Israelite who broke God's law could be a bad example to others, so God continues, "I will cut her [soul] from among her people" (Leviticus 17:10). Later, the apostles and older men gathered in Jerusalem decreed that we should "abstain from ... from blood." This was as important as abstaining from idolatry and sexual immorality.—Acts 15:28, 29. How did Christians who lived at that time understand the word "abstain"? They did not eat any blood, either fresh or coagulated; nor did they eat the flesh of an animal from whose body the blood had not drained. They also did not eat food that contained blood, such as blood sausage. The use of blood in any of these ways was considered a violation of God's law.—1 Samuel 14:32, 33. … Today, few people would think that someone's loyalty to the Most High God is tested when he is prescribed a blood transfusion. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses want to live, but at the same time, they strive to fulfill God's law on blood." [5]

"In making a decision, a Christian should not rely solely on personal preference or the advice of doctors, but should seriously consider what the Bible says about it. This question affects his relationship with Jehovah. Jehovah, to whom we owe our lives, commanded humans not to take blood into their bodies.—Genesis 9:3,4. God's law, given to ancient Israel, limited the use of blood because it represents life. God declared, "The soul [or life] of the body is in the blood, and I have appointed it for you for the altar to make atonement for your souls." And what if a person killed an animal for food? God said that in such a case, a person "must let blood flow out... and cover it with earth" (Leviticus 17:11,13). Jehovah repeated this commandment over and over again.—Deuteronomy 12:16, 24; 15, 23. … With the death of the Messiah, there was no need to observe the Mosaic Law. However, God still considers blood to be sacred. Prompted by the Holy Spirit, the apostles instructed Christians to "abstain from blood." And this instruction should not be taken lightly. Abstaining from blood is as morally important as abstaining from sexual immorality and idolatry (Acts 15:28,29; 21:25)." [6]

"Many people argue that transfusion is not the use of blood for food. Is this true? A patient in the hospital may be fed through the mouth, through the nose, or through the veins. When sugar (glucose) solutions are given intravenously, it is called intravenous nutrition. So the hospital's own terminology recognizes as nutrition the process of putting nutrients into the body through the veins. Consequently, the physician who administers the blood transfusion feeds the patient with blood through the veins, and the patient who receives it eats through his veins. In the end, the clever inventive reasoning and ambiguities end, and the bare fact remains that a particular amount of one creature's blood was intentionally ingested into another's body. This is what God forbids, regardless of the method of acceptance." [24]

"Of course, when the Bible was written, there was no known blood transfusion or any other medical method of using it. However, God took care of instructions to enable His servants to ascertain whether any medical methods involving the use of blood might be causing His displeasure. According to God's firm definition, blood symbolizes life and is therefore sacred. He commanded that no man should take blood into himself to prolong his life. He decreed, for example: "Everything that moves, that lives, shall be your food... Only flesh with its life, with its blood, you shall not eat." —Genesis 9:3, 4; Leviticus 7:26, 27. The life-giver permitted the use of blood exclusively for sacrifices: "For the life of the body is in the blood, and I have appointed it for you for the altar to make atonement for your souls, for this blood cleanses the soul. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, 'Not one of you shall eat blood.'" —Leviticus 17:11, 12." [3]

In the book "You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth", published by OSB, we read:

"Another common habit in different parts of the world is eating blood. People eat the meat of animals whose blood has not drained properly, and the blood that is released is used for food. But God's Word forbids eating blood (Genesis 9:3,4; Leviticus 17:10). What about blood transfusions then? Some people may argue that blood transfusions are not really "food." But isn't it true that a patient who is unable to take food by mouth is advised by the doctor to be fed in the same way as a blood transfusion? The Bible tells us to "abstain from ... blood." —Acts 15:20, 29. What does that mean? Suppose your doctor were to advise you to abstain from alcohol, would that mean that you should not only take it by mouth, but that you could pour it into a vein? Of course not. Therefore, "abstaining from blood" means not taking it into one's body at all." [62]

In the brochure "How Can Blood Save Your Life?" an entire paragraph "And Blood as Medicine?" is devoted to substantiating the idea that eating blood and transfusion are one and the same. In particular, it says: