You're calling a handwaving blog with no citations to scientific studies published by a company that just happens to offer consulting to identify possible risks associated with a made up term not generally accepted by the medical community that their service can detect as data?

The "blog" belongs to a Canadian scientist who's been talking about turbo cancers after mRNA vaccines for years now! He's citing studies, theory, etc. So, if it's PubMed you will call it "a site," right? It's a serious online publication, not "a blog"!

Hint 1: look at the URL and note the word "blog".

Hint 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_cancer

I can point to blogs too, here are a couple:

- https://ezra.com/en-gb/blog/turbo-cancer

- https://globalvaccinedatanetwork.org/news/turbo_cancer_and_m...

As for your appeal to authority, Andrew Wakefield was once considered a scientist as well. The fact that a scientist talks about something for years or gets papers published means little. What matters is actual, independently reproducible data.