[vkou]

Doing a cross-continental medical comparison and blaming only one factor, among many, many others, that doesn't even differ very much does not remotely pass the sniff test for a study.

It's not religious faith, but you're going to need a lot more than a shoddy argument.

The argument, by the way, is so shoddy (by failing to be rigorous about both diagnosis methodology, and of differences in environment) that we could trivially use it to conclude that vaccines actually reduce incidences of autism, if we look at America as the undertreated high-autism, under-vaccinated baseline, and at Europe as the properly treated gold-standard... But I don't think that's what you're interested in exploring, no?

There may be a reason why this question attracts so many frauds, quacks, and fools. I postulate: the people who run well-made studies, that we can actually draw meaningful conclusions from aren't finding the answers that the frauds, quacks and fools like.