'Fear of the Invisible'

Login Form


OS : Linux b
PHP : 5.2.17
MySQL : 5.5.29-log
Time : 19:13
Caching : Disabled
GZIP : Disabled
Members : 2325
Content : 83
Web Links : 3
Content View Hits : 363507
Fear of the Invisible, by Janine Roberts
NEW DEVELOPMENT - Many Scientists Endorse Book's Findings of Fraud PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator   
Thursday, 11 December 2008 06:35


the letter to the eminent Science journal
asserting major fraud in key HIV papers - signed by eminent scientists!

37 senior professors, scientists and top experts have reviewed the newly discovered documentary evidence in 'Fear of the Invisible' and conclude that there is serious scientific fraud in the scientific papers held for over 24 years to prove HIV the cause of AIDS. They formally request the Science journal to withdraw these papers - Is this the scientific fraud of the century?

FOR THE EVIDENCE OF FRAUD - SEE LINK in column to the left

The newly found evidence shows that the scientists who did the experimental work recorded in these papers, had originally concluded in them that the cause of AIDS could not be found, the very reverse of what they are now said to prove.  It turns out that after Lab. boss Robert Gallo returned from overseas where he had boasted that they had found the cause of AIDS, he deleted these conclusions and key research findings from the lead paper, rewriting it so dramatically that three weeks later it was acclaimed for proving a virus causes AIDS.  It is now one of the most cited scientific papers in the world, the basis of a multi-billion dollar industry, and yet, government experts ten years later concluded that the experiments recorded in this paper have  never since been able to be repeated and thus verified.

Our Press Release.

Semmelweis Organization supports Scientists' letter

Rethinking AIDS, representing over 2,000 scientists and others questioning the HIV theory, supports the Scientists' letter

Semmelweis Board of Directors Resolution condemning fraudulent research - endorsing approach to the Nobel Foundation

Letter to the Nobel Foundation



- UPDATE -  LETTER TO SCIENCE gets more signatures


Last Updated on Wednesday, 17 December 2008 17:57
PDF Print E-mail

Fear of the Invisible

by Janine Roberts
isbn 0955917727, amazon.com
308 pages   US$19.95   UK£12.99

An Investigative Journey into a reckless and contaminated Medical Industry

This book takes its readers on a journey into the very heart of the hunt for viruses – to the key experiments performed to prove that these invisibly small particles cause diseases that often were previously blamed on toxins or bacteria. It sheds light on the extraordinary assumptions underlying much of this research into viruses – and the resulting vaccines and antiviral medicines.

The author, an investigative journalist who researched and produced investigative films for the BBC, American and Australian television, was asked by parents with children severely ill after vaccination to discover if the medical authorities were hiding anything from them. (I should add this was Jabs!) She agreed, but had no idea how long this search would take or how it would change her ideas. She expected at best to uncover a small degree of contamination.

On the ensuing decade-long journey of discovery, she found top government scientists report alarmingly, at meetings between scientists, that it is impossible to purify vaccines. They stated that the childhood vaccines of today are contaminated with viruses from chickens, humans and monkeys, with RNA and DNA fragments, with "cellular degradation products," and possibly "oncogenes and prions."

A chapter called 'The impure nature of vaccines" draws heavily on official (but previously unseen ) transcripts of meetings between top UK and USA vaccine scientists... it is shocking to hear how they talk when no journalists are around. I had always imagined that vaccines were made of viruses put into a sterile fluid - with a few other chemicals added as preservatives - like mercury... and thought this was what one had to worry about...
fearcontents1.jpgWell - this is untrue... the liquid used is not sterile - it is the fluid in which the viruses are drawn out of the incubator of animal, human or chicken cells... it cannot be filtered as that would remove the viruses wanted in it... so everything of the same size or smaller remains in the vaccines. These scientists all expressed grave concerns.... one of them said that if the Greens in the UK knew what they were saying, they would demand the immediate withdrawal of all vaccines! The author reports a manufacturer of MMR says the vaccine as given to children is full of cellular degradation products they cannot remove from it ... She also cites also authorities saying the manufactures cannot meet the government purity standards - even after they lowered them by a hundred times. A major US court decision in 2008 has linked autism with vaccine contamination.

