No. Jesus had just explained that His flesh is true food and His blood true drink. In verse 63 He said "the flesh," not His own flesh. Our flesh profits nothing, not His flesh. It would make no if He told the multitudes that His flesh is literla food, then told His disciples that He didn't really mean it. Whats more, many of His disciples left Him, because they understood that He meant His flesh was food indeed, not food in symbol.
"I’m not sure why you are claiming? Are you, or the Catholic Church, saying the wine is actual blood with erythrocytes and lymphocytes and cytokines etc...?"
The substance and reality of the wine are changed, the species is not. In other words, the wine becomes Christ's blood indeed, as He said. Its is transubstantiated, not transformed.
Let’s keep it simple, because there may be no disagreement at all.
Does the wine have erythrocytes (Red Blood cells) in it?
It seems you are saying, no. But it isn’t 100% clear.