In arXiv:1812.02482 Socas-Navarro (SN) provided multiple confirmation of the claimed 88 days melanoma periodicity. 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. Notice 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 percent) is statistically not significant to dispute ZV. On the contrary, since the same periodicity appears also in other 8 major cancer types, we consider it as a global oscillatory behaviour 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 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 [4]. We also show that planetary lensing of low speed particles cannot be considered in isolation, because of the dominating Sun gravity, at least for the inner planets. Interestingly, gravitational lensing - deflection favours low speed particles.