History of the blood transfusion topic in the Watchtower literature

1913 REVIVING OF A DEAD PERSON By Transfusion of Blood, Said to Be Possible.

The miracle of bringing the dead back to life, Dr. A. L. Soresi, of Fordham University, thinks will be a scientific achievement of the future. Dr. Soresi, who is attached to the staff of the Flower Hospital, for five years has conducted experiments of transfusion of blood, with results, he says, that are amazing.
Prof. Soresi here told of saving the life of a male patient, and the body was apparently moribund. After the explanation of his experiments with transfusion of blood in animals, Prof. Soresi said:
“An experiment with a male pneumonia patient was perhaps not as spectacular, but more gratifying in results. This patient was entirely without respiration from all tests applied and therefore actually moribund to human knowledge when I made a transfusion of blood from a normal man through the jugular vein of the patient. The return to life was prompt and recovery followed in due course.
“If such transfusions could be made promptly the loss of life would be materially lowered. Bible Students Monthly Dec 1913

1925 Gives Eleven Gallons of Blood

Mr. B. AV. Tibble, of London, England, has on forty-five different occasions given a pint of blood, for transfusion to patients in the London Hospital. The usual fee is five guineas, twenty-five dollars, but Tibble has always refused to receive any pay for his services. He has been made a life governor of the hospital and been honored with an Order by the king. Golden Age July 29, 1925

1927 Humanity Has a Good Heart

THE good heart of humanity never showed to better advantage than the other day in Philadelphia. A little lad needed blood transfusion to save his life. An appeal was broadcast, and within a few minutes fifteen hundred people had responded, urging that they be given an opportunity to give some of their blood to keep the little fellow alive. What a striking answer this is to those who still hold to the wornout theory that God, in whose image man was created, has a great plan for torturing to eternity almost everybody. In the face of this exhibition of human goodness anybody ought to be able to see that the eternal torture theory is false from beginning to end. Golden Age June 15, 1927

1928 Orange Juice and Blood Transfusion

THE editor of Health Culture, while acknowledging with much appreciation the many splendid acts of self-denial on behalf of others which have been performed by blood transfusion, says that, as far as his experience goes, one cup of sweet orange juice by mouth answers any emergency in which blood transfusions would be used. His observations in hospitals do not prove to him that transfusion is either necessary or reliable. Golden Age July 25, 1928

1930 Some Facts about Vaccination

Golden Age, April 2, 1930 — They rail against vaccinations at length.

1931 Blood Sellers in New York

ACCORDING to the health authorities there are now 8,000 persons in New York who are trying to make a living by selling their blood for transfusion purposes. The number is three times what it was a year ago. The hard times are offered as an explanation. The blood sellers must be licensed. Golden Age May 13, 1931

1932 No Such Thing as Vaccination

In this magazine they rail against vaccinations Golden Age March 30, 1932

1933 Canning Human Blood in Russia

Doctor Alan Hirsch, returning to New York from a visit to Russia, reports that in that country human blood is now preserved for use in transfusion. The blood used is that obtained immediately following death by accident of healthy persons. Can’t help but wonder if there is any connection between the mysterious disappearances of those not congenial to the Soviet state and this sudden supply of fresh blood obtained from the accidental death of healthy persons. Golden Age Sept 13, 1933

1934 Using the Blood of Suicides

IT HAS been discovered that, if used within a few hours after death, the blood of suicides, or those who die of heart disease, or skull fracture, can be used for transfusion purposes to save the lives of the living. This is now done regularly in the Moscow hospital. Golden Age Jan 17, 1934

1937 Italians Were Well Equipped

Dr. Norman Bethune, Canadian surgeon, and head of the Spanish-Canadian Institute for Blood Transfusion, back home after seven months’ service in Spain, said that more Spanish people offered themselves for blood transfusion purposes than could be used. The morale was very high. The food was also much better. The Italians helped, albeit unintentionally. He says: After their rout at Guadalajara we ate spaghetti and drank Italian wine for weeks. And an entire loyalist brigade equipped itself with first-class Italian boots, machine guns and supply trucks! Fifteen thousand fresh Italian troops landed in Spain the third week in June. Consolation Dec 15, 1937

