This has not been peer reviewed. I asked to provide a thorough peer reviewed study. Until then it is just false claims. An interesting article I found details why the study provided was heavily flawed.

http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2013/09/golden-rice-not-so-golden-tufts

GMOs are generally not better or worse than their non-GMO counterparts. They are not more or less natural either. It is just a way of speeding up the breeding process of selection.

The only issues brought up are ethics issues so they are irrelevant here...

Once again, this is a fundamental principle of Genetic Modification. There is no debate. Look at what the WHO says about GMOs, look at what the FDA says about GMOs...there is a concensus that this is physically possible. Once again, I am not speaking about any specific GMOs, I am talking about the science behind it. Arguing this point just shows that you don't understand the science.

The court decision runs contrary to everything that is known of autism and vaccines.  They might as well have ruled that the Sun revolves around Mars or that the Earth is flat.

Say you got terrible food poisoning at a restaurant. You discover that it was because one of the employees of the restaurant was ignoring the hand-washing signs and not washing his or her hands. Would you not want the company to drop the hammer on them? It's much the same thing, anti-vaxxers are negligent, and folks need to show them that there is a real price for negligence.

On the whole "GMOs and nutrition" argument. Here's a link to a good review on it:

http://www.ask-force.org/web/Food/Trend/2-Bouis-GM-Food-Crops-Contribution-2003.pdf

I think it does indicate that genetic modification can and has been used to increase the nutritional quality of crops either for human or livestock consumption.

You're showing that you know very little about genetic modification. The term is very self-explanatory. You modify the genome of a plant or animal. How do you do that? You can do it in the lab through various means such as gene knockouts to remove deleterious traits or horizontal transmission to add beneficial traits such as drought resistance. When you add a gene, the RNA polymerase transcribes that gene and the ribosomes translate the protein that grants the plant or animal that beneficial trait.

You can also do it by crossing two individuals in which each parent has a specific advantageous trait. Let's say these traits are dominant and are on different loci. Sweet fruit is on loci A and large fruit is on loci B. Parent #1 has sweet, but small fruit and is homozygous dominant for the sweetness, so its genotype is AA bb. Parent #2 has large, but bitter fruit and is homozygous for large fruit, so its genotype is aa BB. You cross these individuals together and their progeny will all be Aa Bb. Because both loci have dominant alleles, the offspring have both sweet and large fruit.

Your last paragraph also shows how little you understand chemistry. Nomenclature of chemical compounds is determined by what strucutural types (e.g. double C=C bonds, rings, disulfide bridge, etc) and orientation (e.g. trans, cis, L-, R-, etc) they have. If a "vitamin" is an entirely different molecule, then it is no longer a vitamin. A "lower quality" vitamin supplement is lower quality not because of the vitamins. It's lower quality because of the lower concentration or shoddy synthesis of the supplements.

I think you're being turned off by the fact that genetic modification is sometimes done in the lab. When you hear the word "lab", you're probably imagining a bunch of white coats in opaque safety goggles injecting mysterious blue liquid into a tomato. The negative connotation is what makes you against GMOs. But here's the fact: nearly everything we eat is genetically modified. If you want to eat "naturally", then good luck.

I haven't read any of the comments yet... But after reading the OP... This is a joke, right? The anti-vaccination movement has killed enough innocent children. Stop spreading lies and misinformation.

FUD is easy to spread when ignorance abounds and confirmation bias is in full force. The correct information should be mandated, and I say register un-vaccinated children or families with un-vaccinated children without legitmate medical reasons only publicly. Sure their is a loss of privacy, but these parent are already placing their child at risk while simultaneously making them a safety hazard.

Ok, this is the problem with the Internet. All this misinformation out there, especially with medical information, can cause some serious issues.

I would just like to say two things to the people that are anti vaccinations. First, not everything you read on the Internet is true. Almost all the reports linking vaccinations to autism or other significant problems is based on a widely discredited report, that mountains of research has since proven unequivocally false.

Second, if you are still concerned, I would suggest you stop reading all the crap about it on the Internet and talk to an actual doctor or medical professional about it. Somebody that actually knows what they are talking about and not some random guy on the Internet.