The Elizabeth Holmes documentary “You Can See Everything” is deceiving
readtheprofile.com
readtheprofile.com
The Rehearsal, however, extends the idea further. In that show, he helps real people "rehearse" for hard conversations. It involves Fielder building extravagant sets and having absurdly detailed set-ups with multiple actors, then running the conversation multiple times. What makes this "different" is that now the real person is partially in on it? Like, they know that they're on a set. They know that this is a simulation. So the show is more "meta" than previous entries in the genre, opening up other avenues for humour.
I say this because You Can See Everything is best understood as a further extension of those projects. Even the name indicates this, because by nature of a documentary, you can't see everything. You have a real person in Elizabeth Holmes, being interviewed by a person in Fielder that's known for his stunts taking advantage of "real people," where he watches fictionalized versions of Holmes with Holmes herself? Viewed in light of his previous projects, this feels like an extension of them.
But even with that, I think the setup does allow you to see something real in Holmes. She also knows how people "want" to see her! So there's also a sort of meta-narrative there too, where you know Holmes is on her best behavior to try and dispel the narrative from those fictionalized TV characterizations. The fact that she comes off poorly in the documentary says something, even accounting for the fact that Fielder is trying to sell a narrative.
It's a real mind game, but I think it's representative of Holmes because of that. She is going to jail for a fraud that amounts to a similar sort of mind game, she agrees to a documentary to show herself differently, but that documentary is also a mind game. Wild stuff.
“You sit there believing you’re watching a documentary about a woman who deceived the world, only to discover that you’re also watching a demonstration of how easy it is to deceive you.”
I couldn’t agree more.
If anything that's the part that convinces me it's more than just a documentary, the fact that people apparently don't want to spoil what happens.
Well, yes. We know the plot, but we don't know in what light the movie casts here, and how they do it.
Then what was the point of bringing Amanda Seyfried into the "documentary" as a major character?
What does Amanda Seyfried actually have to do with the story of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos?
You Can See Everything doesn't have Amanda Seyfried in it as far as I'm aware.
(/s in case it's necessary)
Later in "You Can See Everything" Amanda Seyfried literally becomes an important character in the documentary including voicing her opinions and impressions, arguing with and challenging Holmes' husband Billy (they have just met for the first time) and talking at length with Fielder about his opinions and impressions.
This inclusion of Seyfried in this manner ruined for me any chance of this film feeling like a "documentary." This is the point for me where the film went "off-the-rails" and begins to feel like a very confusing experiment in audience manipulation.
It suddenly feels contrived because of this.
The first is the general public's lack of understanding of documentaries as an art form. Documentaries are essentially narratives presented as unfiltered reality ("facts"). Most folks don't truly understand this, or they lose sight of it through suspension of disbelief. That is, they don't know or forget about the film crew, editing, framing, and other artistic choices that form what they see. The illusion becomes invisible; they see only "facts" rather than a constructed narrative designed to guide their interpretation.
Second, filmmakers often use deception as an artistic device in documentaries. Mockumentaries are a pretty clear example of subverting the conventions of documentary filmmaking. It's a bit meta for most folks, so I could see how someone without much media literacy might totally miss this. But it's definitely a very interesting artistic choice given the subject matter.
So pay attention to the sound track and adjust your "suspension of disbelief" accordingly.
In general, it would help anyone to know more about the craft of how filmmakers get people to feel emotions.
And near the end, that bubbly euphoric/revelatory ascending arpeggio was a common motif.
Nathan spent a good deal of time openly trying to decide if he was being deceived or not and while the music drove the tension, by the end of the movie it was clear that he had an open internal conflict about whether to trust her or not, and ultimately left that choice up to the viewer.
The bigger the budget the more custom scoring and less stock music.
The music was composed by Ari Balouzian, same guy who did Primetime which is also A24 and currently in theatre. Both were Lance Oppenheim projects, they seem to like to work together.
But literally watch any A24 movie and compare the soundtracks. A24 takes a much larger hand in things like this than other production companies. They have their own in-house music label. They forgo typical big composers and prefer to hire awesome indie folks like Alex G or Nala Sinephro and let them do their thing, with some light production notes (eerie, etc) and a design goal to make the music part of the narrative. It's a formula and they do it well.
The same can be said for the news we watch. Or the history we read. Or the stories we tell each other. In 2026, we have swung too far toward the fanciful end of the spectrum of storytelling. We're now beset on all sides by BS generators (both human and artificial) and it's more important than ever to carefully handle truth in our stories.
But make no mistake - the teller of a story is absolutely crafting a reality for you. It's on you to decide whether you trust the narrator, or not.
A workaround is to always shoot everyone the same. If a journalist or interviewer grows a reputation, they can show everyone "on level ground" by keeping the pose, lighting, etc... constant.
It's one reason that long-form YouTube interviewers like Lex Friedman are so popular with a more discerning crowd.
"But he's so bland, monotonous, and boring!" cry the haters.
"Yes! That's the point!"
I don't think this works.
And I think it might be actually easier to exploit. The fraudster knows what you're going to do in advance, and can target their own presentation to maximally take advantage.
If the way you show someone conveys X about them, especially when due to outside cultural cues - here's the millionaire framing, here's the convict one... - and you just use the same X for every subject, then you're just suggesting a particular framing over and over. You're avoiding a layer of "my active framing is telling a particular story" but only with a passive—but still deliberate—framing of "my framing is telling a particular story" that you hold constant across every story.
In some ways this is similar to what Holmes exploited originally! Lots of industry media was willing to uncritically frame and present her with their "visionary tech founder" styles, and she leaned even further in to that with the Jobs-isms.
Would not a truer "fair" framing would've been to dig into the claims and let the evidence determine the visual language, to avoid the visual language of "Steve Jobs!!" bias the reader/viewer into giving Holmes' claims more credence?
An interview format is no different. It rewards certain personalities, temperaments, and ways of communicating at the expense of others. Applying the same bias consistently doesn't magically make it objective, it just makes the bias systematic and less obvious.
If I buy a security product, and the seller sends me nothing, therefore showing how easy it is to scam me. Are they somehow less of a scammer, did I actually buy anything of value? Are they raising awareness of the problem? Or are they just the problem?
Both just apologists for obvious scumbags
You Can see Everything, on the other hand is a masterpiece. The Wunderkind becomes a grownup and makes something serious and meaningful and important. A documentary infused with self-consciousness and introspection. Provocative, innovative and calculatedly brilliant.
Whether that happened entirely accidentally through a confluence of absurdities remains to be seen, I suppose. I am very much looking forward to seeing what Fielder does next.
Elizabeth Holmes doesn't know her own center. She responds to the people around her; everything she does is to please her partners and/or the internalized expectations of her family. In the psychological parlance, she is an extreme fawner with narcissistic traits.
Such people are, in a sense, masters of deceit, but once you understand that they lack a real center outside of how others perceive them (and that they also have real feelings, even if their notions of love are profoundly confused), there's no longer an enigma. You know exactly what you'd looking at.
Its so weird because at one point they really had me and I remarked to them that what I liked about them eas they were always up for it and openminded.
Turns out they were just telling you what you wanted to hear and reflecting your desires back at you while trying to capitalize on new business ideas and have you contribute food/supplies for their gatherings.
Its super totes ironic because she was learning and reading up about narcissism as a topic, she never saw it in herself tho.
True, that the film does not draw that conclusion explicitly. But it is a film that asks you to draw your own conclusions.
Without spoiling the movie, it's possible for people to be multiple things at once. That doesn't excuse what Elizabeth Holmes did or explain what others in her circle may be guilty of. The movie is a wild ride.
Thanks!
Surely the documentaries are made in a way that's depicts that very accentued, manipulative, borderline psychopathic person. This is likely more than she was in real life. She might even have been motivated by genuine will to improve the diagnostics field. So yeah you might be "deceived" by these docudramas.
I fear that this kind of poetic write-up muddies the water into "oh, maybe things are more nuanced, and played on her weird personality and background to make things look worse, maybe it wasn't so bad".
People got misdiagnosed and suffered directly because of her. She's every bit guilty of that, as deserving of a harsh judgement as any person directly causing that kind of harm.
Accountability.
The worst crime you can do is take money from a rich person.
Holmes doesn't talk like any innocent person has ever talked. Period. Not even like a naive rube either.
She explicitly initiated this whole thing as a narrative exercise and she just had to stick to the script for what, 45 days? While letting herself feel the genuine self pity all these types of people feel when they are experiencing the consequences for their actions instead of being able to foist them onto someone else?
Her only path forward is to FULLY commit to the bit as a way of deceiving the credulous, even a moment of cynicism and the whole thing falls apart.
Now, did she in fact succeed in that or was it a choice to show no cracks in the facade because it made a more engaging movie?
News flash, I love his media but Nathan Fielder is a monster as well he's my favorite monster but let's not pretend. We can just hold both things to be true instead of engaging in cognitive dissonance.
Other than the children (and that one flatulent horse) everyone involved in this is a monster, and the only way to hide that fact is to ensure the ending is ambiguous, otherwise it just feels like non-transcendent tabloid pap profiting off of bad behavior.
There is goodness, and people attempting to increase goodness and it looks and talks nothing like any of these people.
- The Journalist and the Murderer, Janet Malcolm
That's an arguable position, but the problem with it is that it lacks any kind of gradient. Is the person who stole someone else's lunch from the fridge at work (an unfathomable act, to me) a monster in the same way that any person in federal prison is?
