A trusted resource for women demanding better care, evidence-based strategies for hormone therapy, thyroid dysfunction, and autoimmune conditions. <br/><br/><a href="https://hollywarnerhealth.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast">hollywarnerhealth.substack.com</a>
Holly Warner, Fix What They Missed (The Patient Pod)
Claim This Podcastby Holly Warner Uncensored
5.0(1 reviews)
7 episodes
Updated Daily
Accepts GuestsHas Sponsors
Podcast Overview
A trusted resource for women demanding better care, evidence-based strategies for hormone therapy, thyroid dysfunction, and autoimmune conditions. <br/><br/><a href="https://hollywarnerhealth.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast">hollywarnerhealth.substack.com</a>
Language
🇺🇲
Publishing Since
8/8/2025
2 verified contact emails on file for Holly Warner, Fix What They Missed (The Patient Pod)
Pitch yourself as a guest, propose sponsorships, or reach out directly to the host.
Recent Episodes
July 7, 2026
Sketchy Data or Sketchy Understanding? A Response to Kim Einhorn MD
<p>In this video I break down what the research actually shows on estradiol levels and bone protection, plus the cardiovascular evidence she dismissed as "sketchy". If you’ve been told we “don’t have enough data,” this one’s for you.</p><p><strong>We cover</strong></p><p>1. What the cardiovascular and bone literature actually says about estradiol thresholds for protection</p><p>2. Why calling this “sketchy” ignores decades of published research</p><p>3. The cardiovascular evidence, including the timing hypothesis and what the major trials found</p><p>4. Why dismissing data isn’t the same as disproving it</p> <br/><br/>This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://hollywarnerhealth.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2">hollywarnerhealth.substack.com/subscribe</a>
January 5, 2026
Depression Isn’t a Fibre Deficiency
<p>First off, I adore Dr haver, this is not an attack. This is me having a bit of an issue with how this “study” was framed and the bad taste it leaves when you look at the fact that she sells… fibre supplements. Not that there is anything wrong with selling supplements, even ones you’ve white labelled to for your own brand. </p><p>I spent years in R&D, in fact I’ve helped develop some of the brands in Dr’s offices and on store shelves. I know how it works, white labelling and the push to have your own line. I opted out for a number of reasons, one is that you don’t need to reinvent the already perfect wheel in many cases. Another is that it can be seen as (especially in cases like this) a conflict of interest.</p><p>I don’t have to push fibre, I don’t sell it as a supplement.</p><p>You could be saying that I promote HRT and that’s the same thing, except I don’t make money off of how much or how little is prescribed. I’m paid for my service either way. </p><p>Back to the main reason for this article, the video circulating about fibre and depression, based off of an association based “study”.</p><p><strong>This isn’t an interventional study. </strong></p><p>It’s observational, specifically a cross sectional analysis of NHANES data. That means it can show <strong>associations</strong>, not causation. </p><p>These are the types of studies that we get slammed for when we try to use them to support a claim. These studies don’t hold weight, they’re a great eye opener to do a REAL trial/study, to look deeper and discover if there is something to it all.</p><p>This study in particular took existing NHANES survey data, looked at self reported fibre intake from dietary recalls, and compared it to depression scores using the PHQ 9 at a single point in time. </p><p>No intervention, no randomization, no temporality.</p><p>Now for the flaws (and sadly there are several).</p><p><strong>First, reverse causation</strong></p><p>This is the biggest problem I see with this study. </p><p>People with depression often eat differently. Lower appetite, less meal planning, more ultra processed food, less total intake. So is low fibre causing depression, or is depression causing low fibre intake? This study doesn’t answer that. The authors acknowledge it (which is great!), then they proceeded anyway (not so great).</p><p><strong>Second, dietary recall bias</strong></p><p>NHANES uses 24 hour dietary recalls, which are notoriously unreliable. </p><p>People misreport, underreport, forget, or guess. Fibre intake is especially vulnerable to this since it depends on food type, preparation, and portion estimation (it’s usually guesswork not true calculations). </p><p>One or two recalls don’t properly or accurately represent habitual intake.</p><p><strong>Third, fibre is a proxy, not a mechanism.</strong> </p><p>What I mean is that high fibre intake correlates with a whole bunch of behaviours. </p><p>Higher socioeconomic status, better access to food, more home cooking, higher protein quality, more micronutrients, more daylight exposure, more physical activity, less metabolic disease. </p><p>Fibre isn’t acting alone ladies, but this analysis sure does treat it as if it is.