the problem is the anti-vax arguments seed reasonable doubt.Alas, last time it was supposed to be debated, just about every MP got up and walked out, leaving just Andrew Bridgen to read his script unopposed. Why did they all leave? Surely, the point of parliament is to debate. If he was talking shite, why didn't they debate him and put up their own facts? Who organised them all to leave? You can see that two members of the Green party hadn't had the instruction, so some snake from the Conservative side got up and told them to leave.
If you are pro-vax, even have a good, solid, well above average grounding in scientific methods, which many MPs don't, you will have a very difficult job to unravel which bits in the anti vax arguments are reasonable and which are not, such as normalisation of statistics, RNA replication, protein in lipid shell encapsulation etc.
The anti-vax side does not have to prove anything, doubt is easy to seed in any situation. Just have to say that RNA vaccines are dangerous (plenty of cases of monoclonal treatments that kill the patients) and win the argument.
Last edited: