Like many physicians, I was taught early in my training that any link between vaccines and autism had been completely disproven—that “the science is settled” and no longer open for debate. I repeated that message with confidence for years. But when I began researching for my book, “Between a Shot and a Hard Place,” I set aside assumptions and took an unbiased look at the data myself.
What I found wasn’t reassuring. It wasn’t the robust body of evidence putting the question to rest. Instead, I found a surprisingly limited collection of studies—filled with narrow designs and major gaps. As a board-certified pediatrician trained at top institutions, I expected certainty. What I found was an unsettled and incomplete landscape—one that calls not for dogma, but for open scientific inquiry and nuance.
