Neither of the linked studies you're commenting on were issued by "goverment agencies", but rather by medical schools. It would be better to debate their conclusions rather than dismiss them as biased without presenting any evidence that this is so.
For antivaxers there apparently are two kinds of research. First there are the few studies (such as the poorly conducted, amateurish ones by the Geiers, who have been rejected as expert witnesses in vaccine-related lawsuits, and whose antivax agenda includes promoting their own autism "therapy", based on chemical castration with pharmaceutical hormonal agents) which claim a link between vaccines and autism. Those are cherry-picked by antivaxers as supporting their allegations.
Then there's the vast weight of counter-evidence, including many well-researched studies such as the just published study in California which found no drop in autism, years after thimerosal-containing vaccines were discontinued.
Antivaxers invariably choose the first kind of study, no matter how few or crummy they are, and ignore the second kind as "biased", defining "bias" as "disagreeing with my fears and prejudices".
With antivaxers now beginning to desert the thimerosal theory (even as they continue to blame vaccines) their lack of credibility is being ever more widely exposed.