Do my own research? You mean dig up source links that OP was too lazy to include? Are you saying we shouldn't expect a post about a journal-published article to actually include a link to the journal and the article? I think it's at pretty fucking reasonable to expect posts here to include sources, not just images or links to some random tweets that also doesn't include sources.
The other problem is that this source would not be convincing for anyone who isn't already a fan of AAPS. Their journal has been rejected for indexing and republication by every other major medical journal in the world. The Wikipedia article on them and the journal is scathing, calling them a purveyor of misinformation and bad medical science with numerous examples. It's nearly impossible to find non-AAPS sources that will corroborate anything they publish.
In order to bring this information to normies it would need to be published and accepted by at least one of the mainstream medical journals, and peer reviewed by physicians not associated with AAPS. And to be honest, we need to be skeptical of both sides and integrate information from all sources. AAPS being our single source of information throws every one of these claims into doubt.
In this particular case, it would be trivial to bring up dozens of papers showing that the spike protein breaks down and dissipates very quickly after vaccination. The papers cited here as evidence of ongoing spike proteins are all within hours or a few days after the initial vaccination shot, during which time you would expect to see spike proteins in the body because that's what the vaccine does. I want to see papers showing long-term spike protein contamination of the human body.
I'm not trying to throw a doubt your way just to be a jerk, but we need to do better bringing information to the masses.
The problem is that this would not be convincing for anyone who isn't already a fan of AAPS. Their journal has been rejected for indexing and republication by every other major medical journal in the world. The Wikipedia article on them and the journal is scathing, calling them a purveyor of misinformation and bad medical science with numerous examples.
In order to bring this information to normies it would need to be published and accepted by at least one of the mainstream medical journals, and peer reviewed by physicians not associated with AAPS.