Elizabeth Holmes pitches investors on new venture as incarceration looms

The final weeks before Elizabeth Holmes entered federal prison were defined not by retreat, but by aggressive expansion. According to a new documentary by Nathan Fielder and Noah Oppenheim, Holmes and her partner Billy Evans spent the 34 days before her sentencing actively pitching investors on what is described as a second iteration of Theranos.

The film, titled You Can See Everything, documents this period of intense business activity. It reveals that despite Holmes having been convicted of fraud and sentenced to prison, the couple continued to seek capital. The documentary shows them on phone calls with potential backers who did not immediately dismiss the proposal. Instead, these investors appeared intrigued by the pitch for a new venture built on the foundation of the failed blood testing company.

Fielder, the creator of the series Nathan for You and The Rehearsal, serves as the primary observer in the film. He focuses on the mechanics of how Holmes managed to deceive notable figures for years. The documentary portrays Holmes as a figure who lacked obvious charisma or social intelligence, yet succeeded in extracting hundreds of millions of dollars from investors, military generals, and public officials.

A central subplot involves Fielder’s examination of Billy Evans. The film explores why Evans chose to remain in a relationship with Holmes, fathering two children with her while she faced severe legal consequences. Fielder expresses disbelief that Evans maintained his trust in Holmes, given that her legal troubles stemmed from extensive deception. The documentary suggests that Evans and Holmes believed the film would enhance their public image.

The film highlights a specific dynamic of trust within white, wealthy circles. When Holmes’s father states he trusts Evans, the documentary frames this as a reliance on shared social status. The narrative implies that this trust facilitated the continued business dealings. The couple’s decision to allow a filmmaker known for his comedic and often skeptical style to document their lives suggests a confidence in their own narrative that the film questions.

The documentary contrasts this confidence with the author’s perspective on racial dynamics in business and fraud. The writer argues that the scale of the Theranos scandal and the continued ability of Holmes to pitch new ideas are phenomena largely reserved for white, wealthy individuals. The article notes that for Black and brown entrepreneurs, similar levels of fraud often result in more immediate and severe consequences, with less opportunity for a second chance or reinvention.

The piece asserts that the lack of immediate skepticism from new investors reflects a specific type of social inertia. It suggests that if wealthy white individuals applied the same level of scrutiny to their peers that they often apply to outsiders, the Theranos scandal might have been contained earlier. The documentary captures this moment in time where a disgraced founder remains a viable business partner in the eyes of some.

You Can See Everything is currently generating significant discussion on social media platforms. The film positions itself as a look into the psychology of a modern con artist and the ecosystem that allowed her to operate. It details the 34-day window between Holmes’s sentencing and her incarceration, a period that the film characterizes as a final, ambitious push into the market.

The documentary does not shy away from the discomforting nature of its subject. It presents Holmes and Evans as individuals who continued to operate under the assumption that their previous successes guaranteed future access to capital. The film leaves the viewer with the image of a business cycle that continued to turn even as the legal machinery of justice was completing its work.

The release of the film adds to the public record of the Theranos saga. It provides a visual account of the period that followed the trial, a time often overlooked in favor of the earlier years of the company’s rise. The documentary serves as a case study in how perception and trust can survive a formal conviction, at least for a short time.