What you are suffering from is not rational thought, it is called "confirmation bias". Only evidence that supports your current point of view will be accepted by you.
You do not need to know the cause of death in every case in the two groups to know something is amiss. That extraneous data does not need to be considered to draw rational conclusions. If one large group of 18-39 year old individuals defined by their vaccination status has a much higher death rate than the control group who did not get the vaccines you do not have to be genius to figure out that something is amiss. This is the basis of all statistical analysis. Deal with it.
There lies the problem: There is no control group in this particular "study" for a proper and reliable statistical analysis. A proper control group would match the demographics of the test group based upon age, gender, race/ethnicity, location (urban/suburban), occupation, health, etc. For example, if the people in the vaccinated group had more people with co-morbidities, more dangerous occupations, more illegal drug users, and/or drove more highway miles than the people in the unvaccinated group, then we should expect the vaccinated group to have a higher death rate than the unvaccinated group regardless of vaccination status. Unlike you, however, I have not drawn any conclusions -- one way or the other -- from the data in the article, because a statistically reliable conclusion cannot be drawn from the data. Seems to me that if anyone has "confirmation bias" it is you, my friend.