•I don't think that it's clear that you need more evidence than GiveWell is capable of providing to believe that GiveWell's top rated charities have an expected impact comparable to what they ostensibly do. As far as I know, there's no evidence that health interventions of the type that VillageReach and StopTB have any systemic negative side effects. I don't see anything in the interview with Shikwati that points to the idea that such interventions can be expected to have negative side effects. Do you?

•See this GiveWell research message board post for GiveWell founder Holden's current position on Malthusian problems. In regard to the possibility of aid giving rise to disastrously bad government, I see no reason to expect that the sort of work that VillageReach and StopTB do is more likely to give rise to disastrously bad government than it is to prevent disastrously bad government. If you have reasons for believing that VillageReach and StopTB systematically promote Malthusian problems or disastrously bad governments I would be interested hearing them.

•I agree that Peter Singer and his colleagues are often absurd. His analysis often fails to take into account features of human psychology. I find him unpleasantly arrogant. That being said, I give him major credit for making some effort to improve society by writing "The Life You Can Save," even though his effort is suboptimal on account of being off-putting to people like you.

•Again, the main point of my post is to encourage people to experiment with donating a sizable fraction of their income with a view toward maximizing their positive social impact, not to encourage people to donate to charities working on improving health in the developing world.