Google has let me down, but I remember an article I read a few years ago in the Indian edition of the TIME magazine. It spoke of how millions of dollars spent o

Google has let me down, but I remember an article I read a few years ago in the Indian edition of the TIME magazine. It spoke of how millions of dollars spent on medicines for malaria between the late 90s and early 2000s had done nothing in terms of numbers for the malaria problem. The problem had just gotten worse. The antibiotics required to cure a person kept getting stronger and more expensive, since the malarial parasite was becoming immune to common antibiotics. The article then did a case study of on single NGO that did not distribute medicines, but rather distributed mosquitoe nets. There was a sharp decline in the numbers for people affected with malaria in the region in which this particular NGO was operating. Some times connectivity, access to communication and information is much better then spending millions and billions of dollars on medicines, medical staff and medical research (on stronger anti-biotics. Throw all the money you want at vaccine discovery and it is not wasted.) when a much cheaper and easier alternative would have gotten better results. If lack of information and communication was a cause of the bad approach being used, then the internet definitely will help in such situations.