You have grossly misunderstood the HBT consensus on autolysis. It definitely exists in rare cases but I don't think anyone has had it happen in a few weeks under most conditions. You have to ask yourself how rare does something have to be for you to act as if it doesn't exist? Folks have reported no problems leaving beer on the yeast for months.
Autolysis definitely does exist, I just don't think it's a serious concern when we are talking about one or even two months in a fermenter. I'd put this in the same category as "house could be destroyed by earthquake" or "wife might become furious for some unrelated reason and dump out my brew before it's ready" - sure, it could happen in theory, but it's not likely to in practice and not worth my while to worry about.
For anything that's going to be sitting around more than a couple of months (barleywine, mead) this is a real concern and a secondary is certainly important. All the serious research I've seen about autolysis (outside those early homebrew books which are now mostly discredited) is talking about this kind of year long maturation period.
Unless you are brewing a lambic, of course, in which case autolysis becomes a desirable flavor characteristic (and again you have to wait a year or more to get results from it).
The consensus isn't that it doesn't exist--that would be stupid. The consensus is that it is not a concern at typical extended primary times (1-3 months) and definitely is not a factor at two weeks.
In winemaking, for example, the consensus (at large, not just on this site) is that when aging sur lie autolysis doesn't become a factor until contact time exceeds a year.
In the future it might be good to refer to the sources I listed before replying to my post. A month has the potential to be very significant in terms of autolysis. Now I'm not saying that you have to use a secondary to get a good beer. This is just one of many variables (such as trub removal or prevention of hot-side aeration) that one should consider in order to optimize their beer. I'm just saying it is extremely misleading for newcomers that the consensus on this board is that a secondary fermenter is useless. Again, the scientific consensus disagrees with the board consensus, and I don't care what Jamil or Revvy or anyone else on this board says about their empirical experiences (nothing against either of you guys, you just happen to be the most vocal).
It's one thing to say "I don't think you need to worry too much about autolysis. In my experience, I have left beer in primary for over a month without any issues, and all my beers taste great. I don't find secondary fermenters to be necessary. You should try both methods and see which works best for you."
If you say it like that, I happen to disagree a bit but I have no problem with it. We'll agree to disagree and I'm fine with that. What I really don't like to see is that opinion preached as infallible truth to newbies, and for anyone who disagrees to be shot down like they often are. The information is not outdated, either. If you ever check out any of these journals, autolysis is continually being confirmed and has never been refuted. So please, feel free to tell them about your own experiences, but don't tell the newbies that a secondary is a wasted step.