</p><p><strong>Fourth, residual confounding</strong></p><p>They do adjust for some variables, but NHANES can’t fully control for things like trauma history, chronic illness burden, sleep quality, hormone status, perimenopause, antidepressant use duration, or inflammatory disease. </p><p>These are all tightly linked to both mood and diet.</p><p><strong>Fifth, depression measurement limitations</strong></p><p>PHQ 9 is a screening tool, not a diagnostic tool. It captures symptoms over the previous two weeks. </p><p>That’s a very small snapshot in time, not a clinical diagnosis, and it’s highly sensitive to acute stress, illness, and life events. You’re correlating a short term mood score with a presumed long term dietary pattern. </p><p>That’s weak data at best.</p><p><strong>Sixth, no dose response clarity</strong></p><p>They show an association when intake is divided into four equal groups from lowest to highest, but this doesn’t establish a biologically meaningful threshold. There’s no evidence here that increasing fibre intake in someone with depression improves symptoms. That’s a leap that’s commonly made online and isn’t supported by this data.</p><p><strong>Seventh, sex and hormone blindness</strong></p><p>This is a big one for me, for obvious reasons (and because Dr Haver is in this space, it should have been for her as well). </p><p>NHANES includes women across all ages, but the analysis doesn’t account for perimenopause or menopause status. Estradiol status is a massive contributing factor for mood, gut function, and dietary tolerance. </p><p>Ignoring this makes the conclusions especially shaky for midlife women.</p><p>I’m not saying this isn’t a real paper, it is. It’s published in a real journal, using real data. But it’s hypothesis generating only. It doesn’t prove that fibre reduces depression, treats depression, or should be prescribed as a mental health intervention.</p><p>Observational nutrition data like this is cheap, it’s everywhere in abundance, and it’s ridiculously easy to mine. NHANES is a massive, and publicly available dataset. Anyone who has statistical software can slice it and dice it a hundred different ways until something lights up. Fibre is especially attractive since it correlates to so many as a marker of health. Plus association sounds just scientific enough for the public to eat it up (pun intended).</p><p>The correct conclusion shouldn’t be that people with higher fibre intake report fewer depressive symptoms when we can’t determine direction, causality, or mechanism. I know plenty who have gone carnivore or animal based (cutting out all fibre) and completely reversed depression. But I wouldn’t go around stating carnivore is a cure for depression. </p><p>Sadly most people don’t understand the difference between association and causation. We read “Associated with lower depression” and we hear “fibre improves mental health”. Saying something “may be an important modifiable factor” doesn’t mean the data proved it is one.</p><p>These kinds of studies keep getting weaponized online to sell fibre supplements, and many other fancy things, despite (as my mentor used to always say) being grade D evidence at best.</p><p></p> <br/><br/>This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://hollywarnerhealth.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2">hollywarnerhealth.substack.com/subscribe</a>
November 2, 2025
The Billion-Dollar Menopause Drug That Doesn’t Replace Estrogen
<p>In this episode, we break down the billion-dollar hype behind Elinzanetant and Fezolinetant, the so-called non-hormonal menopause drugs. Learn how NK3 blockers reduce hot flashes without replacing estrogen, and why real HRT still wins for bone, brain, and heart protection.</p> <br/><br/>This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://hollywarnerhealth.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2">hollywarnerhealth.substack.com/subscribe</a>
7 total episodes available
Deep-dive analytics for Holly Warner, Fix What They Missed (The Patient Pod)
Frequently asked questions
Have a different question and can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to our support team by sending us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.
- What is Holly Warner, Fix What They Missed (The Patient Pod)?
- How often does this podcast release new episodes?
This podcast updates daily.
- Where can I listen to this podcast?
This podcast is available on 4 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.
- Does this podcast accept guests?
No, this podcast does not typically feature guests.
Legal Disclaimer
Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.
All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.
We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at hey@podengine.ai for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.
By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.