"[The ToE] makes no predictions that virologists can use to head off the threat of a flu pandemic"
It predicts that intense and unidirectional selective pressure from relying on a single treatment will drastically shorten the effective life of the treatment (hence the combinational therapies against malaria and many bacterial and viral diseases).
Clue #1
It tells us that certain combinations of drugs should be avoided (choosing ones with a common action on the pathogen, e.g. variants of the same drug), will hasten the development of resistance to both drugs).
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the principle of common descent allows us to compare different strains of a disease pathogen at a genetic level and trace its likely development. This is important because it allows us to identify areas of the genome that are relatively 'fluid' in sequence, hence likely to evolve quickly if targeted by a drug, and conversely areas that are much more strongly preserved, hence would be very good candidates for attack.
See "Building Better Vaccines", Scientific American - January, 1999.
Hence a far-thinking and 'evolutioned-up' biotech company might investigate other avenues of immunisation to flu viruses that the usual Hx and Ny protein complexes, say the highly conserved M2 homotetramer complex. This could open the way to a vaccine that gives resistance to a wide variety of flu strains - including bird flu - and remains effective for a long time. Fortunately for us, a Swiss company called Cytos has done just that.
Clue #2
Of course, James, if there were an H5N1 epidemic I expect you'll refuse any such treatment because it is obviously based on 'false science' and would therefore be highly suspect, right?
