[fr_freak]

The data points are 2019 and earlier.

I've been seeing a lot of articles lately that reference data for health trends from earlier than 2020. Why wouldn't an article written in 2024 include data from 2020-2023? 2019 was five years ago.

I strongly suspect it is a misdirection tactic. Print some article in 2024 with 2019 data regarding a mild uptick in cancer rates among the young so that, when the data comes out for the significant to massive upticks in cancer rates for the young in the last 3 years or so, people can say "Oh this has been going on long before COVID 'vaccines'!"

It also serves as a means by which to discredit those who suspect the "vaccines" as having high rates of adverse effects, a sort of "gotcha!" when it is pointed out that the data is pre-2020. "See? The data is 2019 and earlier - no reason to think the COVID 'vaccines' are bad - you're just a conspiracy theorist!"

There really isn't any other logical reason to be using 5-year-old data so often in current articles.

[Vermont Lt]

Data collection takes a lot of time to do correctly. At least for research purposes.

[Burma Jones]

Bingo. That’s exactly what they’re doing.

Next up: a study to show that cardiac arrest among 15-29 year-olds increased by 7% from 2000 to 2019! But 2021 to the present...crickets

[CheshireTheCat]

Do insurance companies have to go before state regulators if they want to significantly increase their rates?

Will group health, disability and life insurances rates need to be raised before insurance companies costs are going up due to increased claims?

Will the insurance companies show regulators the data on all the claims they had to pay out due to cancer?

The data is out there and it will come to light.