Transcript:

"Welcome for everybody. Boy this is a great group. What a great day to be doing something like this. I mean it's raining, right? Okay, so you can't be out in your garden. You can't be doing anything else like that.

So how many of you guys have come to one of these events before? Alright, good. So you know that it's a lot of fun and we're gonna be doing a lot of good things. How many have ever heard me speak before? None of you? Wow! Oh a couple down in the front, okay.

So if that's the case, then let me tell you a little bit about who I am and what I do. So my name is Dr. Sherry Tenpenny.  I am the probably known as the international expert on vaccine injuries and problems associated with vaccines. I've been involved with this for 17 years and about 30,000 hours of my life, in terms of research and speaking and traveling around the world giving talks like this. My first career was as a board-certified emergency physician. I was the director of an ER for 12 years, then I moved to Cleveland, Ohio in 1996 and I opened an integrative medicine practice for which I'm always proud to say we've had people from all 50 states in about 17 foreign countries to come to our clinic to get well and get off their pharmaceutical drugs.

So I got involved with this serendipitously, like a lot of things do. I got a notification in the mail in September of 2000 from the National Vaccine Information Center meeting in Washington DC and it was supposed to be in September of that year and it was really inconvenient for me to go. And I actually went so far as to call them and say, "When is your next meeting? Because I don't think I can come this time." And they said, "Well, we're a small nonprofit. We're not sure we're gonna have another one."

Okay so every time I went to throw that brochure away off my kitchen counter, it just kind of made its way back onto the kitchen counter. So I was single at the time and I thought oh I know, this is it Lord, this is where I'm supposed to be to meet the guy.

So I made it a reservation. I went down to the meeting and it wasn't about the guy. It was about the topic and I sat through four days of non-stop lectures, which I think it was the only conference I've ever been to in my entire life that I sat through all of the lectures and took copious notes and heard researchers and PhDs and doctors and parents talk about vaccines and vaccine injuries. There was about 700 people in that conference. A lot of people that were there with their vaccine injured children in wheelchairs and and I all I could think of as while I was there was, "How did I miss this as part of my education as a physician?"

You know, I've been in medicine at that this at that time for 15 years. I was the director of an ER. I gave out tetanus shots like they were some special kind of candy. I was I you know I've had my integrative medicine practice now for almost five years. I grew up in a chiropractic family - three generations of chiropractors. I wasn't vaccinated as a kid. None of my cousins or any of their kids were vaccinated, so it was never on my radar because I had age-appropriate measles mumps rubella, chickenpox and I had pertussis twice, and I'm 59 and here to talk about it. Nobody died.

We get so terrorized into these infections, that we need to change the language about that because we call them diseases. And everybody gets all weirded out and scared like somebody's gonna die over these normal childhood infections, that were supposed to come at age appropriate levels, somewhere mostly between the ages of six and nine that left you with a lifetime of immunity. Not only so that you could be healthy as you were went into your 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and
80s but that you could pass that health on to your children. So that's how I got involved with this.

And after that meeting I went home and I started saying "Well, where do you start? Where do I start looking at this? I know! I'll start with the CDC." So I started going to the CDC documents and read the general recommendations of vaccinations - the 1998 version of that, which was such
a poorly written paper and such poor documentation. It was a 42 page paper. I still have it by the way.

And I thought, this this can't be what this entire industry is built on. This really can't be it. So from there I started reading all of the mainstream medical literature. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, Vaccine, JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, and it's all in there. The problems associated with vaccines are in the mainstream medical journals. Physicians just choose to flip right by it because it isn't anything they're interested in reading.

So that's how I kind of came to this and and each thing that I read it became almost like an addiction because I kept thinking, "I must be missing something. What am I missing? Why can't I find why this is so important?" And the deeper down the rabbit hole I went and the more information that I found, the more shocking it was to me. And I went back to Kathy Williams, who's one of the cofounders of the National Vaccine Information Center, and said, "Surely if people just knew how vile that stuff was that's coming through the vial, they would like stop and run the opposite direction so fast it, they would look like the roadrunner and be gone. We would implode this industry in like a nanosecond." Once people understood that there were cells from aborted fetal tissue, and aluminum, and mercury, and formaldehyde, and stray viruses that can cause cancer in these things they're given to their children. Surely as soon as they know that it will stop.

