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!
â–²SUBSTACK: https://josepheverettwil.substack.com/
â–²DISCORD: Join the $5 tier on my Patreon to join the WIL discord! - https://www.patreon.com/WILearned
â–²Twitter: https://twitter.com/JEverettLearned
â–²IG: https://www.instagram.com/josepheverett.wil/
For business inquiries: [email protected]
・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."
-
8:13
GritsGG
14 hours agoMy Thoughts on BF6 & Warzone! Rank 1 Player Discusses!
9.71K -
LIVE
Lofi Girl
2 years agoSynthwave Radio 🌌 - beats to chill/game to
155 watching -
1:47:20
Badlands Media
16 hours agoBaseless Conspiracies Ep. 154: The Death of Kurt Cobain – Murder, Media, and the Cover-Up
47.7K40 -
2:04:08
Inverted World Live
10 hours agoRex Jones Calls In From The Gray Area | Ep. 122
48K6 -
5:56:17
Rallied
12 hours ago $9.71 earnedBF6 with THE BOYS
51.4K5 -
1:05:18
Flyover Conservatives
1 day agoThe SEAL-Turned-CEO Paying Off Millions in Veteran Medical Debt: JOIN THE MISSION! - Bear Handlon, Born Primitive | FOC Show
63.8K8 -
5:02:21
Drew Hernandez
14 hours agoTRUMP'S GAZA PEACE PLAN PHASE 1 & TRUMP THREATENS PUTIN WITH TOMAHAWKS
40.1K24 -
1:18:38
Glenn Greenwald
12 hours agoProf. John Mearsheimer on Trump's Knesset Speech, the Israel/Hamas Ceasefire, Russia and Ukraine, and More | SYSTEM UPDATE #530
131K85 -
2:21:37
Tucker Carlson
11 hours agoAlex Jones Warns of the Globalist Death Cult Fueling the Next Civil War and Rise of the Antichrist
108K453 -
12:35
Clownfish TV
19 hours agoJimmy Kimmel Return NOT Helping Disney AT ALL! DIS Stock Keeps Falling! | Clownfish TV
55.6K8