There is no credible evidence to support this claim.

Please provide a respected peer reviewed study where thorough tests have been conducted, not paid Monsanto scientists.

The current approved GMOs have no nutritional difference than their non GMO counterparts.

If case numbers remained low, that would be true, yes. But if vaccination rates fall below the threshold of herd immunity, case numbers won't be low, they'll skyrocket. Huge numbers of people would be needing courses of antibiotics, anti-virals, analgesics, antipyretics, etc. It would be a pharmaceutical goldmine. 

In the States money talk, your best bet to stop all this antivaccer craze going on is one parent, of a sick kid, suing an other one that didn't vaccinate his or her child that caused the first child to get sick. The deadlier the illness, the higher the cash reward will be.

Its not up for debate...food can be genetically modified to have more nutrients and there are numerous cases where that happens (ex. http://banana.aatf-africa.org/news/media/new-gm-banana-could-help-tackle-uganda%E2%80%99s-nutrition-challenges ). Once again, it is not a blanket statement, but GMO isn't a blanket term. All it means is that the organism has been genetically modified. These modifications can increase nutrient content, increase herbicide resistance, increase size, increase yield, increase habitat etc.. 

Personally, I am against GMOs, largely due to economic reasons, however, I think it is silly to be scared of the phrase "genetically modified", as it really doesn't tell you anything. I do think more studies need to be done on individual gene changes, but insisting on the blanket statement "GMOs are bad" just seems reductive. 

There is a lot of work to be done moving forwards with GMOs and regulations, which starts at patent reform and moves through to heavier regulations on what is allowed, backed by government funded research. The current state of GMOs is dangerous as it rests solely on the backs of a business instead of on science, and that power needs to be equalized, however, once again, it is reductive to state the issue so simply as to say that "GMOs are bad".

Actually quite plausible, or better yet, Disney Land suing one of the parents that brought a measles carrier to their park, whoever patient zero was in this case. It would be terrible optics, but would tell these folks that they're going to come for you if you don't get your kid vaccinated, and the Republicans wouldn't be able to scream big government, since it would be private groups undertaking the matter.

It's up for debate because there is no scientific reviewed evidence to back up these claims. Period.

Increasing the amount of vitamin does not make it more nutritional.  For example, vitamins themselves. I can buy a cheap brand of Vitamin D and take 5 times the amount of anothet brand and still have less absorb due to the quality. There is no evidence that by genetically modifying the fruit and adding extra vitams that the body would necessarily absorb it.

Soil also plays a major role in the amount of nutrition you intake. Most of the organic/ eco grown food you can purchase from Amish/Mennonites comes from soil that has not been depleted in the manner of major crops.

...like I said, its just genetics. There is no debate. You can factually alter a plant's genes to increase the nutritional content. 

Take for example, Golden Rice, genetically modified to contain Beta-carotene, which contains Vitamin A, which can be absorbed:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/3/658.abstract

Once again, I am not arguing any specific case about any specific GMO. I am merely talking about the fundamental nature of Genetic Modifications. There is no argument to be made that it is not possible to modify plants to increase their nutrients.

Every food that we eat is genetically modified. Genetic modification has been going on since humans invented agriculture. Humans have artificially selected certain individuals and crossed parents with advantageous traits so that the progeny contains those traits from both parents. Did you know that mangoes used to taste absolutely horrible (like PTC levels of bad)? Those sweet, juicy mangoes that you see in the supermarket were genetically modified. Ever wondered why there are so many different types of apples? It's because we have manipulated the apple's genomes so that their genes express for specific proteins and metabolic pathways for the tartness, sweetness, or crispiness.

Your vitamin example is confusing. One vitamin D molecule can't be less absorptive than the other because they have the exact same molecular structure. If a certain brand has "less quality" vitamin D, then we're talking about a supplement that may not even have vitamin D inside. Same thing applies to additional nutrients as a result from genetic modification of foods. The additional vitamins can't be less absorptive because the vitamins in the GMO and non-GMO are exactly the same.

Do you actually know the science behind 'GMO'?

What you're asking for is fundamental to the concept of GMOs. They also get tested far more than vitamin supplements which have virtually no regulations.

You're mistaking genetic modification for natural hybrids. The two are not the same.  Splicing together genes from different organism in a lab (fish cells/tomato) is quite different from the natural result of cross pollination. The example you are using is flawed and a false talking point made to try and draw inaccurate examples between the two. One has its limitations in nature vs modifying that which could never naturally occur. 

The formulation of a vitamin can result in one brand having a lesser quality when it comes to absorbtion than another. The point I am trying to make is that increasing the vitamin content may not necessarily make it more nutritional. The method that is used to increase the vitamin may not result in the same potency found in the natural version of the fruit/vegetable. This is due to the vitamin no longer being the same molecule as it has been modified. The fruit/vitamin would no longer have the same molecular structure.