"Thomas Bartholin (1616-1680) objected: "Those who try to introduce human blood as an internal remedy for diseases are in fact abusing it and sinning grievously. We condemn cannibals. Why don't we abhor those who stain their esophagus with human blood? The same applies to taking someone else's blood from a cut vein, whether through the mouth or through transfusion devices. The inventors of this operation should be afraid of God's law, which forbids the eating of blood." …

Thus, in past centuries, thinking people realized that Bible law applies to taking blood through both the mouth and the veins. Bartholin concluded, "Each of these modes of use [of blood] serves the same purpose, that by means of blood the sick organism may be nourished and restored."61

What happens in the excerpts from the OSB publications that we quote?

Anonymous authors are trying in every possible way

* to identify the concepts of "food with blood", "blood nutrition" and "blood transfusion",

• replace these concepts in the reader's mind with more general ones, such as "maintaining life with blood", "drinking blood", "taking blood into the body" and so on,

* to show that the concept of "abstinence from blood" refers to the concepts of "maintaining life with blood", "drinking blood", "taking blood into the body"

Both identification and substitution are done with far-reaching intent. For example, the identification of concepts makes it possible for the OSB to cite quotations from the Old Testament about food with blood to justify the prohibition of blood transfusions. Substitution of concepts is used to connect quotations from the Old and New Testaments and to substantiate the teaching of the OSB, which it passes off as the "law of God". And, obviously, if it is possible to substantiate an idea like "abstain from drinking blood", then the decision to refuse blood transfusions is brewing by itself.

If we consider the functions of the blood,62 the process of digestion,63 and parenteral nutrition (i.e., the nutrition used by doctors in some cases),64 it becomes obvious that the identification of "blood nutrition = blood transfusion," which is so necessary for the OSB to promote its doctrine of blood, is absolutely far-fetched.

In other words, if the identification, substitution and connection of the above concepts have occurred in a person's consciousness, then the "logical justifications" of the OSB begin to work in full.

A few more remarks on this topic.

Firstly. The above material refutes the argument of Jehovah's Witnesses, who compare blood transfusions to the injection of alcohol into a vein:

"Suppose a 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 infuse it into a vein? Of course not. Therefore, "abstaining from blood" means not taking it into one's body at all." [62]

Alcohol differs from blood in that it is a substance in itself that can be absorbed by the cells of the body [25], and blood, in order to become nourishment for cells, must pass through the digestive system.