Thus it is not just mercury - there are a thousand things in the vaccines. Our children mostly do not fall ill from vaccination simply because nature gifts most of them with excellent immune systems...

This book, proof read for scientific accuracy by an eminent professor of pathology, gives not just detailed quotations but also names the scientists who are saying these things - giving web links where possible so people can read the original documents for themselves. The doctors cited said that they dare not tell the pubic about all this contamination - as they might demand a withdrawal of the vaccines. Thus we are still not told despite all the consequences for long-term public health.

There is much research here that has not been reported elsewhere. This chapter cites, for example, a World Health Organization (WHO) senior scientist who said that although they have found the MMR vaccine to be widely contaminated with chicken leukosis virus, they have decided not to tell the public and to continue to permit the vaccine to be made with contaminated eggs.

The author has doubts over the full accuracy of their research, as it is based on discovering an enzyme, RT, not a virus, but these are important scientists and they say  the virus is present, is very dangerous to chickens and potentially to children.  But, to admit this publicly,  would reveal that they cannot purify the vaccines given to our children.

A senior professor is cited as writing the vaccine program was so contaminated and chimps were used in vaccine manufacturing so widely, that HIV could easily have spread in a vaccine.

The author tells how she disturbingly discovered that the key HIV research, that said to prove that HIV causes AIDS, was investigated for scientific fraud by very powerful US scientific institutions (supervised by the US Academy of Science) and by Congress over a four year period. Why is this not widely known? It seems there has been some sort of cover-up.  The book cites their conclusions, showing that they reported over twenty major errors in this research, with some errors so serious that they made it impossible to repeat these experiments and verify them! I reproduce the key documents so the reader can assess them for themselves. This is explosive material.
MMR Contaminated PDF Print E-mail
Written by Janine Roberts   
Monday, 18 August 2008 01:37

extract from Chapter 7 of Fear of the Invisible.


MMR Vaccine Contaminated


A year after I met with the top government regulatory scientists at the NIH Emergency Workshop on SV40 in 1997, they met again in Washington for another workshop on vaccine safety. At this there were representatives of all the major US government health organisations and of the vaccine manufacturers. A third similar meeting would be held a year later in 1999.

The main issue at the November 1998 meeting was whether or not it would be safe for manufacturers to produce the viruses needed for vaccines from cancer cells. Pharmaceutical companies were at that time seeking government approval for this, on the basis that cancerous cells, as ‘immortal' and permanent, would be cheaper to use than cells they had to regularly replace by, for example, buying more monkeys.

These workshops looked at the issue broadly, by comparing the safety of the different ways available for making our vaccines. As everyone present was a scientist, the discussions were much more open and frank than they are when journalists are present.

They started with the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine (MMR). One of the first speakers on this was  from the federal Food and Drugs Agency (FDA) and what she had to report was very disturbing.

‘Today I would like to present an update on the reverse transcriptase  [RT] activity that is present in chicken cell derived vaccines.'  My attention was immediately grabbed. I knew that the mumps and measles viruses used for the MMR vaccine are grown in fertilised chicken eggs, as are also the viruses for the Flu and Yellow Fever vaccines. (The rubella virus for MMR is produced differently - in artificially grown cells taken originally from an aborted human foetus.)

Dr, Khan was reporting the result of a just concluded two-year investigation into the safety of MMR led by the World Health Organisation. She explained that this was initiated in 1996 after the discovery in MMR of RT; an enzyme whose presence they believed could well indicate that retroviruses had contaminated the vaccine. This had greatly alarmed them as some retroviruses are thought to cause cancers - and AIDS.

WHO had then quietly, without telling the public, without withdrawing the vaccine, organised MMR safety studies at various laboratories to see ‘whether this RT activity was associated with a retroviral particle, and even more importantly, whether this retrovirus particle could infect and replicate in human cells.'

What they then discovered confirmed their worse fears.  Dr Khan continued: ‘The RT activity is found to be associated with retroviral particles of two distinct avian endogenous retroviral families designated as EAV and ALV.'  Now ALV stands for Avian Leukosis Virus. It is associated with a leukaemia cancer found in wild birds, so definitely was not wanted in the vaccines.  EAV was however less dangerous, at least for birds as it is natural for them to have it.