The film is relevant: initially, Amanda felt like a proxy for us, the viewers, someone to point out the abnormality in what we have seen. But then, she showed her unwillingness to even confront the possibility the miniseries was exploitative. She displayed a voyeuristic enthusiasm for more information and involvement. She blended into the film at that point, no longer our proxy as unsullied observer. But, can we really not think of a time we reacted defensively instead of with considered reason? Can we not think of a time we dove into a lurid topic that was fully irrelevant to our lives?
There are a number of cases where people involved in monstrous gang violence appear to show genuine rehabilitation. They devote significant effort toward encouraging others to avoid the mistakes they made. Do they do that because they are no longer monsters, or do they do it because it's one of the few acceptable choices available to someone in their position? I'm not sure we can reliably know.
Are you going to pretend that anyone in this film can be rightly considered a representation of the average persons lived experience?
I agree that Amanda Seyfried is an audience proxy in this movie initially. Are you going to assert that her lived experience and her role and place in society is representative of the norm? In this case is it reasonable to accept the films implicit presentation of her as a audience proxy? How is that reasonable? We do not have to accept or enter into the frame the film wishes us to, we do not have to allow it to anchor our starting point in how we engage with the piece of media.
Humans are the only monsters that actually exist, it doesn't make them less human and it doesn't mean they can't change their lived behavior.
Bringing Amanda Seyfried in as a primary character was unnecessary as was the entire third hour of this movie.
Exactly.
To voice the audience's opinions in the movie itself so the movie can directly address some of them.
I felt it as a break from the intensity and absurdity of the initial half, a lull in the rollercoaster. Then the film reduced Amanda's distance from the subject matter and we were off again.
(I do think the intensity of the first half is partly manufactured by a soundtrack that almost cartoonishly conveys 'unsettling' and 'eerie.' That's probably my main complaint about the film.)
I did not suggest anyone in the film had done a single shred of work towards redemption. Not one person in the film recognizes or admits doing anything wrong, which is a usual first step. Nathan never second-guesses his personal rationalization for making a documentary that financially benefits a subject against his own values. Successfully emerging with clean hands in the end does not fully resolve that.
I did not equate anyone in the film with the lived experience of a gang member. When talking about the categorization of people as good or bad or monster, examples where the dichotomy is extreme are relevant.
And yes, of course, Amanda not having our lived experience is part of why she blends into the film. That's no accident. We are shown her farm, horses and a picture perfect fireside setting. Nathan doesn't need to narrate that "Amanda is comfortable and rich with a farm in the Catskills and a pied-à-terre in Manhattan at one of those buildings where you regularly peek into the courtyard you aren't allowed to enter while you walk past" for the film to make that point.
Whether or not the average person has a different lived experience is still a different question from whether or not the average person is classified as a monster by your measure. And the lived experience of the average HN poster could be closer in relative terms of privilege to that of Nathan and Amanda than to that of the much less privileged, even in the so-called developed world.
I do not believe that the average person would agree with your classification of Nathan and Amanda as monsters. That doesn't invalidate your argument, but it does suggest very broad boundaries, and it becomes unclear what, if anything, prevents a plurality or majority of people being defined as a monster by your worldview. My question was about the utility of the binary classification if it ends up being that overarching.
Explain what position you think is being taken? Is it a binary position? A spectrum? Discrete? Continuous? How can anyone understand what you are even arguing against?
The attempt to extrapolate a generalized formalism from a single specific analysis is really building a pattern out of a single data point.
The pattern you've chosen to build is one that allows you to take the negative position but no one knows what position you're actually complaining about?!?
But, monster is a superlative: there isn't much worse you can be. If you are calling a plurality or majority of people 'the worst kind of human,' does the term not lose utility? Do you use it as a mere stand-in for 'bad person?'
That is why I asked: Is the person who stole someone else's lunch from the fridge at work (an unfathomable act, to me) a monster in the same way that any person in federal prison is?
This may seem less serious than I intend it to be. I do think stealing a colleague's lunch is a sign of severely compromised morality, but I wouldn't default to calling them a monster.
This ultimately matters to me, because I am concerned about the outcome. If we characterize people who do bad things as monsters or 'bad people,' it may follow that they be denied any sympathy, humane treatment in prisons or a path to rehabilitation. None of this is to diminish the harm to victims, whose concerns are a priority. As such, I would posit this is a significant reason that sexual assault in men's prisons is tolerated or accepted as serving justice. The larger and more absolute the category, the more people are subject to that outcome.
I also tend to be a bit hypervigilant about anticipated objections. This may appear as a lack of clarity of opinion when it is intended to be concession for the sake of discussion.
No. it is absolutely possible for a society to have deep enough differentiation that a plurality of members can truly be described as monsters.
Look at MAGA. Depraved is too kind to describe them.
It almost as if the comment section is filled with HN-trained LLM-backed bots intentionally being absurdly vague; just like the trailer last month was.
I am seriously concerned this is all some sort of ingenious marketing ploy to get people to watch the movie instead of just saying, “I genuinely don’t give a shit about Holmes any more now than I did a decade ago.”
Yes, these comments look like a very serious well-funded astroturfing campaign.
The general twist is that she doesn’t really come off as the villain of this film (though she certainly does not come off in a flattering light) - her current husband it turns out is actually a pretty terrifying sociopath who seems to possibly have a bit of a cocaine habit (inferred from the excessive sniffles and insane demeanor) - and he really becomes sort of the films main antagonist.
All of this is completely subjective so someone else could come away with a different take, but if there was a twist (which I would not say this is a film with an overt twist) - it would be this.
For me it was a window into insane wealth and privilege and the types of lives these people lead and the engines that power their sense of self importance and delusions. I do think it was a phenomenal documentary.
But yeah, window into insane wealth and privilege.
The big, big "twist" is SPOILER that last second reveal that Nathan did go swim in the ocean with Holmes and might have been compromised (as Seyfried wonders in the last few moments) and the film really is just another case of trying to make it seem like Holmes isn't the villain because Nathan came away liking Holmes.
(But that's also a game Fielder is playing in this film, how much you can trust him to be an "objective" observer, so not necessarily a twist following along from the beginning, but subtext made text in the last few minutes.)
That said, this contains a decent spoiler-included summary of what happens in the film, if you can tolerate or filter the ads: https://www.slashfilm.com/2287438/you-can-see-everything-end...
Almost everything you'd want to say about it would spoil something interesting about the film. (This is not hearsay. I've seen it and I can't think about how to say anything meaningful about it without spoiling it.)
However I strongly disagree with the author of this post. The one thing it does wrong is under-emphasizes how much hard evidence there is the Holmes personally did serious crimes:
1. Concealed use of competitor's machines since she knew there machines weren't capable.
2. Fabricated military contracts and endorsements.
3. Knowingly presented widely inflated revenue projections to investors.
4. Explicitly admitted in court to forging reports using the letterhead and logos of major pharmaceutical companies without their permission
5. There's text messages, internal emails, and firsthand whistleblower testimony—proving that Elizabeth Holmes and her chief operating officer, Sunny Balwani, orchestrated a ruthless campaign to silence anyone who tried to expose the fraud.
If anything the movie tries to let Holmes dupe you into forgetting this. Frankly the fact that SHE invited NATHAN to film this makes me think she was trying to use her baby as a way to garner sympathy and whitewash her life (presumably not really understanding his work).
I agree. The EH portrayed in this movie is much more sympathetic than the one portrayed in the Carreyrou book, and in Dropout. Fielder obviously knows all of this, and he is consistently interested in the "meta" levels of storytelling. So I don't think the point of the movie is as simple as "but wait, maybe she is actually innocent!".
One point seems to be mindfuckery -- EH making Nathan unsure of who she is, and when she is being honest; him doing the same to his audience; even Amanda seems to get in on it. For example: when Amanda and Nathan are in front of the fireplace talking about Nathan's visit to EH in prison: was that scripted? Or was it a genuine conversation? Or an improvised conversation (with an agreed set of points to be made)?
And, with (spoilers) the final prison visitation exchange, honestly it's pretty telling that she probably was just being manipulative the entire time because she doesn't seem to care that Billy asked for the money.
In a way, this documentary was probably _going to_ be about exploring the factual matters and whether or not she knew she was actually guilty or had some level of remorse. There are many aspects of that in the film. But Billy asking for the money to sign the appearance/likeness contract seems to have derailed Lance and Nathan's original intention for the movie, since that ask - and that Holmes stepped away - directly plays into whether or not she is this incredibly manipulative person.
But the legally proven history of all the things she did (and still refuses to admit!) give a very clear picture of who Holmes is, a much more accurate picture than you get from hearing her lie and dodge questions.
I don't think it was ever going to be about that. Nathan isn't a journalist and his interests as a storyteller generally aren't about The Truth in a journalist sense, but about how we tell stories, especially about ourselves.
The fact the appearance/likeness contract matter doesn't even show up until the second half of the film also doesn't make it feel like the film is about that. That's just a subplot in the larger stories.
Yes, this is a documentary about a person. And how the documentary is presented will color your perspective of the person. This should (hopefully) be apparent to anyone who's watched a documentary about a person before.
But how does it do it? What tools does it use to that effect? I appreciate that this film remains relatively neutral/ambiguous, but what makes this unique from other documentaries that deal with ambiguous subject matter?
There's a big difference in ambiguousness and ambivalence, especially in documentaries. "Ambiguousness" represents an uncertain logical conclusion, whereas "ambivalence" stands in for (the strength of) conflicting forces.
