Great information.  More examples of historical data compared to modern data.  But... Why is it ok to ignore death rates pre-2020 but not environmental data pre-2020?

 Why is it ok for someone to say insurance companies claim vaccine deaths are a higher factor, but won't provide raw data?  Is it remotely believable to say insurance companies indicate over 1600 additional deaths per-day, not provide raw data, then expect guys like us to chalk the astronomical numbers up to a small variance that should be overlooked?

 Are we expected to be that stupid?

 Just like the climate alarmists keep finding new numbers that can't possibly be true.   It's the same strategy.  Toss out numbers, get called out on the lies, just toss out more numbers.

 Repeat as needed.

"I don't SEE how insurance companies would benefit from telling us lies about death rates post jab, but waddo I know?"

 They didn't.

 They guy that said he took the information from insurance companies and cherry-picked what you should look at, lied to you.  The documents don't say what you were told they do.  

 No insurance company is saying thousands of more people are dying from vaccinations.  All the one's I have seen don't even obtain vaccination records.

 For that matter, there is a conflicting mathematical problem here.
 The claim is vaccinated humans are NOT considered vaccinated for 2 weeks, or for instance, overall, humans dead from vaccines are not categorized as such.  So almost nobody that died when vaccinated is documented as such right?

But also there are more documented humans dead from the vaccine according to insurance companies.  There's a problem with eliminating or drastically reducing the documentation of an event, and also claiming there is an increase in those events being documented.  

 If insurance companies were discovering high rates of vaccinated clients getting payouts, why wouldn't those charts be used to show those events happening?