You are going to have to try harder than that. I get my information from the scientific/medical literature, the literature that scientists all over the world consult in order to inform and guide their own research.
How, may I ask, do you go about refuting a published research report?
Why don't you start with this paper, Genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants in Delhi reveals alterations in immunogenic regions in spike glycoprotein? Explain to me how you are going to refute their experimental methods and analysis. Explain how the bioanalytic algorithms they used are faulty. Tell me how their analysis is wrong and why their protein diagrams (figures 3, 4, and 5) are flawed.
And then, after you successfully refute this paper (which I chose at random), go ahead and try to refute any of the references that I have previously provided.
I don't think you can do it.
The thing about science is that research papers are written so that other scientists can replicate the research. Unless you read the paper and do the experiments yourself, you can't even begin to refute it. And even if you had your own personal research laboratory and did the experiment yourself and got a different result, that would still not be a refutation. You would have to demonstrate (with experimental evidence and theoretical explanation) that the experiment they describe cannot have the result they reported. Can you do that?
You are a walking, talking advertisement for the reproducibility crisis.
In particular when one is dealing with complex biological systems where even the assay methods are subject to systematic limitations and uncertainties, to say nothing of the large number of unknown confounding variables, which are only (hopefully) mitigated by using large numbers of test subjects.
You know, like the safety study for some clotshot related item in NEJM which used 8 mice.