The Highwire

Nashville-born entrepreneur, philanthropist, and former MMA fighter Ed Clay joins Del to discuss his journey into regenerative medicine and the growing interest in stem cell therapies. Clay explains how his search for answers while helping his mother, who was suffering from an autoimmune condition and severe complications from conventional treatments, led him to explore emerging therapies outside the traditional medical system. That search ultimately led Clay to help establish a regenerative medicine center in Mexico, where patients seek stem cell and immune-based treatments not widely available in the United States. He discusses the potential of regenerative medicine while also addressing the regulatory barriers and skepticism surrounding these therapies. As interest in stem cell therapy and regenerative medicine continues to grow worldwide, Clay and Del explore the broader implications for medical innovation, patient choice, and the future of treatment options beyond conventional pharmaceuticals.

Jefferey examines newly surfaced internal communications suggesting that messaging around potential stroke risks following COVID-19 vaccination may have been altered at the highest levels of government, including the Joe Biden White House. Drawing on reported emails from federal health agencies, the segment explores how language describing a “moderately elevated” safety signal was revised to “slightly elevated,” raising serious questions about transparency, public health communication, and risk disclosure during the vaccine rollout. The analysis also highlights how terminology shifts, from “potential risk” to “preliminary signal”, may have softened public perception of adverse events at a critical moment when booster doses were being distributed to tens of millions of Americans. With coordinated messaging efforts involving the CDC, FDA, and select media and expert networks, the discussion frames these developments as part of a broader strategy to manage public response rather than fully inform it. Beyond stroke-related concerns, the conversation expands into other reported safety signals, including myocarditis and cardiovascular stress markers observed in certain populations following vaccination. Internal deliberations and delayed public warnings are presented as evidence of systemic gaps in adverse event reporting and physician awareness, potentially impacting early detection and response to emerging risks. Framed within the larger debate over censorship, government accountability, and medical transparency, Jefferey raises critical questions about how public health decisions are communicated—and who ultimately controls that narrative. As scrutiny intensifies over pandemic-era policies, the discussion underscores the importance of open scientific dialogue, rigorous safety monitoring, and restoring trust in public health institutions moving forward.

Confidence in COVID-19 vaccines in the United States appears to be shifting, as new developments point to declining public engagement and demand. A halted clinical study by Pfizer and BioNTech—reportedly due to an inability to recruit enough participants—marks a rare moment where a widely recommended vaccine could not generate sufficient interest for ongoing research. This trend aligns with broader declines in vaccine uptake following the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, as fewer individuals pursue boosters and participation in follow-up studies drops. The slowdown is also impacting pharmaceutical markets, which are seeing reduced demand compared to earlier stages of the rollout. The recruitment challenges highlight evolving public sentiment and may signal a turning point in how COVID-19 vaccines are perceived, studied, and integrated into future public health strategies.

Rising tensions tied to the Strait of Hormuz are sending shockwaves far beyond the battlefield, with global energy and fertilizer markets now under mounting pressure. Jefferey explores how disruptions linked to the Iran conflict are threatening critical supply chains that underpin modern agriculture, highlighting the fragile “just-in-time” global economy that millions depend on. With roughly one-third of the world’s fertilizer trade moving through this narrow passage, even minor instability is already translating into higher input costs and growing uncertainty for farmers worldwide. Hear how rising oil prices and constrained fertilizer exports, particularly from major producers like Russia and China, are creating a ripple effect across global food production. As energy costs surge, so too do the expenses tied to planting, harvesting, and transporting crops, with staples like corn at the center of the impact. Because corn is foundational to the U.S. and global food system—affecting everything from cereals to livestock feed—any sustained price increase has the potential to cascade across nearly every aisle of the grocery store. Compounding the issue, countries heavily reliant on imported energy are beginning to declare emergencies and prioritize domestic supply, signaling the early stages of a broader global resource squeeze. From Southeast Asia to Europe, tightening reserves and export restrictions are accelerating fears of prolonged shortages. At the same time, U.S. farmers are already adapting by shifting acreage away from fertilizer-intensive crops like corn toward alternatives such as soybeans—an early indicator of how geopolitical conflict can directly reshape agricultural strategy and output. Framed through the lens of long-term economic and societal impact, they highlight a critical warning: when energy and fertilizer markets destabilize, food security is never far behind. As the Iran conflict continues to evolve, the risk of sustained inflation, disrupted harvest cycles, and global supply imbalances raises urgent questions about resilience, preparedness, and how quickly interconnected crises can escalate into worldwide consequences.

