24 April 2012
PRESS RELEASE: Autism $$$ (145 Billion) Tsunami Coming
SOURCE: Brent Rooney: Research Director: Reduce
Preterm Risk Coalition
As revealed by the Wall Street Journal (14-15 April 2012) the
proposed 'Buffet tax' rule is estimated to raise $4.7 billion yearly.
The lifetime cost of U.S. newborn babies born in 2012 & later
diagnosed with Autism ($145 billion) is about 31 times the yearly
'Buffet tax' take. In March 2012 the CDC (Centers for Disease
Control) estimated that one U.S. child in 88 has Autism; URL:
There are roughly 4 million U.S. births annually. Harvard U. Professor
Michael Ganz in 2007 estimated that the lifetime cost (medical +
non-medical + lost salary) of a U.S. resident with Autism at $3.2 million.
[1, Ganz; URL:
Bottom line: the lifetime Autism cost of all U.S. babies born in 2012
equals ~ $145 billion ( (4 million / 88) X $3.2 million); $145 billion is
NOT adjusted for inflation after 2007. However, that is just a $ total for
45,450 U.S. babies born in just one year (2012). If one assumes that the
incidence of Autism in Canada is 'only' one in 100 child and lifetime
Autism cost is 'only' $2.5 million, then the lifetime Autism cost of
Canadian babies born in 2012 equals ~ $9.45 billion.
How to start reducing the Autism rate
In 1960 the U.S. Autism rate was roughly one child in 10,000, but
by 2004 the U.S. rate was sixty times higher (1 in 166). If this terrible
Autism trend continues, it is possible that in future years one U.S. child in
40 will have Autism, in which case the total lifetime Autism cost of just
one year's newborns would be ~ $320 billion. It is financial folly for
governments in Australia, Canada and the U.S. to pay for ELECTIVE (i.e.
unnecessary) surgeries that have never been demonstrated to be free of
Autism risk. There exist zero SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS demonstrating
that women with prior IAs have equal or lower risk of Autistic offspring
compared to women with zero prior induced abortions. The best evidence
about the Autism/Abortion risk is three significant studies reporting higher
offspring Autism risk for women with prior induced abortions.[2, Lyall;
3, Wilkerson; 4, Burd] The February 2012 Kristen Lyall (Harvard U.) et al.
study in the medical journal Autism Research reported 26% higher Autism
odds for children of women with prior IAs; URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aur.228/full . The 1999 'Burd'
study reported triple the Autism risk for the offspring of women with
prior IAs. Is the Autism/Abortion risk biologically plausible? To see why it
is very plausible, visit: http://justiceforkids.webs.com/7abortionautismaxis.htm
Financially sane governments should stop paying for elective abortions.
In 2009 via two (2) SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS it became SETTLED
SCIENCE that women with prior induced abortions have significantly
higher risk of delivering premature newborns compared to women with
zero prior IAs.[5, Swingle; 6, Shah] 'Preemies' have higher risk of
'MACE' (Mental retardation, Autism, Cerebral palsy, Epilepsy) disorders
in addition to higher odds of blindness, deafness, respiratory distress,
serious infections, and gastrointestinal injury.[7, Behrman]
[Brent Rooney is a medical researcher with a special focus on premature
birth risk factors; URL: http://www.jpands.org/vol13no4/rooney.pdf ]
Brent Rooney (MSc)
Research Director, Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition
3456 Dunbar St. (Suite 146)
Vancouver, Canada V6S 2C2
1 Ganz ML. The lifetime distribution of the incremental societal costs of autism.
Arch Paediatr Adolesc Med 2007;161:343-349 URL:
2 Lyall K, Pauls DL, Spiegalman D, Ascherio A, Sanangelo SL. Pregnancy
Complications and Obstetric Suboptimality in Association with Autism
Spectrum Disorders in Children of the Nurses' Health Study II. Autism
Research 2011;4:1-10 URL:
3 Wilkerson DS, Volpe AG, Dean RS, Titus JB. Perinatal Complications
As Predictors of Infantile Autism. International J Neuroscience 2002;
4 Burd L, Severud R, Kerbeshian J, Klug MG. Prenatal and perinatal risk factors
for autism. J Perinatal Med 1999;27(6):441-450
5 Swingle HM, Colaizy TT, Zimmerman MB, Moriss FH. Abortion and the
risk of subsequent preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Reproductive Med 2009;54:95-108.
6 Shah PS, Zao J. Induced termination of pregnancy and low birthweight
and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2009;
7 Behrman RS, Butler AS, Alexander GR. Preterm Birth: Causes,
Consequences, and Prevention. National Academy Press,
Washington DC (2007) [URL:
1 Shah P. et al. Induced termination of pregnancy and low birthweight and preterm
birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis BJOG 2009;116(11):1425-1442
Abortion and the Risk of Subsequent Preterm Birth: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis. J Reproductive Medicine 2009;54:95-108
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: RE: Phil & Patrick: 2005-RV-2034 (Induced abortion: cost co...)
From: "Steer, Philip J" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, January 16, 2006 10:15 am
I am tempted to suggest we don't reply at all to this type of incoherent
vitriol, however we might want to reply very politely and say two
(a) the reviewer's comments on 'policy' are their personal view and do
not represent the official view of BJOG
(b) That we asked for two reviews, but while waiting for the second
(which never came) the editors considered the MS and decided it was not
the sort of thing that we thought suitable to publish in BJOG (this sort
of editorial control is exercised by all journals) - we could then send
an appropriately edited copy of the editor's comments (including mine)
to make the point that we had considered the paper very fully before
rejecting it. I still feel it was fatally unbalanced because, contrary
to what the author below says, they were not trying to establish the
link between TOP and preterm labour (which none of us dispute, the
evidence is already overwhelming) but to quantify the costs of the
resulting preterm labour (and we didn't even agree with how they did
that) without quantifying the costs of not doing the TOPs or preventing
their necessity. This is like saying it is very expensive to travel by
Ryanair to Paris without pointing out that British Airways and Air
France cost a lot more. It is misleading. If they had compared the costs
of preterm labour vs adoption/unwanted pregnancy fostering vs preventing
unwanted pregnancy by effective contraception then it would have been an
interesting and useful paper.
What does Patrick think?
PS I did say we would have to be careful with this one!