I'd wager that an ambiguous documentary would be close to being unwatchable, and I can't remember that I've seen any. Since I've yet to see You Can See Everything, unfortunately I can't comment about it in any way.
Sam Bankman-Fried and Elizabeth Holmes are interesting characters, true, but there's so much nuts in tech, it's just fertile ground for stories.
It seems that everyone interviewed about this story has their own red flag moment -- the point where they knew that something was way off, and that they should stay far away. Silicon Valley VCs being the prime example. It is incorrect to say that Theranos was a VC company, it was more funded by angels who were incapable of objectively judging what was being proposed.
At Stanford a prof (important to say: a woman) who knew that the idea was technically infeasible. (And interesting to contrast with another very senior prof -- a man -- who left his tenured position to join Theranos). I remember reading a New Yorker profile of EH years before Theranos blew up, and the story described how she had all of these extremely powerful old men on her board: George Schultz, Henry Kissinger. That was my red flag moment. Yes, they are brilliant and powerful, but they are also clueless about biotech and medical tech. So why get them involved? Something seemed very off to me. Lots of people knew that something was very off, and yet ...
Nope. He's barely even in the film. It's not a normal documentary.
If you’re that interested in getting these answers, you probably should watch the film
Been like this with most mainstream documentaries like this one.
I respectfully disagree. It's post-postmodern performance art. It's like a box of Post cereal with a Post-It note on it nailed to a post in from of the lamppost at the corner of Meta's headquarters in the metaverse. It's a relentless onslaught of origami tesseracts made out of pages from a Baudrillard book that an NYU student used to roll a cigarette of imported European tobacco while they post on Xitter in all lowercase. It's pure never-been-stepped-on A24.
I'm glad I saw this film in theaters as the people laughing and shouting was part of this experience but I'll never watch it again, i.e. it was good but definitely not "fun". I agree with those who say that excising the final third would've made it tighter.
Well at least now I know it's not going to be funny, and is way too long.
At best I can say that it makes you think about things like deceit and honesty/accuracy in media, but it definitely didn't blow my mind like it apparently did for this author. After 3 hours I was just exhausted from watching these peoples' tortuous attempts to avoid giving a direct answer to any question.
I’ve been around a lot of bullshitters my whole life, and my immediate reaction is to go “this person is full of shit, not worthy of my attention, kthxbye”
But I’ve noticed that most people when faced with the same person can’t help but try and figure out what makes them tick, or their redeeming qualities, or if even anything can be redeemed. It seems to be a social equivalent of “nerd sniping”; most people just have a very hard time declaring “this person is worth 0 additional seconds of my time” and actually following through.
See also ppl in toxic relationships, who will complain to their friends incessantly about how bad the other person is and how they know they need to get out of it, only to rarely get out of it.
I can't stand this. Most people who suck aren't an onion. They just suck. Or there is a nice layer under that, and then beneath that a core of suck.
I think it's important to inoculate yourself against presentation. Like, sure, now we know that Elizabeth Holmes was evil, an we can be binary about it - but would it have easier to be more critical of her rise if we could look past her apparent positive qualities?
I don't think seeking to involve those people in your life is. It would be interesting to ask an oracle what percentage of people have managed to "change" an abusive partner after pursuing them knowing full well the red flags they display. I'd wager it is a tiny percentage though.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone put this into words.
Thank you. A very compelling thought.
I think that's what "setting boundaries" is about: Standing your own ground, and decide: "Not worth my time and energy.", yet still believe in the good in people. I think even bad people have something good in them. It's just not healthy to figure it out for me, once the manipulative (or bad) habits have surfaced.
Most people aren't like that, a few are.
It becomes a lot less interesting and curiosity invoking when you have such a bullshitter in your life. The interaction becomes "the lied about this, so what did they really mean". For example, my bullshitter will often have car troubles, a dead pet (that comes back to life) or medical issues whenever they don't want to show up to a family event.
I can promise you there's really nothing more deep to understand beyond the fact that they've become overly comfortable with using lies to get what they want.
Same formula across country, culture, time and people keep getting sucked in.
If you can get him fired then go for it. Otherwise, you're only harming yourself by letting yourself dwell on it. As for believing him; when my coworker starts rambling about the time the Navy seals came to him for help, I just say "wow man, crazy". I don't believe him, but neither do I confront it. Why bother? I'm not being paid to call out his dumb lies. This is probably what your other coworkers were thinking.
Conversely, actively complaining about it prevents enabling group thing to form. It helps victims identify the situation sooner, to leave of better protect themselves.
If you really wanna out a liar and come out clean on the other end, it's just so much documentation, emotional decision trees, how to phrase & frame & present things, etc. etc. etc.
Often, the compulsive liar will out themselves, create their own demise, or be enabled and further empowered by a toxic system that rewards such types (which if possible, you'd wanna get out of ASAP because prolonged exposure leaves lasting damage to anyone in such systems).
But, you acted as if there was something wrong with those who dont. And as if there was some higher value in enabling and playing along. I disagree with both.
Usually they've made a couple enemies. Just gang up with their enemies. If it's a group effort, there's only so much management can do at that point (depending on how much leverage they have). It's all dependent on the specific political situation.
This whole image of them being "well-liked" and socially invincible is just a play. Usually this type of person has made a shit ton of enemies. It may or may not be worthwhile depending on how shitty of a situation you're in, how bad the company's stack ranking and layoff quota is, how attached they are to you, etc
The argument is that essentially that's become an entire "social class" of people, the people in especially upper management and the people of wealth/privilege.
For whatever reason our society has seemed to have evolved to a point that honesty does not "valuable" or a trait held by "wealthy people".
It's hard not to feel like this is a theme of the movie in question, too.
[0] https://ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-t...
You have to admit that shutting people out is still a defense mechanism that can backfire.
You're not immune from a skilled sociopath for doing this. They know what you're doing. The moment you turn your back is when they know they can blindside you.
It's the moment they start talking behind your back, shutting you out of conversations, undermining your work, etc. You're a lot more vulnerable when you're out of the loop. You can't assume you're stronger or smarter for trying to take the "high road". There is no high road with these people. They'll ruin everything in any way possible. They have their bases covered.
Like, duh yeah that’s the goal. Do that as much as possible, but a lot of your life is going to involve dealing with these people.
On a slightly deeper level, essentially nobody is 0% or 100% bullshitter. Nearly all of humanity falls into the middle. Even the most literal, level 2+ ASD folks I’ve known were, at a minimum, cagey at times.
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
Don't post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans.
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Holmes is interesting because she's not a freak or a one-off. She's pretty much a generic tech startup CEO billionaire wannabe, finance industry person, and/or familiar political archetype - arguably more extreme than most, but there's nothing truly exotic about the DNA here.
it's hard to see through at first, but toxic relationships often actively obfuscate the toxicity of the social circle the partner is a--often seemingly lesser--part of ... but that's child play and toxicity or even betrayal on these levels is only "hard" if one loses more than a good conscious decade. in professional lives however, that harm is pretty much irreversible, within a single project's time frame, ... what's lost, practically non-retrievable, non-compensable ...
That whole Holmes story felt dodgy from the start. What she was gunning for was partially (recursively) done elsewhere, successfully. Then the whole Corona bit broke out and I still find myself wondering what the fuck ... but that might be a residue non-actual-conspiratorial-they-are-hiding-aliens kind of thought process that still wants to write one or the other post-they-don't-have-the-capacity-to-tap-everyone's-phone-calls and tor-exit-nodes-are-definitely-mostly-owned-by-the-same-privacy-loving-folks-who-maintain-those-8mil-lines-of-linux-and-other-distros story ...
I have something like that, but not (just?) for people. When I read (or listen to) something I very often fairly quickly recognize meta signs of bs and go 'kthxbye'. I call it bullshit filter and I am often surprised that some, even fairly intelligent, people can have suprinsingly weak one. As for morbid curiosity towards bs, I have very little. I'm even afraid that being too curious about it might be detrimental so I'm keeping my distance even when I engage somewhat.
Most people, even toxic people, do have positive qualities.
At the most basic strategic level, it’s vital to recognize this so that we don’t fall for such people in the future. It’s sooooo easy to say “well so and so can’t be too toxic… I mean, they volunteer at the soup kitchen on weekends” or whatever. That’s part of how they (intentionally or unintentionally) lure you in. All very valuable for engineer-types, who may tend to be very literal in actions and their interpretations of others’ actions.
At a more nuanced strategic level, it’s good to recognize that since all people are a mix of positive and negative traits, How can we coexist with such people in cases when we can’t avoid it? It’s simplistic to say “just avoid toxic people” — it’s a good “north star” but is often impossible or impractical. e.g. it’s convenient to say “just cut toxic family members out of your life” and sometimes it’s the right call, but I’ve heard people toss that phrase around like it’s nothing and wow it’s heartbreakingly glib.
I think it’s also valuable for introspective purposes. It’s very easy to fall into the mindset of “well, I’m a good person because of X, Y, and Z” while blinding ourselves to negative ways in which we affect others.
Finally, yeah, sure — I admit it. I like a puzzle. Specifically the puzzle of figuring out if these people believe their own bullshit!
(For the record, I thought this movie was incredible, though HN’s collective “meh” on this thread was expected)
We must be living in very different worlds; in my experience these things are never that black&white.
I do agree that it’s very important to know where your boundaries are in life and stand firm on them; and you don’t need to keep people in your life who are a bad influence. It’s just not as easy to make that distinction as some of the comments itt make it out to be …
I don’t think that is true. I know from myself and many of my friends or family that personalities can change, at times quite dramatically. Sometimes for “good” other times not so much.