1939 Keep Children Away from Bears

At Larder Lake, Ontario, the parents of a two-year-old child allowed him to offer a piece of bread to a chained bear. The bear reached out, knocked the child down and bit him so savagely that it took three men to club him off, and a blood transfusion was necessary to save the child’s life. This is a second case of this kind in recent years. The Watchtower proves that imprisonment of wild animals is unscriptural. The bear was not himself. If free to roam he would probably never have attacked the child. The bear was killed. Consolation March 8, 1939

1940 The Mending of a Heart

In New York city a housewife in moving a boarder’s things accidentally shot herself through the heart with his revolver. She was rushed to a hospital, her left breast was cut around, four ribs were cut away, the heart was lifted out, three stitches were taken, one of the attending physicians in the great emergency gave a quart of his blood for transfusion, and today the woman lives and smiles gaily over what happened to her in the busiest 23 minutes of her life. Consolation Dec 25, 1940

The first negative comments about blood transfusions appeared in 1943

Horse Blood for Transfusions

At the California Institute of Technology “scientists” have used horse blood in transfusion into humans and for serums for immunization against disease. Dr. Dan H. Campbell, of the institute, reports: We now can use cow or horse blood in transfusions to human [creatures], but the first transfusion sets up a hypersensitivity or allergy in the patient so that a second transfusion is dangerous and may prove fatal. We hope to overcome this in future experiments. Under present methods of immunization, for instance, meningitis germs are injected into a horse. It is these anti-bodies in serums made from the animal’s blood which immunize persons against meningitis. Other serums arc obtained similarly.
The divine prohibition as to eating or partaking of blood does not appear to trouble the “scientists”. Consolation Dec 22, 1943

1944 Not only as a descendant of Noah, but now also as one bound by God’s law to Israel which incorporated the everlasting covenant regarding the sanctity of life-sustaining blood, the stranger was forbidden to eat or drink blood, whether by transfusion or by the mouth. The Watchtower Dec 1, 1944

July 1, 1945 had the first major article on blood. It lays a lot of emphasis on the “everlasting covenant” God made with Noah and argues that this means it still applies today.

In the wake of World War II, during which it had become standard practice to treat wounded soldiers with blood transfusions, there was increased light on the sanctity of blood. The July 1, 1945, issue of The Watchtower encouraged “all worshipers of Jehovah who seek eternal life in his new world of righteousness to respect the sanctity of blood and to conform themselves to God’s righteous rulings concerning this vital matter.” Walking in the Path of Increasing Light The Watchtower, 2/15/2006

