Couldn't this be trivially confounded by differing patterns of diet soda consumption between groups with differing likelihoods of autism-diagnosed children?
*That 200+ vs 100+ ratio in the groups kinda implies they went looking for this specific connection rather than it just popping up as they did various regressions, and if you're looking for a specific connection it's easy to accidently-on-purpose pull in people who already believe in that connection which can color their recollection.