The generally accepted view is that personality is “relatively stable” in adulthood; not that it is completely static.
see for example https://experts.illinois.edu/en/publications/personality-sta...
You previously wrote “personality doesn't change, it's a stable pattern” implying personalities not limited to narcissists.
If we are talking about people with severe or clinically elevated narcissism - sure it’s much harder to change since it’s basically a mental illness; but there are also many cases where people suffering from NPD improved their condition. Which means they can change.
It might not be worth to you personally to be the facilitator of that change and that is fair, no one said that.
But saying that peoples personalities cant change as a blanket statement is just objectively wrong
And I agree with the OP. In the past I've often been amazed and appalled at how someone can be proven to have lied, and the people around them barely update at all. They just brush it off and keep going back to be lied to again. It feels like the average normie has an extremely high tolerance for lying to the extent they don't feel it's much of a crime at all. Which I guess is why people like Elizabeth Holmes can thrive.
Of course some lies are unforgivable. But it would need to be a pretty big lie for me to go and immediately cut people off.
Also I would argue the people that are obvious in their lying and manipulating aren’t the dangerous ones - those that aren’t obvious, that you don’t spot easily off the cuff are much more dangerous. And I’m 100% certain you also have such people in your life, it’s just unavoidable. And others might look at you and have the same thoughts: “look at this normie who doesn’t realise they are being lied to”
Overall I think there is a lot more nuance to this than you and OP make it out to be.
But I do understand the appeal of simple black/white narratives; they are very attractive. I just hope you treat the people close to you more merciful and forgiving.
Yeah. The person that's constantly bragging about fantasy stuff or reflexively claiming nothing was ever their fault might warrant cutting off because they're tiresome, but they're not likely to undermine you never mind pull off this level of scam because they're so unconvincing, and that might make them more harmlessly amusing than anything else. The manipulative person who's constant spreading false rumours might raise red flags, and definitely isn't someone you want to spend time with once you've spotted that some of their claims simply don't line up. But a large part of why people are often good at covering stuff up even if its the most heinous shit is that they manage to be plausible and likeable most of the time and generally tell the truth on other subjects.
Holmes likely fell into that category, though she didn't exactly downplay her lies in the way someone covering their deep dark secret usually does.
And yeah, in practice whether you cut someone off after learning their deep dark secret probably depends a lot on what it is and how it relates to you (and usually it's more "I'm hiding my affair" than "my billion dollar enterprise supplies fraudulent medical tests")
> like a puzzle... people believe their own bullshit!
Most people do not have this kind of resources.
So ceteris paribus, yes, cut off bullshitters. But context matters. If a friend of a good friend is striking me as stupid, I'm going to make damn sure that's what's happening versus me misunderstanding them (or catching them at a bad moment).
That's easy enough with a bullshitter in your private life.
A professional bullshitter is a different thing and you might not always have the luxury of just walking away and never encountering that person again (or the problems they create).
Their statements are usually made in service of a goal, not earnestly-held good-faith opinions. Even if someone is "very intelligent", what makes you think they are giving you access to the fruit of that intelligence? How do you know they aren't using their intelligence to try and manifest an outcome that would be beneficial to themselves, completely divorced from what anyone with their level of access to information could possibly believe (much less someone intelligent)? Sure, they'll tell you some truth if they happen to believe that doing that will reward them. But they'll also tell you that they're deeply committed to your local city when they have a meeting to discuss tax incentives for moving their HQ later that same day or that their plant has a sterling safety record while deliberately burying records of payouts for injuries. The only real difference between this and someone like Holmes is that they have a better level of skill in forecasting consequences.
What this ultimately means is: There is often little value in listening because you end up having to estimate the truth from less-manipulative sources yourself. And if you're going to spend the time and energy to do that anyway, you can skip straight to this step.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Blood:_Secrets_and_Lies_in...
https://www.thesocialradars.com/transcripts/TSR-S4-Tyler-Shu...
https://www.thesocialradars.com/transcripts/TSR-S4-Tyler-Shu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inventor:_Out_for_Blood_in...
In this case, the attempts are simultaneously tortuous, torturous, and tortious!
This is similar to the Musk doc. When everything about the person is already explored real-time in the media, there's no mystery left. There's no drama. It is almost as dull as the subject's personality and almost as vacant as the subject's morality. Hmmm, so I guess in a weird self-referential way maybe it is genius? Nah.
> After 3 hours I was just exhausted...
A. Is she truly the most manipulative person we've ever seen
B. Largely oblivious to what's happening around her
and not:
- Is she guilty
This movie I would say does not answer those questions, nor do I think seeks to.
It's worse than reckless. They make not-knowing part of their operating model.
And they make sure nobody else with power and influence does too much knowing either. Silos, stay in your lane, don't ask questions about how your department's KPIs mesh with the next one over, or what conclusions might be inferred.
There's always the chance one could have ridden fake-it-till-you-make-it long enough for the engineers to solve the underlying issues...
At her level of responsibility she'd better know. Whatever the case, she's either deceitful or incompetent. Neither answer is flattering or acceptable.
There are some leaders who are extremely good at convincing you about the importance of belief in a particular thing to the point where you avoid even thinking up those questions - if they are ever cornered (and they rarely allow it to get to that point) they will wriggle endlessly rather than responding to a line of inquiry that bursts the collective bubble.
Do they know? It's hard to argue about their internal motivations.
To me the subtext of the movie was that a sociopath's manipulation is so strong that even against the heavy counterforce of the filmmaker's bias, it makes it through. I agree with TFA's general premise that the film forces you to confront how easy it is to deceive you -- but it's not the filmmaker who's doing the deceiving. Sociopathic manipulation is about sparking doubt. Gaslighters don't need to prove anything, they just need to plant a "but what if" in some corner of your mind. The fact that the author felt compelled to write TFA at all is ironically a product of that manipulative power.
Another way to think of it is: the documentary makes you think whether, if you were in the room with her in the years that Theranos was operating, would you have fallen for it? If you feel the need to write apologia after watching a documentary that's basically a hit piece, you know the answer.
There’s a story in the movie about a magician performing a trick, but where there is no trick. The magician really does the thing he appears to do. I think that’s more where GP’s question lies, i.e.: Is her unusual processing of the world an elaborate conscious construction, or is it automatic, and to what degree?
That isn’t a direct determination about her merit or culpability.
Probably no. The most manipulative are still not in the jail and are running some well-known big companies.
You just flat out don’t get into these positions without being a psychopath. Partially that it wouldn’t be attractive to you, and partially that you won’t succeed without those behaviors.
I’m a big fan of conscript political assignments. The people that don’t want to do it I think would make better decisions.
Or religions, or religious-like communities.
Here are key observations of sociopathic personalities:
* They are never wrong, but there are rare times they will admit to being wrong if they have calculated an advantage in doing so.
* They don't care about you, or anybody else. They can't. A sociopath is a damaged personality that cannot empathize. What's interesting is that introspection is the same skill as empathy, so they cannot do that either. As such, they have no faults.
* Sociopaths tend to be charming. They want to appear pleasant. A primary goal of any narcissist is admiration. This is all temporary though, because they lack the empathy necessary to adapt and build trust or extend relationships, which means they are more important than you. It also means they will extend an irrationally great amount of energy to inform you of just how charming they are or how wrong they aren't.
* Sociopaths tend to become hostile when they don't get want they want. They live in a world of "i want" or "i don't want" and there is no further action to execute. This also tends to make for controlling and abusive personalities.
* Sociopaths are not necessarily sadists. The goal is not typically to harm other people, but rather to fulfill themselves irrespective of any harm.
Musk, Altman and Zuckerberg all are able to somehow ignore the harm they cause and have an amazing ability to justify it in pursuit of some “greater good”.
[0] https://ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-t...
"We like to believe that we form our opinions by gathering evidence, weighing facts, and arriving at reasonable conclusions. Be for real. No we do not."
She speaks for herself. The author then doesn't bring up a single fact, piece of evidence, or anything else besides just restating the pedestrian premise a few times. I don't share her inability to study a topic in-depth, come to a conclusion or challenge my previously held beliefs, and then pass judgment while attaching a calibrated degree of certainty to the soundness of my conviction.
> We like to believe that we form our opinions by gathering evidence, weighing facts, and arriving at reasonable conclusions. Be for real. No we do not. Here’s how it actually goes: We form an emotional impression first, then we build a belief around it, and then we go looking for facts that support it. This is my theory as to why we’re so divided in this country. Beliefs built on emotion are nearly impossible to reason with.
This idea is explored in depth in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt.
And related David Hume quote:
> Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake
I highly recommend it!
Available here: https://www.criterionchannel.com/films/3BF6gJZI/f-for-fake
> My name is Nathan Fielder, and I graduated from one of Canada's top business schools with really good grades.
It's the opening line of the directors previous TV shows
She is MAGA. That's enought to know about the topic.
The media and seemingly random persons like this stanning her is extremely weird.
Trump is an ignorant Leland Gaunt. If only he can help you out of a mess you made, being helped is going to violate every remaining principle you have. Worth just getting rid of them up front.
Elizabeth Holmes is probably practicing doing her hair like Ivanka. Her pardon is going to cost a lot of money and probably some face time.
Edit: looked it up. Who is stanning her? The person who wrote the article or Nathan?