Khan added that they had also found another possible danger; ‘There was a theoretical possibility that the virus [ALV] could  ... infect the [human] cell' thus integrating its genetic code ‘into the human DNA' to cause cancer.  The only reassurance she could give was that her team had watched vaccine cultures for a full ‘48 hours', and, in that time period, no merger of viral and human DNA had been observed. I thought this much too short a period to guarantee safety. Cancers develop over years.

Dr Khan then warned; ‘there is a possibility that there could also be potential pseudotypes (merging between) ... the measles vaccine virus and the retroviral sequences' - meaning there was a risk that bird viruses might combine with the measles virus in the vaccine to create dangerous new mutant viruses, They had not seen it, but it could happen.

She acknowledged much longer term safety studies were needed than 48 hours, but said that long-term studies of measles vaccine cultures were very difficult: ‘because the measles vaccine virus itself lyses [kills] the culture in about three to four days.' This had prevented them from studying the longer-term consequences of this contamination of the MMR vaccine.

So far, she added, they had only managed to analyse a small part of the retrovirus contamination in the vaccines. ‘Our ongoing studies are directed towards doing similar analysis' of other retroviral genetic codes found in the vaccine preparations.' It was suspected that other retroviruses might also be present. She also noted that ‘about 20 years ago similar RT activity was reported' in the vaccine. Apparently nothing had been done about it at that time and the public were never told.

She concluded by explaining what the World Health Organisation (WHO) had decided to do about this chicken leucosis virus (ALV) contamination.  It would take the risk of quietly allowing MMR to continue to be contaminated. It would permit vaccine manufacturers to continue to use retrovirus contaminated eggs, because ‘you cannot get ALV free flocks in places where you are making yellow fever vaccine.'

Dr Andrew Lewis, head of the DNA Virus Laboratory in the Division of Viral Products, then warned. ‘All the egg-based vaccines are contaminated,' including ‘influenza, yellow fever and smallpox vaccines, as well as the vaccine for horses against encephalomyelitis virus' for ‘these fertilised chicken eggs are susceptible to a wide variety of viruses.'

This was an eye opener for me.  Before I started on this investigation, if I thought about it, I would have presumed our vaccines were made of selected viruses in sterile fluid to which a small amount of preservative chemicals has been added.  I think this is what most parents presume.

It was thus a shock to discover from this top-level scientific workshop that the viruses in our current vaccines are not in a sterile fluid as I had presumed, but in a soup of unknown bits and pieces, a veritable witches' brew of DNA fragments, added chemicals, proteins and, even possibly prions and oncogenes, all of which would easily pass through the filters used to be injected into our children.

Our vaccines, I thus learnt, are not filtered clean but are suspensions from the manufacturers' ‘incubation tanks' in which the viruses are produced from ‘substrates' of mashed bird embryo, minced monkey kidneys or cloned human cells.  These suspensions are filtered before use but only to remove particles larger than viruses.  The point of the vaccine is that it contains viruses, thus these must not be filtered out.  This means there remains in the vaccine everything of the same size or smaller, including what the manufacturers call ‘degradation products' - parts of decayed viruses or cells.

I also learnt that the only official checks made for contaminants in vaccines are for a few known pathogens, thus ignoring a vast host of unknown, unstudied, small particles and chemicals. These eminent doctors reported at these vaccine safety meetings that it is simply impossible to remove these from our common vaccines  - and this would of course also apply to vaccines for pets, farm animals and birds.

I went to the published reports of the MMR manufacturers and found these confirmed what the scientists at this workshop had reported.  A manufacturer stated in 2000 that it made the MMR vaccine with ‘harvested virus fluids.' It stated frankly that their ‘Measles vaccine bulk is an unpurified product whose potency was measured through a biological assay for the active substance rather than through evaluation of integrity of physical form. Degradation products are neither identified nor quantified.' In other words, it left the latter in the measles vaccine along with all contaminants that lay there quietly, or worked slowly. The pharmaceutical company admitted checking the measles vaccine only for obviously active contaminates. It did not measure how much the vaccine was polluted with genetic code fragments, other viruses, or with parts of bacterial, animal, bird or human cells.