Well, you know, 17 years later we have more vaccines than ever. We have mandates breathing down our neck. We want everybody in the government to take away our rights. So that's why I do
this. And that's why, you know, when Patrick heard me talk and I spoke at his meeting last year he said he wanted me to come up and give this information to all of you on this lecture on vaccines 101, because we want to try to boil it down into bite-sized pieces (which by the way they're going to be passing around a clipboard for you guys, if you want to be part of my email list and the information we sent out. Please just put your name and your email in a way that I can actually read it, because it doesn't do any good to write it down if I put an R and it's supposed to be an S  into my database.)

We're pretty active. My Facebook page has two hundred and seventeen thousand people. We just started a course called mastering vaccine info foundational course and online training. We've got almost a hundred people enrolled in that. It will reopen for enrollment in March if you want to be on the waiting list for that. Just let me know because it goes through everything in a way that's bite-sized pieces about twenty minutes of content, and then the Thursday night Facebook live discussion group to teach you how to take the language in those modules to become a confident parent, an intelligent leader (in your home in your community), and an articulate activist. And that's what we're trying to train everybody to do.

So let's get started with this. There are some basic assumptions behind the entire industry of vaccination. In fact, when I got started with this in September of 2000... (the) You know, if you think about the the pharmaceutical industry is like a big pie diagram, and a piece of the pie is like cancer drugs, hypertension drugs. You know all these different drugs that they do which is all their book of business - their lines of things that they market and sell. At that point in time, the little teeny tiny pie diagram of the vaccine industry was about a five billion dollar a year industry. Now they're approaching fifty four billion.

And why is that so important to know? If you vaccinate a hundred people, at least fifty percent of them are going to have a serious side effect. Then you get taken to all of these doctors and all of these tests to find out that was it the vaccine. Probably not, it was because you had this underlying pathology that was just going to automatically pop up just exactly when you got the vaccine. And then they've got this entire trillion dollar book a business to sell you all these drugs to manage the side effects that you just got from the vaccines. So the vaccines are actually the economical pharmaceutical industries loss leader.

How many of you guys in here have businesses? Or your husband does? Or you know whatever, you have businesses. So you know what a loss leader is, right? A loss leader is like I'm gonna give away a t-shirt for free. It says on the door, I'm there on the sign on your door: free t-shirt, come inside. So you get people to come in for the free t-shirt. So while they're in your store, you can sell them the thousand dollar Armani suit.

Well the vaccines are the economic loss leader. Do it for free, mandate it, get your flu shot at every Walgreens, Walmart, every grocery store. I got a thing the other day and somebody there, they took a picture of it. It said if you get your flu shot today at Giant Eagle we'll give you 10% off your
groceries. So everywhere they're pounding people with these vaccines. It's their economic loss leader. It doesn't cost them anything, it costs them pennies, and then they've got a trillion dollar book of business to sell you once you start having side effects: asthma, allergies, eczema, ADD, ADHD, ear infections in kids, insulin-dependent diabetes, [and many other] autoimmune diseases.

They have an entire textbook now on vaccines and autoimmune diseases. All of those things start happening. So now we can drive. It's the driver of the entire industry and these are some of the assumptions that vaccines are safe. We're gonna go through that in a little more detail. That vaccines are effective, meaning they protect you and keep you from getting sick. That we as physicians and you as a consumer, when you hear the word effective automatically goes into your head you think, "oh that keeps me from getting sick." That's not what effective means in the vaccine industry. Vaccines have very few side effects except for the fact of the vaccine injury compensation program, that went into effect in 1986 and the vaccine adverse event reporting system has year-to-date been paid out over $3.2 billion and vaccine injury claims through the government program and they estimate that's less than 10% of people have actually been injured. $3.2 billion in vaccine injuries.

They are and every time you read any sort of a paper you hear anybody on the pro-vaccine advocate side, or you hear anybody in the government talk about vaccines, this is what they always say: that there's no significant public health advances of the 21st century. After all we saved the world from smallpox and polio, didn't we?

We go into that great detail in my course because actually we didn't and we've spent billions of dollars for nothing on this polio eradication but that's another talk for another day.

So what about our vaccine safe? And what is the meaning of a safe vaccine? Well it's not really what you think. The Webster's dictionary of safe says, "giving protection (which is what we think it should be, you know if you have a security system in your house that keeps you safe) involving no risk." Hmm no risk. Every bet package insert on every vaccine talks about the risk of vaccination.