In case you aren't, her Twitter account isn't run by her. She doesn't post of it; it's another person impersonating her. This movie touches on this fact very significantly partway through. The person impersonating her is a MAGA guy and was given access to her account by reaching out to "people pretty high up with X"
Is it manipulation to show particular positions and connect with X/republicans? Because in the movie he is reaching out to X support with legal power of attorney, and it was also shown as another sign of overcontrol from him
Even the trailer for this film implies "look at how cooky / manipulative this woman is -- we're just showing her staring at Nathan"
Well that explains a lot about the doomerism and misinformation we regularly find on HN. If you don’t see the agenda being pushed or look into who is funding the documentary for just about every documentary in existence then you’re just not very intellectually honest. For example one of the vegan pushing ones on Netflix is straight up funded by/closely tied to for-profit artificial meat companies
To paraphrase George Carlin, my agenda is truth, your truth is agenda.
Compelling a perspective is the only thing cinematography / photography is doing. Bias equals point of view. There can't be any unbiased point of view because they're the same thing.
There's a conversation on education to be had here.
Look at Super Size Me . The trailers, news media, promotions, critics, broader news media presented it as an objective case study. And McDonalds canceled a popular sales promotion over it. *and it had an enormous negative influence on McDonald's reputation, that it still hasn't yet recovered from.
90+% of people watch and share documentaries with the perspective that they are objective, truth seeking works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me#Counter-claims
But I was unsurprised, years and years later, to discover that Spurlock's extensive and growing liver damage, and other adverse symptoms, were being helped along quite a bit by his severe alcohol abuse throughout principal photography. It really sort of drove home that there is more than one side to this story they put up on screen, no matter how much they appear to seek and depict the truth.
Thousands of through-hikers live on McDonalds and Ramen for months and are some of the fittest people. Dozens of other activities like this too.
Kohen lampoons subjects in candid videos but at least presents his works as a joke, and we're all in on it.
This movie is the exact same thing, but it's promoted as an inside & sincere look at Holmes, when it's really just the Ali G schtick.
1) Warn readers there are "spoilers ahead" and then proceed to actually say something.
2) Withhold from writing a totally vacuous post and write about something else instead.
As it is this reads like an Onion article titled "Man, that twist at the end of Empire Strikes Back was totally crazy!"
People are just trying to thread the needle of how to handle discussing this movie in this short window so soon after release. We want others to watch the movie so we can both have more people to talk about it with and so we can eventually talk about it more openly. But as is, the movie just came out a few days ago so people are trying to not diminish anyone's experience of watching this movie for the first time without knowing what transpires. I realize this likely all sounds frustrating to someone with little interest in the movie, but it's all a good intentioned way of engaging with a very special piece of art.
I'm glad that pieces like this exist, encouraging people to go and see it, and I look forward to reading more of (1) once I've seen it.
I’d expect nothing less from Nathan Fielder. With his involvement, anything less than surprising weirdness taken to extremes would be a disappointment.
That's because the film is easily spoiled, and the impact comes from watching it. Writing a film review without spoiling a film like this is hard.
The musk’s of the world are just exceptional at getting leverage - and pretty good/exceptional at manipulation.
Holmes was just good at manipulation, not so good at leverage, and eventually her fraud rose to the level even her manipulation skills were insufficient - and then had nothing to fall back on.
Oops.
https://www.russellreynolds.com/en/about/newsroom/women-ceos...
Your argument was that women were more punished by law. The studies (as someone else linked) show that women are less punished by law.
You switched your argument to "powerful women," which would require a lot of evidence, because it is contrary to the statistical expectation from the previous data, that women of all kinds would be less punished by law than their male counterparts.
Now, your argument and the study you linked just refers to how many women get promoted and the attention and criticism they get, which is separate from our legal system.
The easiest demonstrative example is looking at someone like Leni Riefenstahl‘s work.
The film is by Nathan Fielder, who specializes in fake situations and fake documentaries.
Admittedly seeing him at first made me think "wow that lady sounds exactly like Holmes". Then I realized it was supposed to be her and thought "wow, they did an amazing job casting her".
Then I realized it was her, at which point it was immediately clear this was a serious endeavor and not something Fielder typically does.
Isn't that the point? That it has to be a spoof and the question is, "Who's zoomin' who?," as Aretha Franklin put it?
You’re on ycombinator, a forum for startups. A non zero amount of people here would do exactly what Holmes did for money.
To go even further, "fake it til you make it" used to be a mantra lots of startup founders followed, and the whole story about how reddit got started with puppet-accounts to make it look busy when it was just three guys in a bedroom, was hailed as a successful strategy for growing startups.
It's a pretty disorienting film, and I think that is part of the point. We're living in an age where presentation matters far more than substance.
Is this a parody lol?
Maybe when I read about "cinemas are a bad experience nowadays" on american sites (reddit, HN) they mean this but I always felt that they are deceiving me.
Maybe I'm just too Asian-European because I never experienced that in any European or Far East Asian cinemas.
That makes sense. Berkeley is part of the same social caste Holmes exploited for investment.
I have heard from musicians who visit the bay that concert audiences are more frequently obnoxious here than other places, and they attribute it to a general lack of social skills in conjunction with all the artists being priced out of the area.
No, that's called "obnoxious virtue signalling" and people do it all the time in places like San Francisco, Seattle and Portland. It's gross and unnecessary. Don't glorify it.
While I understand the stereotype of these places lends itself to that view, I have never, ever seen this type of behavior displayed in a movie theater, from blockbuster showings to small, art-house stuff that touches on controversial issues you think people would be vocal about.
Please stereotype less.
Hi! I lived in Seattle, in SF and I’ve been to Portland many times. And I’ve seen the behavior I’ve described in all of the locations I’ve mentioned. Personally. With my own eyes and ears. More than once in each place! Strange, that.
So I don’t know…right back at you with the stereotyping thing? Because what you’re doing is taking your own limited experiences, overgeneralizing those and throwing shade at people who say things you disagree with.
(Also, by the way: the “please stereotype less” response is practically a whole delicious stereotype in itself. And here you are using it! The way non-passive-aggressive people say what you’re trying to say is: “I think you’re wrong, because I’ve never seen that.” This approach has the distinct rhetorical advantage of being honest, clear and direct, but of course, lacks that emotional punch of trying to belittle your inquisitor with a subtle insult.)
I mean, when someone blanket generalizes and casts a very wide net, saying that it happens "all the time", and someone with 40 years of theater-going experience in those locales has not seen it happen once, then yeah, they're gonna point out that you're, at the very least, hyperbolically stretching the truth.
Please spare me the high and mightiness about any passive aggressiveness in my post, I just responded in kind to your own passive dig at those locales. If you're going to make tall claims like you did, don't be surprised when people push back.
Well, now we’re getting somewhere! You want to say I’m being hyperbolic? That’s cool. I clearly was. It literally does not happen at every single movie. I exaggerated for effect. Mea culpa.
(Doesn’t change the fact that I’ve heard and seen these things often, of course.)
> Please spare me the high and mightiness about any passive aggressiveness in my post, I just responded in kind to your own passive dig at those locales.
Erm, OK. I wasn’t being passive. I said it pretty bluntly. Was it unclear?
As the kids say: “do better”.
(that’s a joke btw)
It doesn’t occur to me as to why I would want to do that…
You know how cinema is a good opportunity to sit there among several dozen strangers (at least), and enjoy a shared experience, and laugh, cry, scream, whatever you do, together?
Well, I've been to several films where nobody laughed. Like, there were at least a dozen or more other people in the audience, and there were genuinely funny parts of these films, and there was nobody else laughing in there, except me.
And I can tell you which ones: Disclosure Day, The End of Oak Street, and Digger. Now, the first two aren't comedies. But they definitely had comedic, sort of awkward bits that were obviously supposed to be LOL funny, to break the tension and establish some moods. And Digger itself, classified as a black comedy, was thoroughly hilarious, and farcical, although exceedingly awkward in some parts. And I was walking out behind two nerds and they were having an intellectual discussion of how "interesting" it was to them.
But nobody's laughing in the theater. And I am not exactly sure why. It is not long ago when I noticed that younger people were reacting and laughing much faster than I could react, for some reason. But now, the audience has simply stopped laughing altogether.
Is this unique to my experience? Anyone else in the USA noticing this? I know that not a lot of people are attending movies these days. But The Odyssey was selling out, over a month into its run. But there were no funny parts to it, I suppose.
I'm happy to report that the 100-200 humans filling the room were laughing throughout the film, and all at appropriate times. The plot really began to peel an absurd onion, and things got quite meta, and we just kept laughing along with one another. It was a very good time, had by all.
As for the film itself, I thought it was quite engrossing, and I am glad that I hadn't seen any real spoilers, because the third act was definitely a doozy. And it didn't feel too long, or dragging or tedious. I thought that the entire question of what's real, what's deception, what is believed, especially by Holmes and Fielder, were very well-explored in this.
You could add an object to the sentence and say "the documentary is deceiving you". But without the object, "deceptive" sounds better here.
> 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 include citizen footage in this as well. Even un-edited "raw" footage is shot from a single perspective, and promoted with an agenda.
A movie can't be objective -- it is told from the Director & DP's point of view. Camera perspective imposes the viewer's perspective. And documentary filmmakers are never experts on the subject matter. They are entertainers.
As the film ends, no questions are answered, no facts are presented to push or counter the narratives introduced, it just ends, and you're left wondering what just happened.
