  It has been claimed in \cite{1}, that the idea proposed in \cite{2} has
certain mistakes based on arguments of energy conditions and others.
Additionally, some of the key arguments of the paper are criticized. Here we
demonstrate that the results obtained in \cite{2} are correct and that there is
no violation of any energy condition. The statements claimed in \cite{1} are
based on three things: 1). Misinterpretation of the metric solution. 2).
Language issues related to the physical quantities obtained in \cite{1}, where
the authors make wrong interpretations about certain results over the geometry
proposed in \cite{2}. 3). Non-rigorous evaluations of the vacuum condition
defined via the result over the Ricci tensor $R_{\mu\nu}=0$
