Premium Only Content

Is Meat Bad for you?
Check out my Substack to get my free weekly newsletter covering 5 interesting points from the week!
▲SUBSTACK: https://josepheverettwil.substack.com/
▲DISCORD: Join the $5 tier on my Patreon to join the WIL discord! - https://www.patreon.com/WILearned
▲Twitter: https://twitter.com/JEverettLearned
▲IG: https://www.instagram.com/josepheverett.wil/
For business inquiries: Joseph.Everett.Wil@gmail.com
・Check out the artist who made heme-chan here: audreylovegren.com
LINK TO PDF OF SCRIPT WITH LINKS TO SOURCES: https://www.patreon.com/posts/33873653
*A couple people asked me to respond to a youtuber's video response to this video. Since I expect more comments about this, I'll point out just one thing for now:
( TLDR : Youtuber makes a video saying I've misrepresented a study - say my words don't match the study I referenced. He was looking at the wrong study.)
At 11:22 of the video response he says "This is where things get really bad and I think he needs to correct this in some way..." and brings up the part of my video where I said "Unfortunately, it looks like iron supplements don't cut it for pregnant women. Despite taking prenatal vitamins with iron, 58% of the women had iron levels below normal." He goes on to say that he looked forever at this study that I referenced, only to find that this 58% figure was no where in the study and that I was blatantly misrepresenting the study. Moreover, he says "Worst of all, this [study] actually undermines his whole video on heme iron, because all 19 of those women were given heme iron throughout their pregnancy..." That is, he's suggesting that if there is a 58% of women who had low levels of iron despite supplementing with iron, these women were actually supplementing with heme iron and therefore heme iron is not effective for maintaining iron levels in pregnant women.
Ironically, this is a misinterpretation on his part.
The reason he couldn't find that 58% figure in that particular paper of mine he was looking at was because it was the wrong study. The source for the statement "Despite taking prenatal vitamins with iron, 58% of the women had iron levels below normal" is NOT the study he was looking at - "Maternal hepcidin is associated with placental transfer of iron derived from dietary heme and nonheme sources."
The source for the 58% figure is "Maternal prenatal iron status and tissue organization in the neonatal brain."
-
LIVE
Simply Bitcoin
2 hours ago $1.54 earnedINSIDER LEAK: 4 BIGGEST Banks in The World Coming To Bitcoin In 2025?! | EP 1234
570 watching -
1:50:53
Steven Crowder
4 hours agoExposing 3 Major Anti-Trump LIES - What You Need to Look For
285K223 -
2:10:20
The White House
3 hours agoPresident Trump Participates in a Cabinet Meeting, Apr. 30, 2025
37.5K48 -
3:20:58
Right Side Broadcasting Network
5 hours agoLIVE REPLAY: President Trump Holds a Cabinet Meeting - 4/30/25
72.2K28 -
LIVE
Rebel News
1 hour ago $1.26 earnedAlberta independence talks, Quebec rejects oil, Conservatives ponder future | Rebel Roundup
789 watching -
1:58:18
The Charlie Kirk Show
2 hours agoIslam In Texas? + 100 Days Review + Remembering David Horowitz | Halperin, Cernovich | 4.30.25
29.3K5 -
1:23:00
The Mel K Show
3 hours agoMORNINGS WITH MEL K - 4/30/25
28.3K6 -
LIVE
The Dana Show with Dana Loesch
1 hour agoTAKEAWAYS FROM TRUMP'S 100-DAY INTERVIEW | The Dana Show LIVE on Rumble! WEDNESDAY APRIL 30TH 2025
436 watching -
1:01:38
Blockchain Basement
2 hours ago $0.22 earned🚨BITCOIN BOOM STARTS NOW!? (Trump Launches NEW Token!)
6.76K -
1:08:49
The Rubin Report
3 hours agoHost Gets Visibly Angry as His Trap for Trump Backfires
51.7K13