The latest information I could find on the retroviral contamination of the MMR vaccine was in a 2001 scientific paper from the CDC. This reported that 100 MMR recipients were tested to see if they were contaminated by either of the two types of retroviruses identified by Dr Khan and others. The conclusion was dramatic.  ‘The finding of RT activity in all measles vaccine lots from different manufacturers tested suggests that this occurrence is not sporadic and that vaccine recipients may be universally exposed to these [chicken] retroviral particles.'

They then concluded: ‘Despite these reassuring data, the presence of avian retroviral particles in chick embryo fibroblast-derived vaccines [like MMR] raises questions about the suitability of primary chicken cell substrates for vaccine production.'  They recommended considering stopping production in fertilized eggs, and growing the vaccine viruses instead on ‘RT-negative cells from different species, such as on immortalized [cancerous] or diploid [laboratory grown] mammalian cells.I was amazed to learn this, for, to the best of my knowledge, nothing has been done since this report was made to render MMR safer. The measles vaccine is still produced from contaminated chicken embryos.






Last Updated on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 17:12
The Introduction to the Book PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator   
Thursday, 12 October 2006 10:00
The introduction to the book...

Virology - the misnamed Science

The word ‘virus' comes from the Latin for a poisonous liquid, and before that from the Sanskrit for the same. The hunt for them started when, towards the end of the 19th century, it was suggested that invisible living particles much smaller than bacteria might cause the epidemic illnesses for which no bacterial cause could be found. When the electron microscope found tiny particles in the blood serum of patients entering and leaving human cells, this was a Eureka Moment.  The prediction was surely about to be proved true.  These particles were assumed to be invading and hijacking our cells in order to reproduce. They were thus all condemned as poisons, as ‘viruses.'

As more of these were searched for and found in sick people, many illnesses became blamed on them.  They became the invisible enemy, the nano-terrorist we must fear. We were instructed that one of our first duties for our newborn children is to vaccinate them against this dreaded foe.  Thus was created an ever-growing multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical industry.

But, as I have travelled through the science that underlies this industry, I have gradually learnt to ask questions. I now realise that there is another way to see this story that fits all the data. I have learnt from biologists that our cells naturally produce viral-like particles without being invaded or infected, both when healthy and sick. Currently such particles are named by asking what illnesses they cause as if this is their raison d'être, their only importance, the sole reason for cells making them. They would be named far more positively and comprehensively by asking what cells produce them and for what purpose.

Scientists like Barbara McClintock, who won a Nobel Prize for finding that cells operate with intelligence and seek to repair themselves, have given us a very different understanding of the particles they make. We now know that our cells create multitudes of tiny transport particles (vesicles) to carry the proteins and genetic codes needed within and between cells. The ones that travel between cells, those our cells use to communicate with each other - are puzzlingly just like those that we have long blamed for illnesses.

It now seems that we may have broadly misconceived the virus; that they may be simply inert messages in envelopes carried from cell to cell.  In the last ten years scientists have begun to call them instead ‘exosomes', ‘particles that leave the body' of the cell, thus removing the inference that they are all poisons.  Distinguishing the healthy particle from the pathogenic is now an enormous problem for the virologist, for it has been discovered that our cells make them all in the same way, in the very same place.  It also seems we cannot stop this process without risking severely damaging our cells.

So, perhaps we need to halt the juggernaut of virology with its virus hunt, and look to see if there is another way of helping us keep healthy. We need to know how we can strengthen the malnourished cell, rather than use the many medicines that try to prevent it from making particles by interfering with its essential processes. We need to know if a poisoned cell may produce unhealthy messengers or viruses.  We need to learn far more about cells - for only now are we starting to understand how they communicate and the very important role played in this by the particles we had totally demonised as viruses.

I spent over 4 years in the 1990s researching why the vaccines made to protect our children from viruses sometimes instead did them grievous damage.  It then took me over 8 years to travel from accepting without question that a virus causes polio and another causes AIDS to discover that most people, including myself, have been vastly misled.

I now realize that science today is so specialized, that every new generation of scientists has had to trust that those who laid the foundations got things right, for they cannot repeat this earlier work except at great cost. If this trust ever proves to be misplaced, it is absolutely vital to correct this with all speed and courage.

I have been horrified to learn from the highest scientific authorities that this trust has sometimes been very grievously misplaced. For example, high-level US governmental inquiries in the 1990s, guided by eminent scientists, explicitly reported the key foundation HIV research papers were riddled with grave errors and deceptively "fixed." They documented these findings with great care - and I likewise do so here. But when the Republican Party gained control over the US House of Representatives at the end of 1994, it ended this most important investigation, buried its reports and left the scientific papers it found to be erroneous uncorrected. These same papers are thus still frequently used by unsuspecting scientists worldwide, who cite them as proof that HIV causes AIDS. I present clear evidence here that these papers were fixed at the last moment before publication. I also reproduce the original documents so you can judge for yourselves.

When I dug back further, to the origins of virology and the great hunt for the poliovirus, I found the story was scandalously much the same. Powerful evidence was presented to Congress linking the summer polio epidemics to summer-used heavy metal pesticides. These scientists suggested remedies, reported curing polio - and were ignored. Instead parents were told to be scared of a yet undiscovered virus. Today thousands of children are still being identically paralysed in regions where such pesticides are heavily used - but all the World Health Organisation (WHO) says is: ‘Don't worry; we have nearly exterminated the dreaded poliovirus. We have checked. The paralysed children were not infected by it.'

As for childhood vaccinations, surely they have proved a great benefit?  I long thought so, but I have found the government scientists we entrust with our children's lives have admitted, at official vaccine safety meetings reported here for the first time, that they cannot clean these vaccines; that they allowed their use despite knowing that they are scandalously polluted with numerous viruses, viral and genetic code fragments, possibly toxins, prions and oncogenes. The World Health Organisation has also disclosed at these meetings that it has long known that the MMR vaccine to be contaminated with avian leucosis virus. This is a bird virus linked to leukaemia, but the public have not been told about this.  Why most children are not falling ill from this dangerous contamination is, it seems, because most are thankfully gifted by nature with very effective immune systems - and because these viruses are generally not as dangerous as these scientists believe.

As for the great flu' epidemic of 1918, it is used today to spread fear of viruses. Yet, shortly after it occurred, an eminent Yale University professor reported that bacteria primarily caused it, and the flu viruses present were virtually harmless. As far as I can discover, his work remains unquestioned but not mentioned. I thus report it in this book. As for the recent scare over bird flu - any self-respecting bird would fall ill and create new viruses if subjected to the amounts of pollution now emitted in China. What we need to focus on is the pollution - not to waste a fortune on chasing genetic code fragments in birds healthily migrating thousands of miles.

What also of the many eminent scientists who have concluded publicly that the HIV theory of AIDS must be scientifically flawed because their research indicates that it has other causes and is curable?  Is it right that their research is being suppressed, ridiculed and not funded - simply because they have not confirmed the establishment's theory for this dreaded epidemic?  At the end of this book I list some of their names and positions.

Among these dissenters are at least one Nobel Laureate and many senior professors at major universities. But it seems, no matter how important the academic chairs they hold, they are all mocked for so concluding and are scarcely ever interviewed. Instead they are scandalously called ‘Denialists,' as if they had denied the Nazi Holocaust, on the basis that their work dissuades people from taking antiretroviral chemotherapy drugs  - which logically cannot be lifesaving, despite all claims, if a retrovirus is not to be blamed.

I have to ask what are the consequences of this uncritical adherence to the theory of HIV?   So far this theory has produced no cure and no vaccine despite the spending of some $200 billion on research. So, what if unacknowledged fraud is a major reason for this continual frustration? Is HIV science built upon flawed and fraudulent research? As for Robert Gallo, the first scientist awarded the credit for discovering HIV; it seems he may have only escaped criminal prosecution for fraud in developing the HIV test on a technicality; because it was found by a State Attorney General that too much time had elapsed for his prosecution to be undertaken.

As for AIDS in Africa, journalists rarely check how AIDS is diagnosed in that continent. Most logically presume it is diagnosed the same as in the West.  But, if they had checked, they would have learnt that World Health Organisation has set very different criteria for an AIDS diagnosis in Africa - explicitly stating that AIDS can be diagnosed solely on the basis of symptoms common to other major diseases! Thus many diseases can be and are diagnosed as AIDS in Africa. I cite these remarkable diagnostic rules in full in this book so you can judge this for yourselves.