Non-speaking autism advocate, Elizabeth Bonker, and Dawnmarie Gaivin, founder of the Spellers Freedom Foundation, join Del to challenge one of the most entrenched assumptions in autism care: that individuals who cannot speak also lack the ability to think or understand. Through spelling-based communication, many non-speakers are now demonstrating that their silence may stem from motor planning challenges, not intellectual disability. Bonker, who communicates by spelling, graduated as valedictorian of Rollins College and now serves on the federal Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC). Her story illustrates how non-speaking individuals can possess rich cognitive abilities that often go unrecognized when speech is treated as the only measure of intelligence. Gaivin explains how spelling-based communication methods are helping non-speakers access education, express complex thoughts, and participate more fully in society. Together, they are advocating for broader recognition of spelling as a legitimate form of communication and pushing for schools, therapists, and policymakers to presume competence and expand communication access for non-speaking individuals with autism.

RFK Jr. is working to reconstitute ACIP, and the media propaganda machine has apparently settled on a new attack line against anyone questioning vaccines. We break it down so you can recognize it when you see it. Then, the war in Iran is creating an international food and energy crisis most people aren’t paying attention to yet. About one-third of the world’s fertilizer ingredients move through the Strait of Hormuz. The ripple effects are already in motion, and Jefferey Jaxen has the details. Also, one of the most moving conversations The HighWire has ever had involves Spellers, a communication technique that has allowed non-speaking individuals with autism to break through and communicate in their own words. Now they’re fighting for the legal right to spell to communicate. Del hears directly from one of the spellers themselves. And, Del sits down with Ed Clay, a former MMA fighter who delved deep into investigating stem cell therapies and cancer research after his family's health crisis. He now leads one of the biggest clinics in the world doing this work, and he has to do it in Mexico. This conversation will blow your mind. The HighWire - this Thursday at 11 AM PT and 2 PM ET - don’t miss it. 📅April 2, 2026 ⏰Thursday, 11AM PT | 2PM ET 📺Watch at: TheHighWire.com/WATCH

In a major legal development, courts have delivered a decisive ruling against government-backed social media censorship during the COVID-19 era—marking what many are calling a landmark victory for the First Amendment. This case, involving federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Office of the Surgeon General, found that government pressure on tech platforms to suppress certain viewpoints crossed constitutional boundaries. The settlement now restricts these agencies from coercing or threatening social media companies over protected speech, reinforcing that digital platforms do not alter fundamental free speech protections. The ruling goes further, clarifying that labeling content as “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “malinformation” does not strip it of constitutional protection—a critical point in the broader debate over online censorship and government overreach. Internal communications released during the case revealed extensive coordination between public health officials and major tech companies, including Meta Platforms, raising new questions about the role of Big Tech in moderating public discourse. For many, this decision represents a turning point in the ongoing fight for transparency, accountability, and the preservation of open dialogue in the digital age. At the same time, courts are increasingly weighing in on vaccine mandates and religious exemptions, with multiple rulings affirming the legal strength of religious accommodation claims. Recent cases against hospitals and employers—including actions supported by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—have resulted in financial penalties for failing to honor religious objections to COVID-19 vaccination requirements. These outcomes signal a growing legal framework supporting informed consent, individual rights, and protections against compelled medical interventions. Meanwhile, a wave of lawsuits targeting major tech companies is gaining momentum, with juries finding platforms liable for harms related to content moderation, child safety, and social media addiction. High-profile cases against companies like Meta Platforms and YouTube suggest a broader legal reckoning may be underway—one some are comparing to past industry-defining litigation. As hundreds of cases move forward and new legislation emerges at the state level, these developments point to a rapidly evolving legal landscape shaping the future of free speech, public health policy, and Big Tech accountability in America.