1945 WT — SANCTITY OF BLOOD

“Jehovah’s worshipers are cautious to avoid all blood-guilt. As long ago as December 15, 1927, an article appeared in this magazine entitled “One Reason for God’s Vengeance”, and it called attention to the gross violation by the nations of Jehovah’s “everlasting covenant”. That covenant was made by him with Noah after coming out of the ark, and it was symbolized by the rainbow which God caused to appear. In paragraphs 6, 7, 18, that article said: God entered into a covenant with Noah, which covenant included every living creature; and that covenant is designated by the Lord ‘the everlasting covenant’. It was on that occasion that God declared his law concerning life. It is manifest from the record that Noah and his offspring have ever since claimed some of the benefits of the covenant made on that occasion, and therefore Noah and all his offspring are bound by all the terms of the covenant.
“God told Noah that every living creature should be meat unto him; but that he must not eat the blood, because the life is in the blood. ‘And the fear of you, and the dread of-you, shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.’ —Genesis 9: 2-6.
“It is manifest that God intended that when man looks upon the rainbow he shall call to mind that life proceeds from Jehovah, that life is a sacred thing, and that it cannot be taken with impunity. This is an everlasting covenant because God calls it the everlasting covenant and because it must stand for ever. God will never change his expressed rule concerning sanctity of life.”
    16. What did paragraphs 6, 7, 18 of “One Reason for God’s Vengeance” say concerning God’s “everlasting covenant”?
    17 A more recent issue of this magazine, in an article regarding “The Stranger’s Right Maintained”, pointed out that the terms of that everlasting covenant were incorporated or restated in the law covenant which Jehovah God made with the Jewish nation through Moses. That article made reference to God’s command to his consecrated people not to eat or drink blood. In commenting thereon, some Watchtower readers have said that such prohibition against eating and drinking blood applied only to the Jews under the Mosaic law covenant but not to Christians who are under the new covenant.
    18 One person thus arguing referred to the vision given to the apostle Peter on the housetop in Joppa. Then Peter saw a vessel descending from heaven in which were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air, and Peter was commanded, “Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.” (Acts 10:9-13; 11:5-7) However, this was no command to Peter to kill and eat such animals with the blood, in violation of the everlasting covenant that God made with Noah and his descendants. Suppose Peter, in vision, had risen up and killed and eaten; even then he would not have partaken of them with the blood, because he was a Christian and was also under the everlasting covenant made with Noah. That such would have been the right way, in harmony with the holy spirit of God, is clear from what both Peter and the other apostles and disciples did and wrote on the subject on a much later occasion. Years after Peter’s vision Jewish believers stirred up the question about what to require of the non-Jewish or Gentile Christians as a proper expression of their faith and obedience toward God. Should it include the circumcision of the flesh? Therefore an assembly of the apostles and elders of the congregation in Jerusalem was called together to consider this matter. After due consideration the apostle James rose and called attention to the fulfillment of prophecy and then submitted this conclusion as to the requirements for the Gentiles: “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” —Acts 15: 6-20.
” Then that conference of apostles and elder disciples framed a letter to the Gentiles. Besides telling the Gentiles they were not under the Mosaic law covenant, they inserted this organization instruction: “For it seemed good to the holy [spirit], and
    17. What prohibition did God therefore incorporate in his law covenant with Israel and what have some said as to the application of such prohibition ?
    18. How has Peter’s vision on the housetop been used as an argument? and how did the conference at Jerusalem disprove such argument?
    19. What appropriate instruction, therefore, did that conference write? and why was it proper for the Gentiles? to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled [not drained of their blood at slaughter], and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.” (Acts 15: 22-29) They wrote such instruction concerning blood and carcasses not drained of blood, not because Christians were under the Mosaic law covenant, but because they were under the covenant made after the flood with Noah and which embraced all mankind, Gentile and Jew alike; for all are Noah’s descendants and hence under Jehovah’s everlasting covenant concerning sanctity of blood.” That the Christians stuck to that decision is manifest from the Bible. Almost ten years after the above conference the apostle Paul returned to Jerusalem and conferred with James and other elder brethren of the congregation at Jerusalem. Among other things they said to Paul was this: “As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.” — Acts 21:25.
