Bad Wigins wrote:
Vaccines weaken the population by promoting the survival of genotypes that would normally die of a particular disease. When (not if) civilization collapses and the vaccines are no longer available, the population will be vulnerable to catastrophic die-offs from the diseases they were formerly protected against.
Whether they cause autism or not is a red herring. They are still bad.
GMO's disrupt the ecology of non-GMO's. Crops engineered with a competitive trait can become invasive both on farmland and wildland, and create unintended hybrids with the potential to wreak havoc. GMO's designed to increase crop yields are particularly devastating because they allow the further development of the world's bloated population and civilization, which will certainly accelerate the environmental degradation already occurring. Those designed to resist pesticides like Roundup result in greater use of those pesticides, which are not safe to consume.
Whether GMO's themselves are safe to eat is a red herring. They are still bad.
"Chemicals," when spoken of in a negative context, generally refers to toxic or dangerous chemicals. Pedantically pointing out that non-toxic things are chemicals too is a red herring. The toxic chemicals that you damn well know they're referring to are still bad.