Given the controversial nature of the title, I was at least hoping the article would have some evidence to support its claims. I didn't spot any. The arguments

Given the controversial nature of the title, I was at least hoping the article would have some evidence to support its claims. I didn't spot any. The arguments within are sketchy at best. Yes, some aid is misguided. Yes, a few $bn isn't enough to completely overturn the fate of humanity. But jumping from that to the conclusion that aid is a mistake and less money is somehow better than the pennies we're currently sending is not a rigorous argument! A lot of this article paints progress as dismal and exists basically to put supporters in a bad light. Gates' 2014 annual letter would disagree[1], and points out that for all the lack of funding, important progress has been made. If you want to argue to cut off vital life support for millions of people, I'd like to see a little more than hearsay for your beliefs. [1] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources-and-Media/Annual-Letters-List/Annual-Letter-2014 http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources-and-Medi...