To my point, some of these questions have obvious answers, at some points EH is presented as honest, and at some points she is presented as deliberately obtuse. Some things are intentionally played up both in editing and acting to direct you to an answer. It makes you question everything, including the documentary itself, which is why I think it kind of transcends "documentary" as a genre.
It's a passive-aggressive artistic approach. In this case, Holmes already has a tainted reputation. Show a bunch of awkward scenes of her, reinforcing the slander. But in the end, present no real conclusions or positions that could be criticized. "We're leaving it up to the viewer".
But they're riding the mob's wave, and exploiting her. Making everyone dumber.
but so far, most of the experience has been through the marketing , and the angle is obviously "let's make her look like a con artist"
> Very early on, I worked out that one of the most stupid things that they do on television is these things called cutaways or what used to be called “noddies” where, when you cut an interview with someone, you insert a noddy of the reporter looking noddingly at the interviewee to disguise the cut.
> I would never do that. I just cut and you can see what I’m doing, that I am actually cutting this person, or I will use music to push my argument.
> I mean, I have arguments and I have stories. That’s what television journalism has and you can either dress it up as “this is the absolute truth” or you can dress it up with me by saying “look, I’m telling you a story, all this is true but have you thought that it could be like this?” to provoke you.
> And of course I want people to agree with me because, you know, all human beings will, but I understand that my job is to push and good journalism should do that especially at a time of uncertainty.
> At the present moment, to go back to my original point, you know what you’re going to get with most journalism. So therefore you sort of switch off and you go “oh yeah, it’s a climate change film”. “Oh yeah, it’s a ‘bankers have done something ever bad’ again.” Therefore, you don’t look.
> It’s like if you’re showing a picture of the Mona Lisa. You don’t look at it. You just look at it as a pattern. You go, “oh, that’s the Mona Lisa”. I don’t know when I last looked at the Mona Lisa. I don’t think I ever have, because it’s a thing. And so much of journalism is a thing now.
— Adam Curtis
While this is true, the reason we are much more divided country than in the past is that today's tech actively amplifies this. You can always find the news to support your belief, and social networks are tuned to reinforce it. This is a vicious circle - the more we are divided, the more division is propageted.
People post vile comments because they don’t have to face the consequences which adds to the vicious cycle.
All documentaries editorialize. Saying so is neither particularly novel or interesting. The film also doesn’t attempt to render a guilty verdict - that was already done in a court of law and EH is in prison.
It’s fine to dislike the film, but the honest thing to do would just be to say so rather than to claim some kind of moral high ground.
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.
Has anyone else seen both and can they comment on the differences?
This new one focuses on Elizabeth Holmes's personal life, her mindset right before going to prison, and her ongoing insistence on her own reality. It has direct, intimate access and was filmed inside her home with her partner Billy Evans and their children in the 34 days leading up to her prison sentence.
In the other, Elizabeth Holmes invites the filmmaker to live with her.
i know of at least two modern "prestige" directors, specifically Oppenheim and Matt Johnson, cite F For Fake as a major influence
id love if anyone has recs on other movies in the F For Fake spirit. my two cents from seeing it a few years back is that it was interesting but also quite zany in a way i found a bit dorky. now having seen You Can See Everything, i want to see more F-For-Fake-likes to compare
edit: added "modern"
It did for the author because this is a service she provides. To even suggest that Elizabeth Holmes didn't really harm anyone because she in prison for investor fraud, and then have the nerve to call that distinction "nuance", is absurd.
Theranos generated around 7.8 million test results for Arizona consumers alone. Of those, roughly 834,000 had to be voided or corrected. These were real people getting medical information they relied on. Some received terrifying and incorrect indications of prostate cancer. Pregnant women received results suggesting they were miscarrying when they weren't.
It's like claiming a blood bank supervisor didn't put patients at risk by giving them incompatible blood transfusions, simply because the state only managed to prosecute them for pirating the inventory software they were using.
She did it before for Paul Logan and Anthony Scaramucci, and now is softening the road for Elizabeth Holmes pardon.
She did the same in her newsletter for Logan Paul when he was trying to move beyond his image as a toxic YouTube prankster, and spent months embedded with him and his brother.
Then did the same for Anthony Scaramucci, when he had to rebuild his credibility in the investment world, as his bitcoin hedge fund was about to go nowhere. Pompliano opens with his fascination with astrology. Astrology!
Call monsters what they are. The victims deserve it.
In November 2021, a woman named Erin Tompkins testified in Elizabeth Holmes's trial that Theranos had given her a false-positive HIV result in 2015
I got one of these! I called my New York doctor in a panic because apparently my kidneys and liver were failing. We ordered a bunch of rush tests, they came back fine, then we did a bunch more to confirm. That was a lot of stress, wasted medical professionals' time and cost for a single person. (The only reason I didn't go straight to ER is I was doing my start-up at the time and, America being America, didn't have the best health insurance.)
I don't think my doctor reported that result as being wrong. I certainly didn't–I was too busy confronting my impending doom. So my HDHP wound up paying for not only the un-needed follow-up tests, but also for the Theranos test. (I don't remember if I paid a deductible. It was at a Walgreens.)
> She did it before for Paul Logan and Anthony Scaramucci, and now is softening the road for Elizabeth Holmes pardon
She's maintaining access to powerful people. It's a well-known problem with access journalism.
Yes, CNBC is a prime example :-)
So yes
I’d been reading about them for a few years, never got personally involved in any capacity, was in Phoenix for a long-distance relationship and saw the billboard and thought “why not?” When I saw the results I panicked. Ex post facto I figured something went wrong with my draw (full venous draw, by the way).
I have no background in medicine, and I was probably considerably stupider at the time inasmuch as I was in my twenties, so I never connected it to being a fraud, instead concluding their kit didn’t work reliably and that they’d launched prematurely and would have to pull back from the market and regroup (and get sued) for a while.
a) as you point out, give wrong medical information to nearly a million people. Information they probably acted on and damaged themselves.
b) deceived investors.
ONE of these things matters to the American justice system.
Whose names did she use for that?
Henry Kissinger (former United States Secretary of State);
Jim Mattis (retired Marine Corps four-star general);
George Shultz (former United States Secretary of State);
Richard Kovacevich (former CEO of Wells Fargo);
William Perry (former United States Secretary of Defense); and
William Foege (former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
While I agree to the larger point you are making, I am hard pressed to understand what they could have done. Its not like they were not involved at all, there are plethora of accounts of these people receiving reports which just lied. They were blocked from access to the actual equipment for "security reasons" so they couldn't get a third party assessment done. At some point you have to believe your business partner will not outright lie because otherwise how do you do business with them. Life cannot run on cryptographic proofs.
However, the prosecution did bring charges for both against Holmes, harm caused to patients by Theranos, and the defauding of investors. She was only convicted of defauding investors, by a jury of her peers.
Sunny Balwani was convicted of defrauding patients and Theranos did settle a class-action lawsuit against them.
I do believe the publicity around Holmes in part was about distancing the investors (the list you provided) from any kind of responsibility or PR blowback.
Anyway, the game is rigged, I just think it's important to see how it is rigged. I don't like to shed doubt on jury decisions, it really is the best thing we have. Prosecution motivation can be swayed, defense can be under/over funded, but a jury of your peers, while imperfect, really is the best way to make these decisions.
I also don't know what legally an investor can be held accountable for.
Now he only has the option to let people go for crimes, either by pardoning them or instructing prosecutors to do nothing.
Trump has used both options he has, so the ability to convict people would have been disastrous.
It is outrageous to say an early stage company giving inaccurate diagnostics "is like" giving patients incompatible blood transfusions.
10-15% of people who get the wrong blood die. People who get inaccurate diagnostics get scared.
Very different and this undermines the credibility of your otherwise valid point.
That's only true if those people always follow up with a second test using traditional means. If they don't follow-up and instead immediately go past diagnostics into some sort of action, then it could be catastrophic in a manner exceeding being scared.
Now you can argue that if the patient is working with any medical practitioner worth their salt, that med will surely ask for a second test. But is it obvious that that will always be the case?
Google tells me the FIT test for cancer has a false negative rate of between 8% and 26%. That appears to be likely worse than the Theranos numbers you cited here.
Also, the standard for tests in the medical world is usually much higher than 11%, except for things that are life threatening for which no better test exists.
> except for things that are life threatening for which no better test exists.
This was precisely why I chose the FIT test example. There is, in fact, a more reliable test than the FIT test. Several, it turns out. Reliability isn’t the reason for the FIT test’s popularity.
However saying “all tests have error rates, therefore all tests with error rates are equally bad” is a completely wrong takeaway. One of the things Theranos was doing was using traditional equipment to run the tests as a smokescreen for the fact that they didn’t have any working technology. So the results should have been similar to anyone else running them when that was the case.
But there is a problem that when a company is saying they’re doing one thing or using one technology but your actual tests could be run on unknown combinations of unknown lab hardware depending on the day and the whims of a CEO trying to defraud investors, you don’t know what kind of results you’re going to get.
Real labs have established controls and ship reference ranges for their test results because they control their processes. If Theranos was doing who knows what to keep the test results flowing to keep the illusion up for the primary purpose of satisfying investors, that’s not what you want to see out of your test lab.
> Google tells me the FIT test for cancer has a false negative rate of between 8% and 26%. That appears to be likely worse than the Theranos numbers you cited here.
You’re looking at the wrong thing. The Theranos number above is for tests they determined had to be voided because they weren’t run properly due to procedural errors they identified. Their own incompetence or fraud. And those are just the ones they admitted to!
