<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Gay Man Barred From Giving Blood&#8230;To His Mother</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cosmodaddy.com/2010/01/07/gay-man-barred-from-giving-blood-mother/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cosmodaddy.com/2010/01/07/gay-man-barred-from-giving-blood-mother/</link>
	<description>A passion for politics and pop culture!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:39:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.cosmodaddy.com/2010/01/07/gay-man-barred-from-giving-blood-mother/comment-page-1/#comment-507</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:46:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cosmodaddy.com/?p=1621#comment-507</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not a fan of the SBTS at all, having had run ins with them before over the policy. I actually complained about their advertising as well.

They are not interested in any statistics showing that the highest increase in HIV infection is not in gay men at all - the only answer you get to that is pretty much &quot;well that&#039;s what we are advised and we&#039;re sticking with it&quot; - not really what we ought to be able to expect, but not surprising.

I don&#039;t see why they expect a reduction in safety, and they can&#039;t explain it, because surely all blood is going to be screened and tested anyway so there ought to be no higher risk than with any other group of people. 

And their comment that the exclusion is based on sexual activity rather than sexuality is just nonsense. If you state that you&#039;re queer, they&#039;re not interested full stop. 

It&#039;s not just the public that think this is nonsense, my GPs think it&#039;s pretty abysmal too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not a fan of the SBTS at all, having had run ins with them before over the policy. I actually complained about their advertising as well.</p>
<p>They are not interested in any statistics showing that the highest increase in HIV infection is not in gay men at all &#8211; the only answer you get to that is pretty much &#8220;well that&#8217;s what we are advised and we&#8217;re sticking with it&#8221; &#8211; not really what we ought to be able to expect, but not surprising.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t see why they expect a reduction in safety, and they can&#8217;t explain it, because surely all blood is going to be screened and tested anyway so there ought to be no higher risk than with any other group of people. </p>
<p>And their comment that the exclusion is based on sexual activity rather than sexuality is just nonsense. If you state that you&#8217;re queer, they&#8217;re not interested full stop. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s not just the public that think this is nonsense, my GPs think it&#8217;s pretty abysmal too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