They are trustworthy and unable to cause trouble or damage. Well we've already said that vaccine injury compensation program is as paid out $3.2 billion and all of these vaccine injuries that compound one upon each other creates the business driver for the pharmaceutical industry so we know that they caused damage. So by definition they break the definition of what safe is supposed to be.

So the real problem then comes become with vaccine safety studies. How do they come to the
conclusion that they can put in a package insert, which is specifically designed for information for your doctor that your doctor is supposed to know? How do they design these studies and come to
the conclusion that they are safe?

Well there's four specific problems and problem number one is that safety studies do not use a true placebo group. And if you take anything away from this talk today I want you to remember this because in conventional medicine the double-blind placebo-controlled study is the gold standard for safety.

If they're bringing to market say a new medication for say hypertension they would give you guys over here the real drug and you guys over here the sugar pill. And they would want to see a the real drug compared to the sugar pill what were the levels of side-effects, what kind of reactions did people have, did it really bring down your blood pressure as compared to this group over here that just got the sugar pill. And when they double-blind it, what that actually means is that the person that you come in to see to participate in the study when I give you a pill or I give you a pill, I don't know whether I'm giving you the real drug or if I'm giving you the sugar pill - I'm just giving you a pill. And then keeping track of your symptoms so that's a double-blind study I don't know which one which. Which of you are getting what. And placebo means it's compared to something that's totally inert.

In vaccine studies they never use a true placebo. And that started all the way back with the polio trials back in 1954 when they did this mass vaccination of the Salk injectable polio vaccine and
they said it was really unethical to give these people a vaccine and to give you nothing if we have to give a shot. So one of the two arms of the trial actually gave the placebo as a tetanus shot.

So it started way back when that if you're gonna get a shot you ought to have something of value. And so then we get the side effects of the polio vaccine compared to the side effects of the tetanus shot. If this has the same amount of side effects as this then we say it has the same amount of side effects and reactions as the placebo, which was another vaccine, that's not a placebo. And now when the package inserts, they don't even call it a even try to get away with calling it a placebo anymore. What they call this tetanus shot, this other one that they give you, they call it a "comparator."

We're going to compare the side-effects of the new vaccine compared to the side-effects of a vaccine that we already know what those side effects are supposed to be and if the new vaccine has the same amount of side effects as one that we know is supposed to be there then we say this new one is safe.

There's no true placebo ever. And when I go to talk to doctors and nurses that are in the hospital and they don't have any of this information when I drop that little factoid of saying that there is no true placebo used when they just define safety and a safety trial - I would see it's kind of like a cartoon it's like their head cracks like an eggshell - like what do you mean that's the gold standard for all investigational medicine. Not in the vaccine world, it's not. What they use instead they consider because they consider it unethical to give a vaccine to one group and hold from another group. Therefore the placebo should have some benefit - it should be a vaccine.

So can you see already where the whole idea that vaccines are safe starts to fall apart from the implementation of the safety studies. It just they've never really had a safety study.

Problem number two is that studies don't use inert substances as a placebo - like a sugar pill should be, is inert. Well if we're going to compare one vaccine to another vaccine is this vaccine over here inert? No. because it has its own its own side-effect profile. So the placebo use is often another vaccine like I said with a known safety product profile. If the experimental vaccine has the same number and types of effects as the placebo vaccine, than the experimental vaccine is said to be safe as the placebo.

And you see that in all the package inserts you see that in the published medical literature, in the Pediatric Infectious-Disease Journal, or in JAMA, in the New England Journal, they'll say it was safe as placebo. Then you dig through the study to try to find out what the placebo was, sometimes they list it and sometimes they don't. Sometimes you have to go to the FDA and look at the original trials to find out what the placebo was, but most of the time it was another vaccine.

Another example, is that in the Gardasil trials that they actually used an injection of aluminum as the placebo. Gardasil has, well it used I used to say has the highest amount of aluminum of any vaccine, but the there's new vaccines that have come out that have larger amounts of aluminum.  The Gardasil 4 that came out in 2006 had 250 micrograms of aluminum. Now Gardasil 9 that came out a couple of years ago and because it's become the one that they give everyone around the world has 500 micrograms of aluminum. And we're going to see in a few minutes that the new meningitis B vaccine has 1500 micrograms of aluminum, which is a big deal.

