Preachers' deception on "meat eating"

Is society being deceived by "no meat eating", "no blood transfusion", "no eating meat with blood still in it" doctrines of "blood-oriented" preachers? 

Are these preachers swaying the society to erroneously believe on nutritional prohibition to the exclusion of moral prohibition in "eating meat with blood still in it"? 

My personal answer is yes. Also, it is logical to believe that these preachers are conspirators of sex perverts. These are based on the following premises:

First premise- the reason for prohibiting "eating meat with blood still in it" is because "life is in the blood" and not because "blood is life" or because of "blood" in meat.

Second premise-if you take out "life" in blood, you consequently take out the prohibition. In  other words, if you "eat meat with blood still in it" with no more life in  blood in meat, then the reason is no longer present, hence, no longer within the prohibition.

Third premise-if you take out blood in meat then the result is likewise taking out life in it, thus, it will not also fall within the prohibition because the life is no longer present in meat even if you put blood in meat afterwards. Thus, life is not sine qua non or equivalent to blood.

In fine, what is being referred in the verse is an alive meat because there is "life" in blood in  an alive meat.To reiterate, quoted below is Genesis 9:4, for reference:

 4The one thing you must not eat is meat with blood still in it; I forbid this because the life is in the blood.(Genesis 9:4, TEV)

Fourth premises-the use of verb eat in the verse, which can not be done literally on alive meat, the verb "bite" being appropriate, can drive one into a conclusion that it's use is not to be understood literally but empirically, as in "oral sex" or sexually eating the human genitals.

Ergo, "sexually eating the human genitals" as in "oral sex"  is being prohibited in Genesis 9:4.

Unfortunately, some preachers have been/are busy teaching on animal meats to the point of prohibiting blood transfusion to the prejudice of patients. Is there any eating of meat being involved in blood transfusion to qualify the act under the prohibition?

Worst, ask some priests or a cardinal on what they have done to the prohibited meat.

Also, why are the Americans legalizing eating the prohibited meat? Are they showing their status as a world (not heavenly) superpower, to the point of doing it? On its part, France is also adopting the so-called "same-sex marriage"/eating meat legislation. Is it because France is also a world((ly) and not a heavenly) power?

Click to The Oral Sex Theory to have a comprehensive understanding.