You Can See Everything: Elizabeth Holmes Still Isn't Telling the Whole Story
Spoilers ahead!
I recently came across You Can See Everything, a documentary about Elizabeth Holmes, the former Theranos CEO who was convicted of fraud. After learning more about the documentary, I think there is quite a bit to talk about, especially when it comes to how Holmes presents herself and whether she really takes responsibility for what happened.
For anyone who doesn't know the story, Holmes founded Theranos, a company that claimed it could perform hundreds of medical tests using only a tiny drop of blood from someone's finger. It sounded like a major breakthrough that could change the medical industry. The problem was that the technology did not work the way the company claimed it did.
Investigative reporting eventually exposed serious problems with Theranos. Holmes was convicted in 2022 on four counts of defrauding investors and sentenced to more than eleven years in prison.
So, when I heard about a documentary that gave Holmes a chance to tell her side of the story, I was curious about what it would reveal. Would she finally acknowledge what happened, or would we get another attempt to defend herself?
From what the documentary shows, I think the answer is pretty clear.
Trying to control the story
One of the most interesting things about You Can See Everything is that Holmes gets an opportunity to speak directly with filmmakers Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim. This is particularly interesting because she had previously refused to cooperate with certain journalists investigating Theranos.
Holmes has spent years being portrayed as the face of one of the biggest corporate fraud scandals in recent history. Her story has been covered in books, television programs, podcasts, and other documentaries. It makes sense that she would want to explain her perspective, but there is a difference between telling your side of the story and trying to convince everyone that you did nothing wrong.
What makes this documentary interesting is that the filmmakers don't simply accept everything Holmes says. Fielder asks questions that give viewers an opportunity to examine her answers for themselves.
Instead of necessarily making Holmes look better, the documentary sometimes makes her behavior even more questionable.
The strange moments that stood out to me
There are several scenes in which Holmes insists that she has done nothing wrong. She also makes the remarkable claim that she has never told a lie.
That is a pretty difficult statement to accept when you consider the evidence presented during the Theranos investigation and her criminal trial.
Another scene involves Fielder showing Holmes the famous Abbott and Costello comedy routine, “Who's on First?” Holmes claims that she doesn't understand the joke, even after Fielder explains it to her.
On its own, not understanding a comedy routine isn't a big deal. People have different senses of humor, and not everyone gets every joke. What makes the scene interesting is the broader conversation surrounding it.
Fielder explores the possibility that Holmes sees the world differently from other people. Her apparent confusion over the joke seems to fit into that idea, although it's difficult to know what she was actually thinking in that moment.
Personally, I wouldn't treat one reaction as proof that someone is lying. However, when you put the scene alongside her repeated denials and the other things revealed in the documentary, it becomes another moment worth questioning.
The documentary also shows Holmes becoming emotional while being photographed for a digital replica that her children could see while she is in prison.
She explains that the last time people around her pushed her into the public spotlight, things went badly.
I can understand why someone might have complicated feelings about being photographed or publicly scrutinized. At the same time, Holmes spent years promoting Theranos and appearing in interviews as its CEO. That history makes the scene feel rather different when you consider the bigger picture.
It raises questions about how she wants people to remember her and whether the documentary is showing us the whole story.
What about the people around her?
Another part of the documentary that caught my attention is Holmes's relationship with Billy Evans.
Evans appears to stand firmly behind Holmes, despite the evidence that led to her conviction. Supporting your partner is one thing, but refusing to consider any possibility that they might have done something wrong is another.
The documentary also reveals that Evans has been associated with Ryan “Egypt” El-Hosseiny, who claims to have reconstructed Theranos's blood-testing technology and demonstrated that it works as advertised.
That claim is particularly questionable given the evidence presented during Holmes's trial. The company's technology could perform only a limited number of tests, and the results were unreliable.
El-Hosseiny has also publicly promoted Holmes's innocence, including through billboards. This raises an obvious question: why continue trying to defend the technology when the evidence against it has already been examined in court?
Evans's involvement with these efforts doesn't exactly help the situation.
There is also the question of what comes next. The documentary shows Holmes and Evans discussing a possible project called “Theranos 2.0,” including plans to develop a working prototype.
Honestly, the idea of trying to revive a business based on technology associated with such a major fraud scandal seems difficult to understand. You would think the people involved would want to move on and reflect on what went wrong rather than trying to repeat the same kind of venture.
Perhaps they genuinely believe they can make something work this time. But given Theranos's history, I think a healthy amount of skepticism is justified.
Evans's behavior raises even more questions
Some of Evans's behavior in the documentary is also unsettling. At different points, he discusses the possibility of Holmes's digital replica being used for pornography and makes aggressive comments about people he believes have wronged her.
He also talks about revenge and suggests that he has the resources and connections to make life difficult for those people.
That is not exactly reassuring behavior from someone who claims to be helping his partner.
The documentary also reveals that Evans has power of attorney for Holmes and manages her X account, publishing posts that include considerable profanity.
This raises questions about how much control Holmes has over her own public image and how much of the story being presented is influenced by the people around her.
I obviously can't know what happens behind closed doors, and I don't want to pretend that watching a documentary gives me access to every detail of their private lives. Still, the behavior shown on screen is worth discussing.
My thoughts on the documentary
What I find most interesting about You Can See Everything is that giving someone an opportunity to tell their side of the story doesn't automatically mean their story will be convincing.
Holmes appears to have an opportunity to explain herself, but the documentary also gives viewers plenty of reasons to question her account. Her repeated denials, her interactions with Fielder, and the behavior of the people supporting her all contribute to a much more complicated picture.
The Theranos scandal wasn't simply a case of a business that failed. It involved claims about medical technology that did not perform as advertised and investors who were misled. When medical testing is involved, those failures also raise serious concerns about the consequences for patients.
That is why I think accountability matters here. People should be able to question Holmes's explanations without automatically accepting them as the truth.
I also think the documentary demonstrates something important about investigative journalism. Sometimes, allowing people to speak for themselves reveals more than trying to argue with them ever could.
You don't necessarily need to know everything about the case before watching the documentary, but understanding the background makes the conversations much more revealing.
Ultimately, You Can See Everything is worth discussing because it shows that the story of Theranos hasn't disappeared just because Holmes has been convicted. There are still people trying to defend her, and there are still questions about how she understands her own actions.
For me, the biggest question isn't whether Holmes wants people to hear her side of the story. Of course she does.
The question is whether she is willing to be honest about what happened.
And after everything that has come to light, I'm not convinced that she is.