Else we're going to end up with a lot more people like this, who see danger everywhere evil, evil science is involved when there is none. I'd be willing to bet actual money that this moron actually imagines that aluminium phosphate being part of a vaccine means you're actually getting injected with aluminium foil. And seriously, why the fuck is the vaccine-autism relationship even a thing? Autism finds its roots in the person's genetic makeup, it's something you're born with and have to deal with for the rest of your life, it's not something you catch.
Seriously, this kind of thing is why the teaching of science needs to be a lot more widespread than it is now. Otherwise you'll just get more and more parents who insist that vaccines are evil... among other things. More on that later. But I can safely say that some of the stuff I learned at university should be taught to everyone, not just people who decide to pursue one of a few specific bachelor's degrees. I'm talking high school here. Sure, it probably should be dumbed down a bit compared to a university course, but this really IS something that's more useful to know than something like trigonometry. I don't know how things are where you live, but here the only science you get to learn in high school falls in two categories: the absolute basics, and optional courses. (In our last year of high school, we get a choice between two sets of subjects: geography and history, or chemistry and physics. That's what I mean by "optional".) There's only one word to describe this: unacceptable.
A subject where rampant misinformation is even more widespread than the whole vaccine thing, for instance, is genetic engineering. Understandably so, because most people have no grasp of the inner workings of a living cell on a molecular level. That leaves a lot of room for people to start believing stuff that has no scientific basis whatsoever. For example, some people seem to believe in a misconception according to which eating genetically engineered food can alter their own genome. Of course that's not going to be the case, the DNA and proteins contained within your food are broken down during digestion, whether they've been altered or not. And just because you eat chicken doesn't make you any closer to becoming a chicken, right? So why should it be any different because some genes have been altered? Your genetic code doesn't merge with anything you eat, or isn't substituted, or anything. Your food is broken down into individual nucleotides and amino acids during the digestion process, which are then used to make human DNA and proteins according to your own genetic makeup, using your existing DNA as a template.
Science isn't out to get you. Genes that are added to crops with the purpose of killing pests that may try to eat them code for proteins that are designed to be ineffective in the human body. In one of my classes at university, we were given the example of a genetically enhanced crop that results in a protein that's capable of breaking down an insect's intestine, but because a human's intestine has a different pH, the protein takes a different shape that makes it totally harmless. This is why the popularity of organic food baffles me. Pesticides can potentially be dangerous for a human's health, I won't argue with that. On the other hand, genetic engineering is developed enough for any effects on humans to range from far more limited to nonexistent. Meanwhile, organic food is made using neither, so pests have free rein to eat whatever they want - and who knows what kinds of bacteria and disease they carry, and what you could potentially get. Keep in mind, that food can get expensive, and you get a product that definitely isn't of better quality than conventional food. In any other industry, this would be called "getting ripped off", but here it's considered "looking out for your health"... or rather, you think you're doing so.
No, the problem with GMOs isn't with the notion of genetic engineering itself, but the business practices of the companies that manufacture such products. EA keeps winning these "worst company" competitions, but that's only because they have a more direct impact on the customers. In fact, they look like philanthropists compared to the likes of Monsanto. Yes, I went there. I just said it. Google Monsanto if you don't believe me. This isn't something my education tried to hide from me, either - I had a course on ethics in science, and the subject of Monsanto did spring up a few times.
And the scary part? I basically knew nothing of this going into university. The fact that you need a bachelor's degree to understand such important stuff is not normal. This should be common knowledge, and yet it's as far from it as you can possibly get. Why? Is it considered propaganda? Then this is a perfect case of ignorance spawning more ignorance. Once again, unacceptable.