“The principle of God’s everlasting covenant the psalmist David refused to violate or to endanger. One instance showing this is: “And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Beth-lehem, that is at the gate! And the three [captains] brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Beth-lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: but David would not drink of it, but poured it out [like blood which must be poured out upon the ground] to the Lord, and said, My God forbid it me, that I should do this thing: shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy? for with the jeopardy of their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not drink it.” (1 Chron. 11:17-19) David did not argue and persuade himself that these three mighty men were thus laying down their lives for a friend, in order to provide him with something reviving and refreshing.
“On the occasion when Jonathan, David’s friend, gained a miraculous victory over the Philistines, the Israelites who were distressed with hunger slew animals on the ground; “and the people did eat them with the blood. Then they told Saul, saying, Behold, the people sin against the Lord, in that they eat with the blood. . . . And Saul said, Disperse yourselves among the people, and say unto them, Bring me hither every man his ox, and every man
    20. In connection with Paul how do we know those early Christians stuck to that decision?
    21. How, in the case of three of his captains, did David refuse even to violate the principle of the everlasting covenant?
    22. How did King Saul once stop the Israelites from breaking the ever lasting covenant and does partaking of animal blood serve to sustain human life or not his sheep, and slay them here, and eat; and sin not against the Lord in eating with the blood.” (1 Sam. 14: 32-34) This order was in harmony with the words of God’s everlasting covenant with Noah: “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” (Gen. 9:4) Of course, the flesh of the animal creatures might be eaten for sustenance of life and without violating the sacredness of the life which is in the blood. Yet if the blood was eaten or drunk in conjunction with the flesh, then the one partaking of the blood was judged by God to be guilty of the wanton slaying of the life of such creatures and was a breaker of the covenant. God’s regulation clearly showed that one’s partaking of the blood was not necessary to sustain human life and that it was not in the same classification as the partaking of the flesh as food.
” It cannot be said that such regulation applies to the blood of animals lower than man but not to human blood. If the blood of the lower animal creatures was considered so precious, it representing life from the Creator, then certainly the blood of the higher creature, man, was to be considered not less precious. For that reason, if an animal killed a man, the blood of such human life taken was required of the killer beast; it must be killed. As God said to Noah: “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man [a man slayer]; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.” (Gen. 9:5) This decree therefore brands as criminal the heathen practice according to which bloodthirsty warriors, after killing a mighty man of their enemies, would drink his blood in the belief that by thus absorbing such human blood they would at the same time appropriate the mightly qualities of the slain one. Among the barbarous and fierce, savage nations, such as the Scythians, Tartars, desert Arabs, Scandinavians, etc., who lived most on animal blood, there were some even who drank the blood of their enemies after making cups of their skulls. And quite interestingly, in our consultation of various works on the subject of blood, this related item came to light on page 113, column one, of Volume 4 of The Encyclopedia Americana, Revised Edition of 1929:
“Transfusion of blood dates as far back as the time of the ancient Egyptians. The earliest reported case is that practiced on Pope Innocent VIII in 1492. The operation cost the lives of three youths and the Pontiff’s life was not saved. Great strides in the research and practice of transfusion on animals were made after Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of blood in the middle of the 17th century. Physicians
    23, (a) How do we know whether such regulation applies to man’s blood, and how have pagans violated it? (b) What does the Americana say regarding medical experiments with blood? in Germany, England and France were especially active in the work of blood transfusion after this discovery. They reasoned that as the blood is the principal medium by which the body is nourished, transfusion, therefore, is a quicker and shorter road to feed an ill-nourished body than eating food which turns to blood after several changes. So transfusion was thought of not only as a cure, but also as a re-juvenator. Attempts were then made to cure various diseases, such as fevers, leprosy, insanity and hydrophobia. Lamb’s blood was used for transfusions into human beings with varying success. Curious to relate, the Faculty of Medicine of Paris refused to recognize Harvey’s discovery and also opposed any progress made in the art of transfusion. They persecuted those who were active in the research work of transfusion. It was in the end of the 18th and in the beginning of the 19th century that the most active work in establishing transfusion as a surgical procedure after haemorrhage was done.”