So this is where in Gardasil.. You know what Gardasil is? Gardasil is the vaccine that they want to give all the girls, to say "one less girl." Yeah when they say one less girl I always what goes in my mind is one less girl able to have children in the future is what the rest of that sentence should be because Gardasil hasn't been shown to cause testicular atrophy in male mice and stop periods and atrophy of the uterus and female mice. So Gardasil is this vaccine that they that was only tested on 12,000 girls before they started administering it to 9 to 12 year old girls of age back in 2006. Most vaccine clinical trials on an international basis have tens of thousands of people this one was only tested on 12,000. They were followed for only six months, when in vaccine trials they usually find them for a follow things for about four years. And in medication trials they follow em for longer than that. The observation for adverse events was 15 days.

How long does it take for an autoimmune reaction to form? Months! They only followed this because all they were looking for was acute allergic reactions, swollen arm, sick to their stomach, headache. They only followed it for 15 days. The average age for developing cervical cancer is somewhere between 38 and 42, and the placebo that was used was a shot of aluminum, and Gardasil has aluminum in it.

So each Gardasil dose has 225 micrograms of aluminum and when about 25% experienced the injection and pain after the Gardasil and about 16% had pain after the shot of aluminum, the conclusion was Gardasil was declared to be as safe as the placebo. Which is pretty common.

I mean this is just one example that I could give you of the 56 vaccines that are currently approved in the US market and there are almost 310 in the developmental pipeline. Now some of the vaccines in the developmental pipeline are specific indicators. A lot of them are in the cancer segment because what they're trying to do is come with DNA vaccines, to manipulate your DNA and genetics. Nothing could go wrong with that, right? Nothing could possibly go wrong with a DNA vaccine to change your genetics permanently and then pass that on to your children.

But all of the vaccines and then they are coming up with specific indicator vaccines like there's a vaccine under development for cocaine addiction, one for hypertension, one for periodontal disease. Hmm so they're trying to eliminate dentists? I mean I don't know, but these are the sorts of things that are in development down the way. And so this was the vaccine that came to market that currently there are seven countries around the world that are about to ban the use of Gardisil and the international equivalent which is called Cervarix, because of all the deaths and chronic long-term disability that's being caused by this vaccine.

So if you've got kids that are coming up teenagers, please get educated about this vaccine. And if there were any of them that you were gonna refuse - I mean in my opinion you should refuse all of them - but if you were going to refuse any absolutely do not allow your kids to get this vaccine.

Because they're giving it to boys now too. They started that about five years ago. Primarily because they wanted to double their market share they felt like they were missing out on half the population. And because we know that those dirty little nine-year-old boys are going to be having sex with those promiscuous nine-year-old girls, and they're going to be sharing their HPV viruses back and forth. Because that's the age group that you have to give this because if you give it after you've had intercourse it doesn't work.

100% of the female population.. Well let me say that again. They estimate somewhere between around 98% of the entire female population has an HPV infection sometime in their life. I mean the cervix is an external organ, right? It's like your nose, it's an external organ. And about 98% of people actually have that infection sometime in their life and somewhere close to 97.5% of people who have the infection, clear in two years or less. So we're actually giving a vaccine because less than two percent of all humanity gets this vaccine and it doesn't or gets the virus and it doesn't go away within two years and maybe, maybe not causes cancer. But we're going to vaccinate the entire global population and destroy the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of teenagers, for really something that can be prevented with a pap smear.

This is all the different concentrations of aluminum now, and we know that aluminum causes Alzheimer's. We're pretty sure that Alzheimer that aluminum contributes to other types of neurological conditions. Aluminum is once it's injected it stays in the muscle for an extended period of time and it's really not cleared from the body. So poison for poison in the last decade many studies and animal models have repeatedly demonstrated that aluminum can inflict immune-mediated diseases, autoimmune, neurological, and skin disorders. But yet we've got all of those vaccines that have a have aluminum in them including the hepatitis B vaccine that's given at birth.

So if you get a vitamin K shot and a hepatitis B vaccine at birth, you get 330 micrograms of aluminum injected into your baby before they're two days old. And so then if they have problems down the road, how do you know? Because now the doctors will say, "Well, they were just born that way." Were they? Or was it all that gunk that you injected into them as soon as they landed on the planet.

So, now what about some fewer problems with safety studies. So, so far we've said what there's no placebo, they don't use an inert substance. Problem number three, vaccine trials usually include three injections to create an antibody response. So they give the first one, they say that Prime's the pump. The second one locks in immunity, and the third one we want to take those antibodies to the moon. We want to make them sure that we make them as high as we possibly can because they all degrade and go away with time because it's false fake immunity. It's not even immunity it's a vaccination it's not giving your kids are you an immune response. It's injecting foreign matter into your body to create an antibody that we somehow think is going to protect you which it doesn't.

