To: drlink who wrote (51392 ) 10/13/2005 3:31:33 PM From: Tommaso Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 206184 I take bird flu somewhat more seriously than I took the Y2K bug, but I am still scandalizing people by saying things like, "I have said for many years that having sex with chickens was going to get people into trouble." I do think that at the present moment it is a still an imaginary threat and as such is the ideal thing for George W. Bush to concern himself with. Tamiflu sales will probably skyrocket, even though Tamiflu is not proved effective against the bird flu virus. Don't tell anyone that eating Cabbage Patch Dolls will prevent bird flu. The word Tamiflu is easy to remember, so maybe Roche will make a lot of money off the drug. Tamiflu does seem to help a lot with ordinary flu, so at least it is good for something. I am having some trouble getting charts and information on Roche Laboratories, but if I were betting on flu, I think that's what I would buy. But what I am actually doing is continuing to build my bear position against the whole market, I am buying more RYVNX today. If the crowds (i.e. mutual fund managers and others as well as ordinary investors) panic over bird flu or anything else, as we have already seen, even the energy stocks with the best outlooks can get dragged down for a while along with everything else. I want to have a big hunk of money to buy them up. My own guess is that the real likelihood of millions of US citizens dying from bird flu in the next year or two is about the same as millions of people being killed in some other catastrophe, such as an earthquake flattening St. Louis or a uranium bomb going off in Manhattan. Why St. Louis? The New Madrid fault. But a major CA quake is more likely. There are a whole range of things that could happen to set off various kinds of panics. To revert to bird flu and GWB, it is the ideal thing to get peoples' minds off Iraq. I think a bird flu panic is more likely than bird flu itself.