Science says cancer is not transmissible. Explain these 19 anomalies.

Official science states that cancer is not transmissible. Yet the peer-reviewed literature documents 19 anomalies that contradict this claim. Nineteen independent lines of evidence – published in Lancet, JAMA, NEJM, Nature, Science – show transmission patterns consistent only with an infectious agent: · Transmission between unrelated spouses (RR 2.12x)· Transmission through blood transfusions (HHV-8: 34% → 0% with leukodepletion)· Occupational transmission in surgeons (RR 2.21x), oncology nurses (RR 10.65x), and slaughterhouse workers (OR 2.3-8.2x)· Vertical transmission (HBV mother→child → HCC 20-40 years later)· Sexual transmission (HPV in monogamous men)· Generational transmission (African migrants: cancer risk triples in one generation)· Indoor/outdoor gradient (India 4-7x, Bedouins 10x)· Identical geographic map of COVID and cancer across 142 countries (p<0.0001)· Transplant recipients: ONLY virus-associated tumors increase (chi²=847, p<0.0001)· Pharmacological reversibility (aspirin -52% HCC, HPV vaccine -87%) Official science accepts that slaughterhouse workers develop cancer from zoonotic viruses (OR 8.2x). It rejects that surgeons and oncology nurses develop cancer from human viruses, despite analogous evidence. This is not science. This is selective consistency. An acceptable alternative explanation must account for ALL 19 anomalies with a coherent model. Only one explanation does: viral transmission.