So the vaccine trials the babies experience the side effects after the first dose he or she has dropped out from the trial and the data is analyzed on those that are remaining in the trial at the end. And the negative consequences of side-effects are left out. So what's let's boil that down into some really simple terms. Let's say that there were a thousand babies in this clinical trial and after the first vaccine a hundred of them dropped out because of side effects, and after the second vaccine another hundred dropped out because of side effects, and after the third vaccine another hundred of them dropped out because of side effects. When they look at the results and they look at the safety of the of this particular vaccine, they do the analysis on the 700 that were left. They don't even talk about the other 300 that dropped out, except to say a study investigators feel that none of the side effects were attributable to the vaccines. None of the side effects were attributable to the vaccines. For any of those 300 that dropped out.

And so with a stroke of a pen in any vaccine safety or efficacy study they just wipe it out. Gone. Deleted. Hit the cutting room floor. Does not apply. And then they look at the with the rest of the analysis and say well it was the safest placebo.

So now we go to claim stage for clinical trials. Stage one is bringing it to market. Stage two is small trials. Stage three is those thousand people (babies) we talked about. Now we just release it on humanity, that's stage four clinical trials. And they call it post marketing surveillance, to see how many people die or have serious consequences once we've unleashed it on humanity. And then everybody that reports a side effect or a problem, they go well we don't know if we can trust that report, it was just spontaneously reported, and maybe they were lying, maybe it had nothing to do with the vaccine. So it's all negated. Anything that is not just safe and effective is just one way or another deleted from the entire industry.

So what was problem number three? They only analyzed the you know when people drop out side effects they aren't taken into consideration.

And problem number four which i think is also a really serious complication, is when they when they set up a clinical trial, they only enroll healthy children or healthy and adults. I mean if you are a child and you have asthma, allergies, seizure disorders, autoimmune problems, you're not allowed into the vaccine study. You're not allowed in there. Same thing as if you're an adult. So you have to be like a healthy adult, and no medications, no underlying conditions that we know of.

So now we'll do the studies on you so children with chronic illnesses are excluded even though those are the children who are most advocated to receive the vaccine after it comes to market. Or the adult that's most advocated to receive it. So if you if your children have say asthma and they were excluded completely from this new vaccine, say a new flu shot, once that new flu shot gets approved, your pediatrician will hammer you over the head to give your kid with asthma this new shot because oh my god you can't let them get sick. And so if you get this vaccine it's going to keep them from getting sick and they are the most susceptible because they do have an underlying condition, even though the clinical trials never included any of those kids to begin with.

So this is just one example this was Prevnar 7, they now have Prevnar 13. So if you get a Prevnar 13 shot, that's like getting 13 vaccines in one needle. And you get five of those, at two, four, six months, one year, and they sometimes give a booster at five years of age.

And this is what it says right from the study, right? Healthy infants were randomized one-to-one meaning you had 800 healthy kids and you've divided them into two groups to receive either Prevnar 7 or a meningitis C vaccine. Huh there's that comparator of another vaccine. To get it at two, four, six months, and somewhere between twelve and fifteen months of age. Children with sickle cell, known immunodeficiency, and any serious chronic progressive disease, a history of seizures, a history of either of either type of pneumococcal or meningococcal meningitis were excluded. But when Prevnar came to market the number one target were kids with those conditions: chronic ear infections, immunodeficiencies, sickle-cell, so kids that don't have a spleen, they were the ones who were absolutely advocated to get this vaccine, even though they were never tested in any of the clinical trials against kids who were chronically ill.

I love this, this is my favorite quote. Figures don't lie, but Liars do figure. So they can take any statistic they want, and twist it around and manipulate it, cut out the kids that have side effects,  you know don't take don't include kids that were sick, you know never use a true placebo. Use something like a shot of aluminum, that's good enough. So they can really figure it around whatever they want.

