Everyone Is Running a Con in You Can See Everything
The article argues that *You Can See Everything* is less a definitive verdict on Elizabeth Holmes than an unsettling experiment about truth, self-deception and how people interpret one another. The film raises the possibility that Holmes may struggle to understand language and social cues, while reminding viewers that Theranos misled people about a blood-testing device that did not work as promised.
A key scene has director Nathan Fielder show Holmes and her partner Billy Evans the “Who’s on First?” comedy sketch; Holmes says she did not understand its wordplay, and Evans says her brain works differently. The film also revisits Holmes’s claim that the Theranos machine “can” run tests, and her explanation that she meant the machine had potential even though testing had not caught up. The article notes that Holmes has no public diagnosis and cites whistleblower Tyler Shultz as challenging the film’s suggestion that neurological differences explain her statements.
In short
- The film questions how Holmes understands truth and language.
- Theranos’s blood-testing device did not work as promised.
- A whistleblower challenges the film’s interpretation.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The film can be read as a thoughtful attempt to explore how differences in language processing or social understanding might shape Holmes’s communication, without treating that possibility as proof of a diagnosis or an excuse for Theranos’s conduct. By showing viewers ambiguous exchanges and competing interpretations, it invites scrutiny of how people infer intent and how self-deception may coexist with deliberate misrepresentation.
The case against
The film’s approach risks encouraging viewers to reinterpret Holmes’s statements through a speculative neurological explanation for which there is no public diagnosis. Given the harm caused by Theranos’s misleading claims, emphasising possible differences in social or language processing could blur the distinction between misunderstanding and responsibility, especially when a whistleblower disputes that framing.
Explained simply
Elizabeth Holmes founded Theranos, a company that promised to run many medical tests using just a small amount of blood. Its testing technology did not work as promised, and Holmes was convicted of defrauding investors; the case raised questions about what she knew and how she described the company’s abilities.
Nathan Fielder’s film examines Holmes through conversations and scenes with her and her partner, Billy Evans. It asks how people interpret language and social cues, while leaving open whether Holmes’s explanations reflect a different way of thinking, deliberate deception or something else. Holmes has no public diagnosis, and people connected to Theranos have disputed some interpretations of her behaviour.