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.

The Dark Universe Is Not Invisible

“…In this work we point out a number of striking observations made in our neighborhood which contradict this picture of DM [3][4][5]. Relevant observations cover diverse mysterious phenomena, with the mostly striking ones being: the multifaceted solar activity, the dynamic Earth's atmosphere and diseases like melanoma [6]. The common new signature in all these studies is the observation of planetary relationships which are not expected within known physics.…”

“…This is not surprising within the advocated invisible streaming matter scenario, given the inherent sensitivity of living matter to external influence. Moreover, recently, the analysis of a long series of daily melanoma incidence registered in Australia, provided a short periodicity of 27.3 days [6]. This rhythm coincides exactly with the Luna orbital period fixed to remote stars, which implies that its origin, whatever it ultimately is found to be, must be exo-solar in origin.…”

“…The large-scale observations suggest that the ordinary DM halo in the Galaxy is quite isotropic, at least for the size of the solar system; in literature, the co-existence of dark streams or the galactic dark disk hypothesis have also been considered [14,21]. The existence of DM streams could explain the puzzling behavior of the active Sun, where there is not yet a clear picture of its workings, e.g., phenomena like the solar flares and the unnaturally hot Corona (see e.g., [13] and ref [6] therein). In this work we refer occasionally to generic dark candidate constituents as ''invisible massive matter'', in order to distinguish them from ordinary dark matter like the celebrated axions and WIMPs.…”

“…Interestingly, this first observation has been cross-checked independently (see ref. [17]). In spite of the first unfortunate interpretation, remarkably the Fourier analysis of the same dataset provided a clear peak at the orbital period of Mercury for a number of major cancer types.…”