I want to start with a thought exercise. When I look at the history of asbestos, I see a pattern that medicine should have learned from more carefully. Asbestos was widely used because it was useful. It was in buildings, hospitals, schools, factories and homes. It was valuable, practical, and embedded into the infrastructure of modern life.
Yet asbestos taught us something profound about disease. The absence of symptoms does not mean the absence of risk. Many workers were exposed for years without obvious illness. They carried on working, breathing, and appearing well. But in some, the biology was already changing beneath the surface.
That is the point I want to bring into the current discussion around spike protein persistence. I am not saying the two situations are identical. They are not. But the risk pattern may be similar. Exposure can be common, disease can be selective, and the consequences may take time to reveal themselves.
Exposure Does Not Equal Disease
One of the mistakes we make in medicine is to assume that if an exposure does not cause immediate disease in most people, it cannot be important. Asbestos showed us why that assumption is dangerous. Many exposed workers never developed asbestosis or mesothelioma. But that did not mean the exposure was harmless. It meant disease expression depended on more than exposure alone.
When we looked carefully, some individuals had pathological evidence of asbestos exposure without overt clinical disease. The body had encountered and responded to the fibres, even without the dramatic endpoint of lung fibrosis or cancer. That distinction matters.
The same question now arises with spike protein. If a person has evidence of spike protein persistence but no obvious long COVID symptoms, is that irrelevant? Or is it simply not yet clinically visible?
That is the uncomfortable question.
Spike Recovery is a Marathon, NOT a Sprint!
The Four-Part Risk Framework
The way I think about this is simple. Risk is not just exposure. Risk is exposure, persistence, host susceptibility, and time.
With asbestos, the worker had to inhale the fibres. That was exposure. If the fibres were not cleared, they persisted in the lung. That was persistence. Then the body had to respond in a particular way. Some people generated inflammation and fibrosis; others contained the exposure without overt disease. That was host susceptibility. Finally, the process unfolded over years or decades. That was time.
Now consider spike protein through the same lens. There has been widespread exposure through infection, reinfection, vaccination, or some combination of these. In some people, there may be persistence of spike protein or spike-related material. In a smaller group, there is obvious immune sensitivity, which we recognise clinically as long COVID or post-acute sequelae. But there may also be another group who do not develop obvious symptoms, yet still carry a biological signal that could become relevant over time.
Long COVID May Be the Visible Group
I have often explained long COVID as a problem of immune response. Some people appear highly sensitive to the presence of spike protein. I liken it to pain. One person can have a small injury and feel intense pain. Another can have a significant injury and barely react. The difference is not only the injury; it is the response to it.
That may be what we are seeing with long COVID. Some people respond strongly to persistent spike-related biology. They develop fatigue, neurological symptoms, inflammatory instability, dysautonomia, vascular symptoms, or other patterns we now recognise clinically.
But the people with symptoms may not represent the whole story. They may be the visible group. The harder question is whether there is a much larger silent group with persistence but without obvious symptoms. If that group exists, then symptoms may only be the tip of the iceberg.
Persistence Changes the Question
The critical issue is persistence. If spike protein or spike-related material disappears quickly, the risk question is different. But if it remains in immune cells, tissues, or biological compartments over time, the question changes.
With asbestos, the fibre itself was not easily destroyed. The body tried to manage it. Macrophages attempted to engulf it, contain it, or wall it off. In some people, that response remained controlled. In others, it triggered chronic inflammation, fibrosis, and eventually severe disease.
That is the analogy I am interested in. Not that spike protein behaves exactly like asbestos, because it clearly does not. But if the body is repeatedly exposed to a persistent biological trigger, and if that trigger interacts with immune cells, endothelial tissue, the heart, kidneys, brain, or blood vessels, we cannot simply dismiss it because the person feels well today.
Why Some People Cope and Others Do Not
This is where medicine becomes interesting. Not everyone exposed to asbestos developed disease. Some had high exposure and still did not show major pathology. That tells us the body can sometimes cope with toxic exposure better than we expect.
The same may be true with spike protein persistence. Some people may clear it efficiently. Some may contain it without major inflammatory consequences. Some may tolerate it for years. Others may mount an exaggerated immune response and become symptomatic. Others may feel well yet still develop vascular, cardiac, renal, or neurological consequences over time.
That is why the conversation cannot be reduced to whether someone has long COVID or does not. That binary is too crude. The real issue is trajectory. What happens to the exposed person over time?
The Post-Pandemic Disease Signal
What concerns me is not only the theoretical biology. It is the disease trajectory I am seeing. When I look at hospital episode patterns after the pandemic, I see inflammatory disease shifting across systems: heart, kidneys, brain, neurology, and vascular disease.
We can argue about the cause. Is it repeated infection? Is it vaccination? Is it immune priming? Is it the combination of infection and vaccination in a repeatedly exposed population? These are difficult questions, but they are exactly the questions science should be asking.
My own view is that the larger population-level risk may come from immune priming combined with persistent and recurring exposure to the virus. That is not an easy conversation, but scientific logic should not be abandoned because the implications are inconvenient.
The Blind Spot in Medicine and AI
The real danger is that modern medicine often measures only what is visible. We diagnose the symptomatic person. We record the overt disease. We code the hospital admission. But if the biology is changing before the symptoms appear, our systems will miss the early signal.
This becomes even more important with AI. If AI is trained only on diagnosed disease, it will reproduce the same blind spot. It will identify the iceberg only when the top is already visible. It will miss the persistence, the subclinical inflammation, the early vascular changes, and the slow trajectory toward disease.
That is why I keep returning to this issue. The purpose is not to alarm people. The purpose is to ask whether we are looking in the right place early enough.
The Lesson From Asbestos
The asbestos story is not a historical curiosity. It is a warning. By the 1960s, the association between asbestos and mesothelioma had become extremely difficult to ignore. Yet the full UK ban did not come until 1999. Why? Because asbestos was everywhere. The implications of admitting the risk were enormous.
This is how societies behave when risk is inconvenient. They delay. They minimise. They demand a level of certainty that only arrives after too much damage has already been done.
I can imagine the scientists who raised concerns about asbestos being told they were exaggerating, being difficult, or refusing to move on. But in hindsight, the problem was not that they asked too many questions. The problem was that society answered them too slowly.
The Question We Should Be Asking
The question is not whether every person with spike protein persistence will become ill. That would be far too simplistic. The question is whether persistent spike-related biology identifies a cohort whose long-term risk has not yet been properly understood.
Some will remain well. Some will develop long COVID. Some may develop vascular or organ-specific disease years later. Some may only reveal the consequences after repeated immune challenges.
That is why I believe we need to think in terms of exposure, persistence, susceptibility, and time. That framework does not prove the answer. But it gives us a way to ask the right question.
Why I Will Keep Raising This
Some will say we should move on. I understand why. People are tired. The pandemic was disruptive. The topic is politically and emotionally exhausting.
But medicine does not exist to make society comfortable. It exists to identify risk, understand disease, and protect patients before the damage becomes irreversible.
So I will keep raising the question. Are symptoms only the tip of the iceberg? Is persistent spike-related biology a silent signal we are underestimating? Are we waiting for overt disease before we take the exposure seriously?
History does not repeat itself exactly. But patterns do. The asbestos story should make us cautious. If we ignore biological persistence simply because the person in front of us feels well, we may once again learn the lesson too late.
Vejon COVID-19 Review is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