The false negative rate for the test you Googled is a false negative rate, which is a simple fact that tests can’t reliably diagnose everything even when run properly. Tests look for markers in samples as a proxy for a condition, and those markers aren’t always present at levels that meet the thresholds even if the condition exists. Even when run absolutely perfectly, a test like that will have false negative rates.
The part you’re missing is that the Theranos voided and invalidated tests were due to problems on top of the normal test variation rates because they were from Theranos doing things wrong, which is directly downstream of Holmes manipulating investors.
> But there is a problem that when a company is saying they’re doing one thing or using one technology but your actual tests could be run on unknown combinations of unknown lab hardware depending on the day and the whims of a CEO trying to defraud investors, you don’t know what kind of results you’re going to get.
Exactly. They were using Siemens machines, but they often had insufficient blood because they were trying to maintain a pretense of "nano collection". Siemens' machines weren't even trying to pretend they could work like this, so Theranos kept trying to figure out ways to dilute or diffuse the samples they did have to get to a usable volume for the tests. But of course every experimentation there was destructive, so they had even less to use.
So we're not talking about error rates on properly calibrated machines, with sufficient blood that re-tests could be performed before needing another collection, we're talking about error rates on effectively misusing machines.
I did not say that, nor even imply it.
Oh I don’t doubt there was funny business or fraud. What you’ve added is what the parent comment was missing; the reasons beyond the error rates.
> the test you Google is a false negative rate, which a simple fact that test can’t reliably diagnose everything even when run properly.
Yes I mentioned above it’s a false negative rate, right? And false negatives are potentially more dangerous for survival than false positives. Again, I was just reacting to the narrative about people getting scared by false positives, as if that was the primary problem. Your comment supports my claim that the error rate was not the primary problem, no?
Then I got to the end of the article and saw all of those other articles with other people with "reputation issues". It was so meta. Even having this story hit the top of Hacker News might have been calculated.
I have been blown away by all of the efforts to rehabilitate Holme’s reputation and erase any of her wrongdoings.
I’m sure some of it is coming from directly seeded or funded efforts from Holmes doing PR work, but I think most of it across social media is actually organic. Elizabeth Holmes was so clearly caught out committing fraud that it’s triggering contrarian reactions among people who think they’re the ones who can see the real story behind every media narrative. Unlike other unpopular figures like Zuckerberg or Musk, most people had never heard of Elizabeth Holmes or Theranos until her fraud was revealed and became a major news story. When the media introduces a figure as a bad person, some people are so hardwired to be contrarian that they must take the opposite position.
The other difficulty with this story is that many people still don’t understand what she did wrong. This is common all over social media and even on Hacker News in this thread. I see a lot of arguments that she was only doing “fake it till you make it” like every other startup from people who don’t understand what that phrases means (it means you present yourself as a bigger, more established company to overcome resistance to being a small startup, not that you literally fake that your product works). I responded to another comment from someone who thought that because all blood tests have error rates, Theranos having problems was no different than any other blood testing company, which is a false equivalence that doesn’t even begin to compute if you know anything about the fraud they were doing.
Then there are layers of other social issues being injected into the controversy. I knew someone in person who grew suspicious that the only reason Elizabeth Holmes was prosecuted was because of her gender. They lived in a social media bubble where all CEOs were evil criminals doing frauds all the time and therefore the only reason Holmes could be singled out and treated differently was due to her gender. This led to a wild argument that going after her was unfair, actually, even acknowledging that she did the fraud. That was a conversation I exited from because there’s no overcoming that type of belief with logic.
The most interesting conspiracy theories I continue to see are the belief that Theranos technology actually was working and she was on the way to solving it all, but that the industry didn’t want to be disrupted and therefore they had her taken out. This one doesn’t even hold up to minimal research but it persists among those with deep conspiracy theory tendencies.
It’s wild to observe how often this plays out. Something about this cases triggers a lot of people’s desires to doubt and defend, and there’s a large audience for content that takes Holme’s side no matter how illogical or contrary to the facts.
Not disagreeing with the rest of your comment, but regarding this tangent: haven't there been a ton of (say) "AI" companies that quietly used humans in the background and gave the impression AI was doing the work, because their vision was that that was the future?
Not that I think that would excuse this case in any way regardless - just mentioning because of the drawn comparison.
These stories were popular during the period when people didn’t understand how AI worked or what was possible. It was feasible to produce fake demos that relied on humans doing the work because few people understood how AI worked. If your demo took an input and produced an output 1 to 12 hours later with variable delay nobody questioned it because they didn’t know what AI looked like. They thought maybe that’s how long the computers had to think or that there was a single computer working through a backlog.
Now everyone has used ChatGPT and understands that actual AI doesn’t work like that, and if the task actually took 12 hours of crunching on tokens the bill would be an eye watering large number. So you can’t get away with faking your AI responses with a few humans doing the work.
There were also follow on stories where writers got confused about hybrid systems that had humans doing review and RLHF, thinking that any involvement of a human in the loop was equivalent of faking AI by having humans do the work. Most of the stories I saw toward the end of this trend were this style.
They’re also unfamiliar with FDA-regulated spaces where it’s not unheard of for VPs and C-suite types to receive fines and jail time and bans from the industry.
Those are rookie numbers.
When Merck hid data showing Vioxx was causing heart attacks and death, not only did no one go to jail, but the fines were less than the revenue of the drug.
Vioxx would go on to kill an estimated 50,000 people before being pulled off the market.
Holmes made the mistake of having too few lobbyists and FDA insiders.
Whataboutism aside, "having too few lobbyists and FDA insiders" isn't going to save a product that doesn't work and that doctors stop relying on. Once people were shown behind the curtain, it was game over.
She told well-documented lies to investors that made it a much more attractive investment. They invested and lost money. It's basically public information who the victims are. Clear-cut fraud and very easy to prove.
For patient fraud, you probably need to track down the people who were actually harmed in a material way (attempted fraud isn't a crime). That's going to be a small subset of the people who got tests and it's going to be hidden away in private medical records. Doable if they really had to, but why bother when you have a slam-dunk case for something else.
>me, “So what did you think?” And I just responded with, “Forget Elizabeth Holmes.
Sigh. Why do we need to forget her?
>I heard a woman yell, “Criminal!”
In the theater? I'll take things that never happened for 500, Alex
>Think about Elizabeth Holmes
Who? We already forgot her
She was saying that they had developed a system that could run a bunch of tests on a single drop of blood, and do so with better accuracy than existing tests. When in fact what they were providing used the off-the-shelf systems on diluted blood, returning horribly incorrect results.
Note that it was not "we will deliver this", the company (and often Holmes herself) were touting the existing customers already getting this. I should also note that behind the scenes Holmes had no great insights into how they were going to accomplish this leap forward, and knew that all of their work at that point had failed.
No, I mean the fraud continuing, and how much of a culture of knowingly cheerleading and gaslighting fraud exists in a forum such as this. Is it the majority, or is it a loud minority.
From Theranos to meme coins and NFTs, there is a long history of shilling for outright fraud here.
(Kind of like how McKay's VICE was really good as long as you didn't pretend it was actually a biographical film)
Is this your first time encountering a Nathan joint?
The fact that it is documentary, and is being marketed along the lines of a block-buster on X with memes should have raised eye-brows. There are lot of genuinely good documentaries out there, they all are left to be discovered, and people discover them. But this one, was/is being marketed as must-watch documentary, and with no reference to the book bad blood?
There is a book by the WSJ reporter that uncovered the lies carrying the startup Theranos ("Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup" by John Carreyrou) and led to its downfall.
There is a well-produced podcast ("The Dropout" by ABC News/ABC Audio) that also reveals the dichotomy between investor harm and patient harm and it was originally completed before the criminal trial.
Would recommend those if someone is interested in the paths of the people involved in Theranos, and how they managed to carry on the deceptions.
The article was written by someone who's never seen any of Nathan's other work and is apparently blown away by his skill at and unquenchable fetish for using and deceiving people. Yeah, that's his whole thing. Congrats, you just watched a documentary about psychopaths.
I'm unsure why you'd think this was a deception, given the probability.
Maybe this question is related to polls showing a significant percentage of Americans considering the likes of Colbert, Stewart, and John Oliver trustworthy news reporters btw.
If you read Bad Blood there are quotes from her wealthy investors saying things like "well, her great-grandfather was a famous surgeon so medicine runs in her family!" as part of their decision to invest in her.
I grew up with the mindset being told if things were too good to be true they probably were and to expect failure and be pleasantly surprised if things worked out. This is practical advice for many lower to middle class individuals, but it can also hold you back because you stop looking for genuine opportunities. Better advice would be to do your due diligence.
With Holmes, and hindsight is always 20/20, it should have been obvious that she was full of shit. As you say, I have met dozens of people, men and women, like her, that just lie reflexively and I have learned to spot them from a mile away and avoid them at all costs. If you catch someone lying or exaggerating something inconsequential, and by that, I mean it really does not in any way help them or get them out of trouble, it is easy to brush it off as a white lie, but it is the people who will lie for no reason at all who are the most dangerous because you can be assured that they will lie when they do have a reason.
I agree with this point. I think that in the investment world, many VCs investing in deep tech are not deeply familiar with the underlying technology. They often say they are betting on the founders, which can inadvertently encourage this behavior, since founders know that their investors are unlikely to scrutinize the technical details too closely.
