the problem is the anti-vax arguments seed reasonable doubt.
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.