1948 Awake! Oct 22 — Dangers of Blood Transfusion

According to God’s law, humans are not to take into their system the blood of others. “Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.” “Thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee.” (Leviticus 7:27; Deuteronomy 12:25) In addition to the danger of disobeying God’s law, blood transfusion involves health hazards. Science Illustrated for August says, in part:
“There has been some talk lately about the transmission of disease by blood transfusion. . . . The disease in question is a liver disease, hepatitis (also called jaundice). The two forms of virus that cause hepatitis survive transfusion, and, assuming that they are present in the donor’s blood, can produce disease in the recipient. This is a very real problem. Dr. Richard B. Capps recently pointed out to the Illinois State Medical Society that there is an appreciable and increasing number of hepatitis carriers, and that, in his investigation, over 20% developed the disease after receiving blood from infected persons. ‘The danger of producing the disease from blood transfusions is real and directly proportional to the number of transfusions.’ Pooled blood, of course, would make matters worse, since the virus from one carrier in a group of 50 might contaminate the whole pool; and for this reason large-scale pooling of blood cannot be—and is not—practiced at this time.” Awake! Oct 22, 1948

1949 Awake! Jan 8 Blood Transfusion—One Doctor’s Opinion

IN The Layman Speaks, June, 1948, Alonzo J. Shadman, MD., of Forest Hills, Massachusetts, voices sentiments on blood transfusion. He said in part:
Years ago, in George Washington’s time, it was the style to open the patient’s veins and let out a lot of blood. The procedure was considered by both the doctors and the laity as the thing to do. That being the accepted philosophy in that “enlightened day and age”, who could “squawk” at the fearful mortality? No one, of course; so what could anyone object to when the Father of our Country was killed by the doctor’s ruthless lancet?
He was exposed to bad weather on a Thursday. On Friday he showed signs that his bronchi and throat were inflamed. According to homeopathic philosophy Aconite would have been the correct remedy and undoubtedly would have caused an immediate recovery. His physicians were allopaths, knowing not a thing about curative medicine. They did, however, invoke the measures in vogue at the time, namely, bleeding (venesection so-called), and they did it to the queen’s taste, and so poor Washington had to give up the ghost. He did manage to gasp toward the end a request to be allowed, to die without further torment.
Today, amongst the allopaths, the pendulum has swung to the other side; so now it is the style to fill a patient’s veins with the blood of another, or of various other, persons. Again, it is accepted by physicians and laity as “the thing to do”, and who has the temerity to question orthodox medicine in this great and enlightened year of 1948? Therefore, who can now “squawk” when people die as a result of this “about-face” professional antic? The general public seems so sold on it that it believes—with the Red Cross doing the thinking for it—that people would die untimely deaths unless a bumper crop of blood for the Blood Bank is not forthcoming pronto, all of which of course is false and nothing more than a ridiculous hoax, which serves a purpose— never fear—though in actuality it is not only not a service to health, but is definitely deleterious to health.
I have practiced medicine and surgery for over forty years and never yet have I given a blood transfusion, nor fractionated blood, for any purpose, and I have never had a patient any the worse for not having received it. I have had many, many patients who were bled cold from accidental loss of blood and a infusion of normal saline solution always saved them. I have had patients paper-white with anemia. The homeopathic remedy always restored their health. I have seen patients turn over in bed and die following blood transfusions. I have never seen an untoward reaction from a needed saline transfusion.
There are as many types of blood as there are persons living on this planet. You are your blood; your blood is you. You cannot with impunity put the blood of one man into the veins of another. The ridiculous blood therapy is in itself bad enough, but not so destructive as the with holding of the proper homeopathic remedy, lack of which not only often results in immediate death, but complications and chronic conditions follow as a rule those who live long enough to pay the penalty of such repugnant measures... ,
You have been propagandized so thoroughly as to the wonderful life-saving power of blood and blood plasma that you may be inclined to turn a deaf ear to my warning. The virtues of blood-letting were just as highly extolled and practiced, and probably had I lived in those days any warning against it that I might have sounded would have gone unheeded. Well, history has proved that the warning would have been justified. Do you think for one moment that history will justify the antics of today’s medicine? You may be sure it won’t. So why not be sensible today? Forewarned is forearmed. What more do you need to convince you? ...
The alluring manner in which each and every racket is presented is convincing at the time, but only to those who do not bother to know the difference.