Response to Comment on “Planetary Dependence of Melanoma”

Abstract

In [Biophys. Rev. Lett. 14, 1–9 (2018), arXiv: 1812.02482], Socas-Navarro (SN) provided multiple confirmation of the claimed [Formula: see text]88 days melanoma periodicity [K. Zioutas and E. Valachovic, Biophys. Rev. Lett. 13, 75 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1142/S179304801850008X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2017.06.001.] (which remarkably coincides with the orbital period of Mercury). This greatly strengthens the observation by Zioutas and Valachovic (ZV). Here, we comment on the work by SN, because it objects the interpretation of the observation by ZV. Note that SN objection is based on serious assumptions, which were explicitly excluded by ZV. Further, the conclusion made with a sub-set of data (4%) is statistically not significant to dispute ZV. On the contrary, since the same periodicity appears also in other eight major cancer types, we consider it as a global oscillatory behavior of cancer. At this stage, such a rather ubiquitous cancer periodicity makes any discussion of a small subset of data at least secondarily. Further, we show here that the [Formula: see text]88 days Melanoma periodicity is not related to solar activity. Planetary lensing of streaming low speed invisible massive particles remains the only viable explanation, as it has been introduced previously with a number of physics observations [S. Bertolucci, K. Zioutas, S. Hofmann and M. Maroudas, Phys. Dark Univ. 17, 13 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2017.06.001.]. We also show that planetary lensing of low speed particles cannot be considered in isolation, because of the dominating Sun’s gravity, at least for the inner planets. Interestingly, gravitational lensing/deflection favors low speed particles.