If the dissenting scientists were right, if we wrongly fear a sexually transmitted virus, this discovery would have an enormous impact around the world and especially in Africa. It would cause a vast uplifting of the spirits of its people, far greater than anything achieved by "Alive-AID" concerts. We all know how devastating it is for an individual to be told that they are HIV positive and will inevitably die of AIDS. What then does it do to the morale of the people of a continent to be told that they are not only desperately poor but incurably blighted - due to sex?"

We have been taught to greatly fear viruses - and yet scientists have long known that these are fundamental parts of life, made by the millions by all healthy cells.  I hope this book will help by combating this fear, this damning of the invisible because we do not understand it. Without this fear, hopefully the focus in medical research will shift to the environmental toxins that really do put us, and our world, gravely at risk.

As for myself, my work as an investigative journalist previously was on relatively safer subjects for one's reputation in the liberal press, such as arms for Iran, Aboriginal land rights, blood diamonds. I do not expect such a relatively easy ride this time, given the emotion connected to this issue. Indeed, attempts have already been made to prevent this work appearing, by the same academics who have tried to prevent publicity for the works of the ‘dissident' scientists, I suppose I should be honoured to be seen so early as a danger by them, even before this book appeared! You can read here verbatim their attacks on my work and judge their validity for yourselves.

But the truth needs to be out.  I hope my account will help to lift the fear with which these natural and fascinating tiny particles have been enshrouded for far too long. They are the products of our cells - and they helped make us.

When I began some twelve years ago my journey into medical research, it took me into the grim world of the virus hunters - but then, utterly unexpectedly, it led to me being utterly enthralled by the marvels of miniscule world of the cell and of its messenger particles or viruses, a world that may well extend across galaxies. I invite you to join me on this journey to meet with our oldest, smallest ancestors, ones whom we are only just now starting to know.


For an example of ‘infection' used as a criteria, see Retroelement and Retrovirus Universal Classification - Pat Heslop-Harrison. http://www.le.ac.uk/bl/phh4/retrocla.htm

Last Updated on Monday, 08 September 2008 00:07
Ever wonder how they find measles virus? PDF Print E-mail
Written by Janine Roberts   
Monday, 18 August 2008 21:06

How 'Measles Virus' is isolated for a Vaccine.

extract from 'Fear of the Invisible"


In an online paper entitled ‘Isolation and Identification of Measles Virus in Cell Culture,' the CDC, the central Health Research authority of the USA,  lays out how isolation of this virus should be done so it can be used, say for a vaccine. It instructs, first obtain from the patient a small sample of urine or fluid from the nose or mouth.

Next 'sacrifice' a marmoset monkey,  take some of its cells, then make these cancerous, perhaps by exposing them to radiation, and then give them, on top of this,  Epstein-Barr disease!   Such extremely sick cells, the CDC informs us, are '10,000 times' more sensitive to the measles virus than are normal human cells.

Now add to these cells a toxin called trypsin. The CDC tells us to expect some cells to fall off the sides of the vessel as if they have been poisoned.  They have been. Now add nutrients and glucose and leave for two or three days so the cells can somewhat recover.

Now add to the cells the sample gathered from the patient. After an hour, inspect the cells in the culture with a microscope to see if any of the cells are becoming distorted, or are floating free as they did when trypsin was added. If they are, the CDC says this is proof that measles virus is present and making the cells ill.

This statement made me sit back and think. Why should this illness now be caused by a virus?  They had poisoned the cells, made them cancerous.....  and now the CDC was saying the cells must be ill because they had measles.  Where was the logic in this?  

The next stage involves the addition of two antibiotics, Penicillin and Streptomycin, to the culture and leaving it alone for a day. Again the cells are inspected - and if small holes now appear between cells, it is  now presumed that measles virus has caused these. If no sign of such damage, this process is repeated. If after this there are still no signs of damage, then the culture is discarded.  However, if 50% or more of the cells are now seriously ill and distorted, the culture is set aside and kept in the fridge as  ‘isolated measles virus stock suitable for vaccines!' All this without actually detecting the virus itself!

This is the whole process as recommended by the CDC. There is no mention of the need to have a control culture, no mention of any need to isolate the measles virus or even to see it with an electron microscope. The cells are poisoned - and an unseen measles virus is blamed - even thou' the disease the cells have is totally unlike measles. Where is the logic in this?


CDC. Isolation and Identification of Measles Virus in Culture, Revised November 29, 2001.

Last Updated on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 17:02