Holmes' mistake was to massively overdo the "fake it til you make it" in a regulated industry where the implications of the lies appal people, as well as to have a product that was never going to work so the lies were more "this car definitely isn't just rolling down the hill" than "the person at the wheel is only for regulatory reasons". If she'd settled for fantasy metrics and self dealing in a real estate play rather than faking medical tests she'd have investors lining up to fund her second venture...
I'm more intrigued by how she managed to keep customers and at least some of her employees believing and how often that mask slipped.
And then an extremely tight circle of people she knew she could manipulate. Liars hate people that see through their lies and get rid of them as soon as possible or otherwise try to ruin them.
People who commit fraud at that scale are not a dime a dozen.
(Btw, your comment filled me with warmth, thanks. I also recommend Scott Aaronson's "On Self-Delusion and Bounded Rationality" [1].)
[1] https://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/selfdelusion.html
Btw, I recently learned he's Jewish and has done a lot of work to increase awareness of sensitive topics like the Holocaust, from his now signature comedic but controversial approach[1]. Worth taking a look as well.
1: https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-852044
Please do tell more. Do you mean pharma or diagnostics?
As long as they don't pretend otherwise, I guess that's fine.
Oh really? Go ahead, tell me a story about anything without my opinion changing throughout the story. Go on. I'm sure you can do better than these award-winning documentarians, oh Ms. blogger!
(And then, once you demonstrate that it's even possible, kindly explain why the flying flip your way is better.)
I’m not sure this is some data point that supports the article.
The article seems to indicate that the film is some special event in the idea of deception, but i honestly couldn’t figure out how exactly. They just describe conflicts that might occur with any film….
It's clear some people take a straightforward view of media they consume, and they do not want to spend their limited energy digesting something that is supposed to be for their entertainment. Which is fine. But I think a smaller subsection of HN users actively hate art, resent that it has any cultural impact, and only engage with it out of some sense of social obligation. It's another way for them to climb the ladder. When the same people comment on movies like this, they have an extremely low bar for what is considered "art for snobs." Everything must fit in a box. Entertainment must be pulp, in your face. Documentaries must be all facts. Do not play with the medium at all. Do not even jump around in time. I saw a comment on here saying the twist in Oppenheimer was that we were jumping around in time.
It's a bit baffling to read comments that say "Just read the book" about this particular movie. Even if you have no idea who Nathan Fielder is, surely you're not watching the trailer for this movie and thinking this was going to be a great film to get all the facts.
Like I am trying to think of a worse site than this for movie reviews and I can’t on top of my head. People here have some of the weirdest takes that I am not sure I want to read books together with them.
http://www.wired.com/story/nathan-fielder-tells-us-everythin...
Wired: "There’s this broader culture of Silicon Valley that she operated within, where everyone’s a liar. You start a company, you lie, you fake it till you make it, and VCs expect it, and it is part and parcel of launching a business. Elon Musk is an incredible liar—lies to the public, lies to regulators, lies to lawmakers, investors, shareholders. That’s part of the game. And she, to me, in many ways, played that same game.
She did it to the nth degree; she took it very far. But what she was doing at the time was very much in keeping with what startup founders do. They go out, they raise money, they talk a big game, they get magazine covers. I think today, if you ask any journalist, whether they’re a tech journalist or not, they’d say she’s a convicted felon. She’s a fraud. And I think the first time I saw the film—now I’m going on a bit of a tangent, and I’m going to have to start asking you questions again soon, but—"
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.
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.
I followed the trial, what information is unavailable from that?
>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
The blockers is what they were trying to do isn't biologically or physically possible. When theranos first got publicity all the experts said what they are trying to do isn't possible with known technology and what we know about capillary blood. That's why I found the navel-gazing so strange.
Did you follow the trial, or did you read reports from people who followed the trial?
I cannot say what was missing from the trial because I do not know what was presented there in detail. Most of those claiming utter certainty, know as little as I do.
> what they were trying to do isn't biologically or physically possible.
I can easily accept that it is beyond our technical means, but I don't accept that it is physically impossible.
If we stipulated that there was a technology that could create an accurate record of a drop of blood at an atomic level, with all structures and bonds intact.
If it were impossible to derivevthe required information from that data, I would agree that it is impossible.
That is an enormous amount of data. Millions of blood cells. Even if you had a single red blood cell there may be sufficient information in it to determine a white blood cell count through data analysis and the fact that they share an environment.
Of course it isn't possible with current technology. That is true of all technologies before they are invented.
It just seems like every claim it is impossible is just a claim that they can't imagine how it would be done. Almost every invention has a crowd claiming it can't be done.
The only real question is do they have a technolocal advance to get past those hurdles. I would guess that they didn't or it wasn't developed quick enough. That is a reasonable point of challenge.
Going straight to it can't be done so it's fraud puts you among those who claimed powered flight was a fraud, as well as the internet, the telephone, transplants, overnight delivery, and today AI.
When I first heard of this company trying to do something that didn't appear to be physically or biologically possible I just assumed it would fizzle out eventually. Good for them if they find people willing to fund their reach for the stars. We need those!
Then the publicity came. I found the navel-gazing extremely strange because it was done without any proof they could do what they said they can do. Very little acknowledgement that they were able to do something that required a Nobel Prize level breakthrough and they did it without any bio-science investors or board members. It also came with a heavy dose of a cult of personality which gave me the ick and made me distrust it all even more. Was so weird and performative rather than hard science. Seemed extremely scammy. Certainly not the making of a company that made huge breakthroughs in biomedicine.
Then they announced their partnership with Walgreens. I assumed at that point I was wrong and they had to have been able to show Walgreens they were able to do what they claimed. I didn't think Walgreens would partner with them without doing their due diligence. I was happy to be proven wrong.
Shortly later it turned out, no, it actually was just a straight up scam and Walgreens didn't do their due diligence. Which is the most obvious outcome, but I was sad Walgreens would be duped so easily.
So I am not dismissive of them because I am dismissive of anyone who tries to find a way to do something that has never been done before - I was dismissive of them because they were an obvious scam based on a weird cult of personality.
>I cannot say what was missing from the trial because I do not know what was presented there in detail
What a bizarre thing to say, if you don't know what information was presented at the trial, how can you concluded "The access to the information required [to determine guilt] is not available to most people, we have no basis to judge the narrative for accuracy????"
I am not arguing for innocence or that no evidence exists. My observation is that most people who are claiming a certainty about guilt, and indeed motivations, have not looked at sufficient material to be certain in their claims.
I'm prepared to accept the courts ruling, but that is a far stretch from the confidence required to make the declarations of guilt that people seem compelled to post any time the matter comes up.
Most of the claims I have seen seem to declare more than the courts found.
I'm not annoyed with the court findings or even particularly invested in them.
The thing that irritates me is the comments declaring opinions that they have obviously taken from a few new stories which are likely appropriately cautious with their claims, and inflating them in their minds to be an absolute fact that must be shouted at people whenever the topic comes up.
If people were contentious enough to read the court transcripts and examine the exhibits before commenting I have misjudged them.
I have seen plenty of people in my time who have strongly asserted guilt of someone after reading a few news stories before the person was exonerated. I am not claiming such a exoneration is due or likely here, just this pattern of reciting a narrative at high amplitude does little good for anyone.
The current instance in Britain is Lucy Letby. She has the distinction of having random internet commenters declare absolute certainty of both guilt and innocence in roughly equal measures.
On your earlier question about how far from working the machines were, the clearest answer is Holmes's own, on cross-examination by prosecutor Robert Leach (Day 40, November 30, 2021):
> Leach: The miniLab and the 4 Series were never used for patient testing; is that correct?
> Holmes: That's right.
> Leach: And the Edison 3.5 was only used for 12 assays in the California CLIA lab between September 2013 and June of 2015; is that correct?
> Holmes: I believe so, that's correct.
> Leach: So Theranos wasn't using any of its manufactured analyzers in the CLIA lab at the time that the CMS inspectors come in?
> Holmes: Correct.
https://holmes.courtdaemon.com/trial/day/40/elizabeth-a-holm...
Okay but can you see how this is a different point than, "The access to the information required for that is not available to most people, we have no basis to judge the narrative for accuracy"? The latter implies that most people literally could not obtain access to the necessary information. The former states that you have not looked into it that much and you doubt others have either. The trial is public record; it is available to everyone.
trying to minimize fraud? what a weird article.
They didn't do their diligence and do kinda deserve to lose their money.
Also it's exactly the opposite, scamming the public is fine - United healthcare can scam the government out of billions, no one goes to jail, minor fees but it's +ROI for them.
Murdoch's lose an investment after YOLO-ing a few hundred mil and no diligence and they get the feds to give jail time?
They are the ones who propped up the company without any independent testing and enabled the bad tests and are ruining our society with their dumb money.
If there were users that were given bad tests, that was due to these investors not doing their jobs.
If a person is found not guilty, they are not guilty. To argue otherwise is to undermine the core institution of western civilization.
Seriously, this is why OJ was found liable for the murder of his wife in a civil case, as they're judged on the balance of probabilities.
And it's why people who have served time, then had a retrial ordered and then found not guilty, can be denied compensation, because decisions on compensation are also done on the balance of probabilities.
So yeah, "not guilty" != "innocent".
Court of law with its ability imprison people must have higher standard for the "guilty" decision. That makes it possible for rich guilty people to not be judged guilty.
You are allowed and expexted to use own brain. You can consider people guilty.
Separately, Theranos' COO and Holmes' boyfriend at the time was convicted by a separate jury for defrauding patients. Theranos also settled multiple lawsuits for ~$50M and declared bankruptcy soon after.