Consistency, Amplitudes and Probabilities in Quantum Theory

Quantum theory is formulated as the only consistent way to manipulate probability amplitudes. The crucial ingredient is a consistency constraint: if there are two different ways to compute an amplitude the two answers must agree. This constraint is expressed in the form of functional equations the solution of which leads to the usual sum and product rules for amplitudes. A consequence is that the Schrodinger equation must be linear: non-linear variants of quantum mechanics are inconsistent. The physical interpretation of the theory is given in terms of a single natural rule. This rule, which does not itself involve probabilities, is used to obtain a proof of Born's statistical postulate. Thus, consistency leads to indeterminism. PACS: 03.65.Bz, 03.65.Ca.Comment: 23 pages, 3 figures (old version did not include the figures

Atovaquone-proguanil versus mefloquine for malaria prophylaxis in nonimmune travelers: results from a randomized, double-blind study.

Concerns about the tolerability of mefloquine highlight the need for new drugs to prevent malaria. Atovaquone-proguanil (Malarone; GlaxoSmithKline) was safe and effective for prevention of falciparum malaria in lifelong residents of malaria-endemic countries, but experience in nonimmune people is limited. In a randomized, double-blind study, nonimmune travelers received malaria prophylaxis with atovaquone-proguanil (493 subjects) or mefloquine (483 subjects). Information about adverse events (AEs) and potential episodes of malaria was obtained 7, 28, and 60 days after travel. AEs were reported by an equivalent proportion of subjects who had received atovaquone-proguanil or mefloquine (71.4% versus 67.3%; difference, 4.1%; 95% confidence interval, -1.71 to 9.9). Subjects who received atovaquone-proguanil had fewer treatment-related neuropsychiatric AEs (14% versus 29%; P=.001), fewer AEs of moderate or severe intensity (10% versus 19%; P=.001), and fewer AEs that caused prophylaxis to be discontinued (1.2% versus 5.0%; P=.001), compared with subjects who received melfoquine. No confirmed diagnoses of malaria occurred in either group. Atovaquone-proguanil was better tolerated than was mefloquine, and it was similarly effective for malaria prophylaxis in nonimmune travelers