TD, thanks again for your ongoing exposure of theocratic pseudo-science. This latest one is a great example of how JW epistemology is a matter of putting the cart before the horse. Rather than let naturalistic or scientific evidence "lead," theological interpretation "leads," and "evidence" is cherry-picked post priori to fit the pre-determined conclusion.
Of course, the Society could simply say that refusing blood transfusion is a matter of faith and leave it at that, which shifts the grounds for debate to purely theological, but noooo! They trot out "scientific" evidence to prop up their credibility.