I have to say, when Ben brought out Rachel's medical charts out of his rabbit bag, you just had to figure he was conning Juliet like he did Sawyer (or did he: we now know that the Others can implant medical devices...)

But here's something odd: in watching that portion of the video in slo-mo, in the spot on the chart where you're supposed to indicate gender, it says: "Sex: MALE". Hopefully there will be a screencap somewhere tomorrow that I can post.

I'm inclined to think this is a production mistake, because surely Juliet would check the file closely enough to make sure it was really Rachel's -- leaving the word "Male" on it would seem to be too major a slip-up for Ben to make if he was conning Juliet. And I can't think of any scenario where it would make sense for Rachel to really be a male. But it's odd, nontheless.

I haven't looked at this so my comment is just speculation, but is it possible that "Sex:Male" referred to the sex of her fetus? (Rachel was still pregnant at that point.)

Good catch. It's for a 5'11" 187lb male.

I don't understand why she didn't call him out on this lie after he'd pleaded to ther that he wasn't a liar. It was a nasty one.

i have to say, when Ben brought out Rachel's medical charts out of his rabbit bag, you just had to figure he was conning Juliet like he did Sawyer (or did he: we now know that the Others can implant medical devices...)

OO it never occured to me,, sawyer could have a chip in him!! 0_0 wow... this is worrisome

Hm, that's just plain weird. Even if it was a fake chart, why would Ben and co. allow such blatant mistake? Weird.

Ok... so maybe Juliet's sister being pregnant was more of a miracle than we thought... maybe she was a man previously! :) Ha, probably not!

WOW. I've tried to tell myself that my ideas of Rachel being a man were too far fetched. But, I was always haunted by two things: 1) Juliet's successful experiments were about impregnating male mice and 2) what Rachel said to Juliet, "All my life, all I've wanted is to have a baby." (that might not be exact, but I think it is close) That line was repeated in a FB in tonight's episode. It wasn't, "Ever since I had cancer, I've wished I could have a baby," but more like something that has always been impossible.

Wow. Plus, I might as well stick my neck out here completely. Could there be any similarity to Ben's cancer and Rachel's? Could the cancer be caused by some of the experiments that Juliet is trying? Had she tried experiments on Rachel that had cancerous side effects? Does Ben want to be pregnant? (He certainly wanted a child enough to take Danielle's) And, is his cancer the result of Juliet's experiments on him? Didn't Juliet say to Ben (tonight), "You told me that no one on the island can get cancer." She said it as if it had something to do with her work on the island.

Well, this all sounds pretty wild, but I'm going to hit "sumbit" and hope to see a screen shot of that chart tomorrow. Of course, if it's all just nuts, you can see I'm a newbie. So, you can just shake your head and move on.

I'm leaning towards prop error , just because they messed up medical props before (the date on the spinal x-ray) Also Juliet is looking at an electrocardiogram which records the electrical activity of the heart, would she really be looking at that to conclude that her sister has cancer? (chime in doctors and let us know!)

I think it was a con.

They can cure cancer but can't find out why pregnant women on the island die?

WOW. I've tried to tell myself that my ideas of Rachel being a man were too far fetched. But, I was always haunted by two things: 1) Juliet's successful experiments were about impregnating male mice and 2) what Rachel said to Juliet, "All my life, all I've wanted is to have a baby." (that might not be exact, but I think it is close) That line was repeated in a FB in tonight's episode. It wasn't, "Ever since I had cancer, I've wished I could have a baby," but more like something that has always been impossible.

Well, that's kind of interesting, isn't it? I still lean towards prop error -- I mean, if they could make that date mistake in Paolo's newspaper, which is something I would have thought they were watching ultra-carefully, I guess I could see them re-using Ben's charts from earlier in the season and not changing the gender. But you've raised a pretty interesting issue given Juliet's work on male mice. I guess my feeling is that it's unlikely we'll ever see a flashback where they focus on Juliet's sister really being a brother -- seems like too divergent/tangential a place to go for this show.

wasn't there questions when Rachel was first introduced that there could have been a sex change, which could have resulted in the amazing results of getting Rachel pregnant and could explain the charts being as they are - not a science person per se, but after a sex change you are still the same genetically aren't you (XY chromosone stuff)

I don't think this idea is far fetched at all. I thought the same thing when I saw "male" on the chart. Perhaps they were trying to impregnate males on the island since the females were dying. I actually like this idea a lot.

But here's something odd: in watching that portion of the video in slo-mo, in the spot on the chart where you're supposed to indicate gender, it says: "Sex: MALE". Hopefully there will be a screencap somewhere tomorrow that I can post..

Was there any indication what the "Sex: MALE" referred to? Could it have been the sex of the other parent? You might think it would be common sense that the other parent would be a male (and thus not noteworthy for a chart) but we're talking about genetic manipulation here and having a female "father" would not be impossible.

But why would that be relevant on her cancer chart?

-AJF

Well, that's kind of interesting, isn't it? I still lean towards prop error -- I mean, if they could make that date mistake in Paolo's newspaper, which is something I would have thought they were watching ultra-carefully, I guess I could see them re-using Ben's charts from earlier in the season and not changing the gender. But you've raised a pretty interesting issue given Juliet's work on male mice. I guess my feeling is that it's unlikely we'll ever see a flashback where they focus on Juliet's sister really being a brother -- seems like too divergent/tangential a place to go for this show.

Yeah, I woke up this morning thinking it does seem like quite a tangent, and yet I can't totally shake it off either. I keep trying to think if it can fit into altering the Valenzetti Equation.

The newspaper date being an error is still amazing to me. So, maybe this is a prop error too.

Paulo's newspaper made me think "production error." Rachel's charts for a 187 lb male that is 5'11" made me think "alright, this can't be another production error. Paulo's newspaper was probably intentional too for us crazy screen capturing fans."

Rachel's charts: Ben did not cure Rachel's cancer, he was just lying when he said it came back. He didn't have any proof besides an electrocardiogram from an adult male. Heart cancer? Um, no. He also made Sawyer think he had something in his chest that could make his heart explode. Most of the time Ben relies on very simple and cheap tactics to make "his people" believe things and do things.

Paulo's news paper: OK now this would support Desmond's time traveling stuck in a loop wierd reliving the same thing over and over again that we don't yet understand.