Justice For Kids

Autism $$$ (145 Billion) Tsunami Coming


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:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6103a1.htm?s_cid=ss6103a1_w .

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:

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/161/4/343#AUTHINFO ]

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

email: fullterm40@gmail.com

web: http://www.justiceforkids.webs.com


References


1 Ganz ML. The lifetime distribution of the incremental societal costs of autism.

Arch Paediatr Adolesc Med 2007;161:343-349 URL:

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/161/4/343#AUTHINFO


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:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aur.228/full


3 Wilkerson DS, Volpe AG, Dean RS, Titus JB. Perinatal Complications

As Predictors of Infantile Autism. International J Neuroscience 2002;

112:1085-1098 URL:

http://www.andrews.edu/~rbailey/Chapter%20four/7533937.pdf


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;

116:1425-1442.


7 Behrman RS, Butler AS, Alexander GR. Preterm Birth: Causes,

Consequences, and Prevention. National Academy Press,

Washington DC (2007) [URL:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622&page=625 ]

__________________________________________________________________________

 [End of 'Tsunami' article
 
Chapter 11                                                            Justice For Kids Now            1 October 2009
 
Editor-in-Chief Dr. Steer Admits “overwhelming” Evidence for Preemie Risk
(Brent Rooney; http://www.justiceforkids.webs.com/ fullterm40@gmail.com ) 

Is the evidence supporting the 'abortion-preemie' risk weak, strong, or very
strong? On 16 January 2006 the Editor-in-Chief of BJOG (British Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynaecology), Dr. Philip Steer ( Imperial College London),
answered this question in an email sent to Brent Rooney ( email: whatsup@
vcn.bc.ca ):
.....I still feel it was fatally unbalanced because, contrary to what the
author below says, they are not trying to establish the link between
TOP [ Termination Of Pregnancy (ie. Induced Abortion) ] 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.....”

Dr. Philip Steer is the Editor-in-Chief of a publication owned by Britain's
RCOG (Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology), an organization that
is very comfortable with the induced abortions. So, when RCOG member Dr.
Philip Steer admits that the evidence for induced abortions ('TOPs') boosting
preterm labour [ British spelling ] risk, that assertion is even stronger than
objective.

There are some who will read the above quote and believe it to be bogus
or an outright forgery. Such people are quite free to contact Dr. Philip Steer ( email:  <p.steer@imperial.ac.uk> , or 'snail mail' to the Imperial College London) and request that Dr. Philip Steer swear an affidavit that the email
in the Appendix contains quotes never sent by him on 16 January 2006 to <whatsup@vcn.bc.ca> .  Dr. Philip Steer is quite aware that swearing a
false affidavit violates British law. Besides, BJOG's October 2009 issue
has a 'study of studies' by Canadian Dr. Prakesh Shah (University of
Toronto) that reported that data from 37 prior abortion-preemie studies
showed higher preterm birth risk for women with prior induced abortions.
[1] Dr. Steer characterized the evidence strength for the preterm labour
risk of prior induced abortions to be “overwhelming”.

Before February 2009 there had never been a published 'study of studies'
of the APB (Abortion-Preterm-Birth) risk. A 'study of studies' ( aka meta-analysis ) combines data from prior studies and computes risk numbers.
In 2009 two APB meta-analyses have been published and both solidly
confirm the APB risk.[1,2]

To those who deny the abortion-preemie risk, we ask, “What part of the
word 'overwhelming' to you not understand?”.

References

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

URL: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122591273/abstract

2 Swingle HM, Colaizy TT, Zimmerman MB, Moriss FH.

Abortion and the Risk of Subsequent Preterm Birth: A Systematic

Review and Meta-Analysis. J Reproductive Medicine 2009;54:95-108

 

Appendix: Copy of 16 January 2006 email from Dr. Philip Steer to
<whatsup@vcn.bc.ca>

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: RE: Phil & Patrick: 2005-RV-2034 (Induced abortion: cost co...)
From: "Steer, Philip J" <p.steer@imperial.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, January 16, 2006 10:15 am
To: whatsup@vcn.bc.ca
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
things:

(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!