How the Elizabeth Holmes documentary “You Can See Everything” is deceiving

Has this person never seen Rashomon? Or any of the other films (even documentaries) that cleverly use different perspectives? Seems a bit breathless.

I really wanted her to spoil this movie somewhere in this article.

I have no interest at all in watching this. Some woman scammer that got funding because she was a woman means there are no skills of any variety involved in any of this. I would probably even watch something where an intelligent scammer was able to trick investors out of their money, but this isn’t even that. Keep it moving folks, nothing to see here.

Worth a read about Nathan Fielder, brings a bit of context.

https://archive.ph/sDeDD

Off topic, but as I was reading it I went through the Canon experiment- there where it says:

> each photographer was given a different description of [the same person]: a millionaire, a convict, a fisherman, an alcoholic, a psychic, and a lifesaver.

Well I looked at the pics and thought "yeah, wow, the millionaire, the convict (so obvious!), the fisherman, the alcoholic" it's really impressive! And only immediately after I saw that each picture had the caption with the supposed character and they were all scrambled- what I thought was obviously a sagacious millionaire was in fact the convict, the slightly deranged looking guy was the fisherman, the millionaire was in fact the alcoholic... Lol.

I kind of missed the Elizabeth Holmes thing first time around and only really had a look at it due to the recent buzz.

My conclusion was that guilt or innocence, 99% of the people who are totally certain of her guilt(or indeed innocence) do not have a good basis to do so. The access to the information required for that is not available to most people, we have no basis to judge the narrative for accuracy. Most seem to have pre decided and are interpreting everything as cast iron proof of their opinion.

It seems like utter madness. I see comments like "You can tell she's a sociopath because of her wide blue eyes" it's like people have started believing their own sarcastic comments.

I see Hank Green has an extended piece on it, but extended Hank Green is quite tiring.

I would rather like to see a detailed teardown of one of the machines to get a sense of how far from working they actually were and what were their blockers.

Holmes isn't disliked for lying to investors, she's disliked for lying to patients, endangering lives.

I saw the film.

I wonder if it was part of the contract that the film makers not use the word sociopath of psychopath in the film. The closes we get to wondering if she may be "the most manipulative person."

I understand that the film should not be trying to give a psychiatric diagnosis yet it's something that I feel could have been discussed, and possibly dismissed, directly.

> I remember one Halloween when the Theranos scandal was at its peak, it seemed like everyone was dressed in a black turtleneck carrying tiny vials of fake blood. Holmes was everywhere.

Rolls eyes

I guess I travel in very different circles than this author.

>But the thing that often gets lost in the retelling of her story is that Holmes was actually acquitted of all four charges related to defrauding patients. She’s in prison because a jury found that she knowingly misled investors who poured more than $700 million into the startup. That’s a significant distinction

Now my eyes are getting sore from all the rolling. I don't think that fact gets "lost," and it's not a significant distinction.

I think I'm done with this article, whatever it's point is.

Now go watch F for Fake

The author appears to focus on a large number of grifters as her subject matter, while promoting them. Seems rather sudden in that regard.

> But the thing that often gets lost in the retelling of her story is that Holmes was actually acquitted of all four charges related to defrauding patients. She’s in prison because a jury found that she knowingly misled investors who poured more than $700 million into the startup.

trying to minimize fraud? what a weird article.

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[flagged]

This article makes a valid point and the author is much more perceptive than the average person for noticing it.

I know people who I thought were independent thinkers basically repeat media narratives whilst claiming that "I looked at all the facts and came up with my own opinion." But it was very clear that they had not looked at all the facts and only consumed news from specific mainstream media sources.

One case I remember very clearly concerns Trump Derangement Syndome; what was surprising was that when I asked this person I know "Why do you say Trump is misogynistic?" they pointed out the incident from 2016 elections when Trump made that dirty comment about "Grab them by the ..." But the irony is that the person I was taking to had said worse, mysogynistic jokes in the past! And they definitely don't consider themselves a mysogynist... And I don't either. Sometimes people say things for shock value but they don't believe them. It matters a lot if something is a one-off or if it's a pattern. You can't say someone's is anything based on something they said a couple of times; someone who is truly a mysogynist or a racist or an elitist or whatever would keep coming back to the same ideas over and over. If someone says something or does something offputting once a year, it's kind of insane to assign a label to the person based on it... As if that one thing they almost never say is part of their identity.

The media and films are are really good at selectively showing us a few pieces out of context and convincing us that it's a pattern of behavior and fully characterizes the person. Just pick the 10 worst things a person said in the course of a year on their worst days and you can make them look like the devil.

[flagged]

[flagged]

I'm not bragging: but I do not watch any (almost any) video of the news, so I never see Trump speak or see the Israeli military against the Palestinians or watch the footage of the trials, etc. I do read the news. I just sort of drifted into it when I was an early cord-cutter. I think around the yr 2000 there wasn't much video and I got used to it. I do find that I am much less overstimulated than my friends and family who watch a lot of news video.

Lacan described registers of experience: the Imaginary (visual, sexual, emotional, fantasy), Symbolic (language, associations), and Real (the unsymbolizable, "impossible"). Watching video is immersion in the Imaginary, you get roused, riled up, turned-on, activated, thoughts are connected by paranoia, magical thinking, and aggression. It makes HUGE difference to not not follow the news that way! Again, I'm not bragging, not proud of myself, not espousing a Mr Spock outlook. But it is hard to miss the difference.

[flagged]

I hate these kinds of documentaries. Even after being caught and punished, these wannabe larger than life con artists still get an exit. If school shooters shouldn't be plastered all over the news, then why are these people.

I've never cared for that nate dude and I don't think the behaviors his content seems to encourage is healthy or useful, I'm so sick of hearing about it already.

I ship Nathan and Holmes

Most of the things that get posted here are deceiving. It's just that people care to deconstruct why it's deceiving when it aligns with their biases.