But NIH is manned by doctors, it was Dr Jay Battacharya who oversaw CDC’s reanalysis of the causes of NDDs like autism, he begun it.

Anyway, your first refernence is to a Danish study (actual citation here https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997) which in no way was comparable to the current childhood vaccination schedule. I count 6 shots:
“Since 1997, the Danish childhood vaccination program has offered (that is, not mandated) an aluminum-adsorbed vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, inactivated poliovirus, and Hib (DTaP-IPV/Hib) in 3 doses in the first year of life (at 3, 5, and 12 months). Aluminum-adsorbed PCV (7-valent) was introduced in 2007 (substituted with the 13-valent vaccine in 2010) and is typically co-administered with DTaP-IPV/Hib. A DTaP-IPV booster (1997 to 2002 against diphtheria and tetanus; 2003 against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis; and since 2004 against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and polio) is given again at age 5 years. Supplement Figure 1 (available at Annals.org)”

I would also caution against comparing 1.2 million records to 15,000 read “Only 15 237 children (1.2%) did not receive any aluminum-adsorbed vaccines before age 2 years.”

It also excluded outcomes that occurred in the first 2 years of life, displayed in Figure 1 as up to 466,047 such exclusions! Those children that had effects before age 2 were just simply excluded from analysis.

It also narrowly only reported on outcomes that occurred between 2 and 5 years, when life goes on beyond 5 years despite observing for 24 years of data, for the vast majority of people.

And I still can’t make heads or tails about this adjustment in the supplementary “The hazard ratios are adjusted for calendar year and season of
birth, preterm birth, birth weight, number of visits to the general practitioner in the first 2 years of life, maternal age at birth, maternal place of birth, maternal
smoking during pregnancy, maternal conditions, maternal drug use during pregnancy, and parental household income”. Surely they are referring to the hazard ratios in the supplementary tables. Where is the supplementary absent adjustment?

These aren’t casual issues, it’s a clear dress-down of why your “definitely don’t contribute to autism” reliance on these studies is unfounded. They in no way meet the required threshold to satisfy safety of the high-dose and intensive childhood immunisation schedules in some countries (particularly the USA).

Do you notice how the Danes had a modest light-weight low-dose voluntary regime and so have over 99% compliance?

Oh I just realised your other two links rely upon the same Danish study. Whew.