So what are those takeaways? Safety studies don't prove safety. In fact, the US Supreme Court has actually ruled that vaccinations are unavoidably unsafe. Unavoidably unsafe by the US Supreme Court. The one size fits all vaccination schedule is dangerous and it's unproven and I think it's a fraud. Every vaccine is different, every combination in that vaccine is a little bit different, and every time it gets injected into you or your children.. I mean there's like 300 people in here how many different sets of genes do we think we have in here? 300, right? Because you're all came.. Even if you have twins, the genetics can be a little bit different. And if you've got two or three kids well think about how they behave at dinner. Do they all behave the same? No. do you think their genetics are exactly the same? They are not. So every vaccine is different with animal cells, DNA albumin, everything that's injected. So every vaccine, remember this, every vaccine is a true experiment. It's experimenting with you, what's happening inside of you, and what's happening to your children. Every human being is ejected with a different genetic constitution. So the takeaway from that section, really no placebo, distorted data, and every vaccine is a true experiment.

Isnt this happy? I'm just celebrating now. Are you learning something new? Yes good, okay.

Are vaccines effective? Well let me see, is that really not what we think. Webster's dictionary defines effective as, "adequate to accomplish a purpose producing an intended or expected result." Makes sense doesn't it? Something is going to be effective and fulfilling a specified function. Well how does that apply to vaccines?

Okay because are vaccines effective? Well by that definition yeah they really are. Because what is happening when they research vaccinations, is they are injecting foreign matter into the body, into the muscle, and at some point in time in the future, weeks, sometimes months later, they take a blood test to see if that foreign matter caused your body to generate an antibody. And if it did then it fulfilled a specified function. It did what it was supposed to do, it created an antibody. So yes vaccines are effective from that perspective, but the presence of an antibody is doesn't guarantee you from getting an illness. So effective is not a synonym for protective or protection. Remember that. Every time you hear safe and effective. That sounds like a robot. To me safe and effective, safe and effective, it's never been proven to be safe and effective, means that foreign matter was injected into a body and it created an antibody. It doesn't mean it's going to keep you from getting sick. So all this massive push about flu shots, then we're going to talk about this afternoon this whole thing about flu shots, of how it protects you less, if you believe that it works, protects you, it works it works less than 14% of the time. And we're going to go into that in detail this afternoon. So remember this this is an important takeaway effective does not mean protection.

As it turns out, researchers have observed that positive emotions influence endocrinological and immunological responses. In other words, experiencing stressful emotions, such as anger, depression, anxiety, or a state of unworthiness, has the potential to actually pull the genetic trigger, dysregulating cells and creating disease.

In 2005, a group of Japanese researchers conducted a study to examine what effect one's mental state might have on disease. The participants consisted of two groups of patients with type 2 diabetes, all of whom were dependent on insulin, a hormone that enables glucose to enter cells to be used as energy.

Fasting blood-sugar levels for each group was determined to establish a baseline. The researchers then exposed one of the groups to a comedy show for an hour, while the control group watched a boring lecture. Afterwards, both groups were instructed to consume food, after which their blood-sugar levels were checked again.

Of the groups, there was a significant difference between those who watched the comedy show compared to those who viewed the lecture. The researchers measured the blood-sugar levels of those who watched the lecture and observed an average of 123 mg/dl - high enough that they would be required to take insulin. In the group that watched the comedy show, their postprandial blood-sugar levels rose only about half of that amount. 

The researchers set out to examine the mechanism for why this may be occurring. Initially, they hypothesized that the group experiencing laughter resulting in more time contracting their diaphragm and abdominal muscles, expending more energy, therefore resulting in the lower blood-glucose levels.

Upon greater examination, the researchers analyzed the changes in expression of 18,716 genes from blood cells in the patients with type 2 diabetes, which were induced by laughter. Of the 18,716 genes, 23 genes showed significantly different expression changes after listening to the comic story compared to the boring lecture. Eight were relatively upregulated and 15 were downregulated 1.5 hours after the laughter occurred. As it turns out, of the group that experienced laughter, their elevated mental states apparently triggered their brains to send new chemical signals to their cells, activating the genetic sequences to allow their bodies to naturally begin regulating the genes responsible for processing blood sugar.

In sum, the researchers demonstrated simply signaling the body with a positive emotion, such as  laughter, is linked to gene expression. Emotions are capable of altering body chemistry and signaling new genes, altering their internal environment. And remember, we can create an emotion by thought alone.

Hayashi, T., Urayama, O., Kawai, K., Hayashi, K., Iwanaga, S., Ohta, M., Saito, T. and Murakami, K. (2005). Laughter Regulates Gene Expression in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 75(1), pp.62-65. https://doi.org/10.1159/000089228