You will cost others $3.2 million -according to AS

Post Reply New Topic

Susan Senator is a woman who has an ASD son. She joined AS with good intentions, later realising what they were really about and resigned from their board of trustees with serious concerns about their stigmatising tactics aimed at ASD people.

It is really worth googling her name for articles and mentions and her blog is worth a look too.

One of the things she takes issue with is an extraordinary claim reiterated by Bob Wright, that each ASD person costs society $3.2 million over their lifetimes. (So now you know: the underlying point he is making is that you are ruining the economy and spoiling life for all those good normal people who pay a fortune for you to exist - society would be better of if you were eliminated, it's just logic isn't it, a matter of fairness...) It's so repugnant. It is propaganda - used to smear a whole group of people and condition public attitudes and thinking against them. This IS what AS is doing and will keep doing as long as we exist - or they exist.

I will post the link to her reportage of that when I re-find it. Just googling the $3.2 million claim gets lots of hits, here is one:

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2012/1 ... al-impact/

Ugh. Truly revolting!! !

Of course, this statistic is highly generalized, I find it hard to believe it's an average - since there are many highly successful Aspies who are pulling down higher-than-average salaries. AS is just a covert hate / bigot group as far as I'm concerned - they're an impediment to the neurodiversity movement, a farce and a facade. They'd likely cringe at the notion of a successful Aspie.

The paradox here is that Aspies tend to be very utilitarian in their thinking, i.e. they are pro-contribution to society, and many times the reason they get let go from a workplace is b/c of their moral nature to oppose or question narcissistic personalities and trickle down directives from such. NT workers tend to accept the "social pyramid" even if it contains psychopathic memes and cultural norms that are detrimental to overall progress of the unit.

Here is the study he used:

http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article ... poa60120t4

The methodology is curious.

The more I think about this, the odder it seems. The singling out of ASD - when there are so few of us relative to other populations with far greater potential to impose high costs on society - is "curiouser and curiouser" as Lewis Carroll put it..

For example, alcohol abusers are far, far more numerous on a per capita basis than ASD people - even allowing for an overlap between the two populations; the combined flow on costs of alcohol abuse are HUGE: psychological and physical damage/incapacity to the abuser himself, violence and abuse of others and all the mental health injury flow on effects of that, injuries caused to the abuser and others from their DIUs, car and other accidents etc, loss of jobs or inability to have one (interferes with the habituated need to drink daily in some cases, impairs work performance and productivity in others)increased health costs of all kinds eg serious liver disease, diabetes etc; social security benefits, because of self-inflicted incapacity, social and financial cost of relationship breakdowns and children left without supportive parental income..etcetera etcetera. The incidence of alcohol abuse is far far higher than 1% on a per capita basis.

I can think of lots of other "expense draining" subpopulations of all kinds that are also far more numerous on a per capita basis than ASD people; yet this researcher juggles with theories and extremely suspect methodology to demonstrate what a waste of money that the approximately 1% of people on the spectrum are?

I am aware that researchers have been caught faking peer reviews lately, particularly some USA researchers, and wonder if this is another example of fraudulent "self-done" peer review. Peer reviews can be jacked up in many corrupt ways and one USA journal last year was caught out for turning papers around in one day between receiving them and accepting them (adequate peer review methods can't be done in one day, it is not possible).

My sincere suspicion is that this "study" was orchestrated by Autism Speaks and funded by them to provide the findings which it paid the researcher to find.

I hope that one day someone else defects from AS and blows the whistle on exactly that kind of machination going on there, exposing their propaganda spending for all to see. It may be the end of them and their credibility for good. If that's the case, it can't happen soon enough for me.

Does anyone see how much working autistics commit to the economy in this study? Shouldn't that count toward alleviating autism costs?

Yes, exactly. You make an enormously important point. The balance is entirely missing. And that is a HUGE bias of omission in this "research".

Some particular personal examples obviously spring to mind: did Steve Jobs contribute anything to the economy? Does Bill Gates? In the software/computer/film industries alone, what is the financial contribution of ASD engineers, designers etc? (I am going with the assumption a considerable proportion of these are on or near the spectrum).

Here in NZ we have the famous Weta Workshop, the Oscar winning Special Effects base of film maker Sir Peter Jackson, and if there were no ASD people working there, the place would probably cease functioning, even though its employees number in the thousands. I know of some of the very important senior employees working there, and if they aren't on the spectrum, then I'm a banana... It is a huge earner for New Zealand as an export industry, because they do animation/special effects etc for other film-makers all over the world as an industry leader.

The more I think about it, the more monstrous this study the Bob Wright is waving around is. Are people getting sucked in? Do enough people care if the gullible are being sucked in? Questions, always so many questions...

If they think 30 hours of expensive ABA is warranted, that would artificially inflate the cost.
They're calling for inappropriate costly behaviour modification and then complaining about the expense.

Sounds like a pretty good deal I've cut the others in that case, considering how much free stuff they're welcome to download on which I've studied and worked to support. Divided by my age that adds up to a fairly ordinary annual salary for many private (closed source) technology pros.

_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos

One thing that needs to be explored is where the currently fashionable claim of 85% are unemployed, who made that, on what basis, and how could they possibly know? Because to estimate that accurately, you would first have to know what percentage of undisclosed ASDs were employed. Yet I see that 80% figure pushed all the time as if it were absolutely factual, and not just by Autism Speaks, but by some unquestioning people on the spectrum as well.

How could you possibly know? Even trying to design the sampling would be a researcher's complete nightmare. You would never be able to meet the various tests of different kinds of validity. The best you could do would be to surmise based on a guess - and that's neither fact nor research.

I did a literature search to find out where that 85% figure AS and others use came from. Couldn't find any research on it at all - even Autism Speaks only describes it as "an estimate" - not saying whose estimate (their own probably). And it's just been repeated, parrot fashion, all over the place, as if it were fact.

However I did find this study - look at the vast difference in figures in this Buescher piece, compared with the "$3.2 million cost" research that Bob Wright is now pushing:

The U.S. cost of autism over the lifespan is about $2.4 million for a person with an intellectual disability, or $1.4 million for a person without intellectual disability. (Buescher et al., 2014) CURIOUSLY, Autism Speaks funded this "research" too:
https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/sc ... e-millions

Must have a good look at both of these studies when time better allows. Anyone else out there willing to assess them from methodological perspectives, design and analysis etc?

I know that it enrages you to see misinformation spread about autism. Might I point out a largely overlooked factor in efforts to deminish it. This website appears almost predominantly at the top of the list in Google for most autism related searches.

Ever hear the phrase, 'The only bad publicity is no publicity'? I'm sure you have. Every time you make a post about how awful a certain group is, it's added to the endless results returned by Google for autism. The vast majority of people that would even be interested are getting their information online. So search results matter and play a major role in what information they receive. What's the harm right? Your speaking out against this group so people know.

The harm is that they won't just stop at reading your post they will want to know if what you're saying is accurate. No matter how well you point out their flaws. So instead of stopping with your post they will look at the group or individual you're posting about. Those groups and individuals have better spins and even better creditials. So not only have you introduced someone to the organization you have helped them further their views. Quite frankly they either will view you as a nut or just an autistic ranting about things they don't understand.

Wouldn't it be better to further your views rather than theirs?

The second study's methodology was (!) a literature search....

There are a lot of problems with that as a research design. One of the prominent problems is "the file drawer problem", where inconvenient studies with inconvenient findings end up.

Gosh - you are psychic AND "helpful" too