I am not sure whether the rubric "Beyond the Standard Model" includes such things. If not, I hope a moderator will move it to the proper rubric. I came across the Schnoll Effect (by Simon Schnoll, Russian biophysicist) the other day: that variation in experimental measurements vary even more than the usual explanations ("the usual suspects": statistical variations, laboratory peculiarities, quantum fluctuations, earth's magnetic field fluctuations, cosmic ray background, etc.) allow for, and furthermore, that there is a cyclic pattern to these variations (among others, an annual one). (This "Schnoll effect" then is pounced on by astrologers to give the hypothesis that there is some other cosmic influence not yet accounted for, but that is another question.) At first I thought this might be one more bad use of statistics, but I not only noticed that Prof. Schnoll is a highly respected scientist (which in itself does not exclude mistakes: see Linus Pauling and Roger Penrose), but that his results were replicated by others (including a lab in Germany, so it isn't a Russian phenomenon :-).) The whole thing still seems suspicious to me, but perhaps I am just prejudiced by the astrology link. Could someone tell me how the Schnoll Effect is presently regarded by mainstream physicists? Thank you.