[0] Easterly's book is great if you're interested in the stats: http://www.amazon.com/The-Elusive-Quest-Growth-Misadventures...
Their top charity for a long time was a mosquito net distribution agency. It turned out that the mosquito nets were used as fishing nets instead and, since they were treated with insecticide, polluted the local lakes.
http://blog.givewell.org/2015/02/05/putting-the-problem-of-b... https://www.againstmalaria.com/NewsItem.aspx?newsitem=Net-us...
To me there are two issues at stake: taking their 90% claim at face value that may very well still leave them a very effective charity.
I am more concerned for the fishing stock. Assume 5% chooses to use their nets to fish with - is the this enough to have a material impact on fishing stocks? Will this effect the community to the point that the rest also have to use these nets to catch enough fish? Even if not, what is the effect of the insecticide?
Your articles seem to be really convincing with usages rate, but unfortunately rather handwavingly with the insecticide.
Obviously there was a lot more to the Civil Rights movement than a lack of malaria. But it was one of the factors that helped. How likely is someone with “body aches, headache and nausea, general weakness, and prostration” to make it to the polls, to school, or to work? How likely are they to march on Washington?
It's easier to dream big from behind a windowscreen. Easier when you're not hungry. When you're not sick. When you're not weakened from parasites and malnutrition. And for those of us who would love to see systemic change, the "one-trick ponies" may be a good way forward. """
http://www.givinggladly.com/2013/08/malaria-one-trick-ponies...
Giving $3.5k to save a child from dying of malaria is quite a different thing and seems obviously a good thing to do.
[1]http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Aid-Working-Better-Africa/dp/0374...