      
    What the mainstream media is hiding

Microplastics are everywhere, including in us. Worse still: the tiny plastic particles tend to accumulate in the brain. What damage do they do there? Recent studies suggest the worst: this devilish stuff causes dementia. What can we do?

At first, you think: That can only be a typo. No? Then someone must have miscalculated badly.

But it is true, unbelievably: every person worldwide now consumes an average of up to 5.5 grams of microplastics per week – they breathe them in, they swallow them with food. FIVE POINT FIVE! GRAMS! That is the weight of a credit card.

An Australian research group from the University of Newcastle came to this horror finding after evaluating 59 high-quality studies on the human intake of microplastics: plastic particles smaller than five millimeters. (1)

In reality, the amount of plastic consumed per person may be even higher. The evaluation only included a small selection of foods for which there is already reasonably reliable research, such as water, mussels, fish, salt, beer, honey, and sugar. The number of grams could be even higher because current studies only cover around 15% of daily calorie intake. “If other possible sources such as rice, pasta, bread, milk, dishes, cutlery, toothpaste, toothbrushes, and food packaging were taken into account, the particle mass absorbed would be even greater,” the scientists fear. Essential food groups such as meat, grains, and vegetables are not yet taken into account in the calculations.

A planet full of “plastic people.”

5.5 grams per week equals 286 grams per year. Over the course of an average 80 years of life, this would add up to around 23 kilograms. In relation to the average body weight of adults, this means that by the end of your life, you will be made up of a quarter to a third of plastic – and this fear seems completely absurd, downright crazy.

The research group offers rather weak consolation with two alternative scenarios, according to which the weekly microplastic intake could be “only” 0.1 or 0.3 grams. The number of plastic particles a person ingests over their lifetime depends on their geographical location, residential area, interior design, eating habits, and other factors. A particularly large number of them get into their bodies if their home is on a main road or next to a sports field with plastic surface: the abrasion of car tires and artificial turf is one of the main sources of contamination. In the center of a large city like Paris, the microplastic fallout from the air is 355 particles per square meter; in the outskirts, it is just two. (2) If you line your home with plastic carpets, wear synthetic laundry, and rarely air out your home, the air you breathe is increasingly enriched with microplastics. But even if you only ingest a tenth of a gram of the stuff per week, after 80 years of life, you would have 416 grams, almost a pound of plastic.

How many particles accumulate in us over time? A team of researchers led by Kieran Cox from the University of Victoria in Canada estimates that 74,000 to 121,000 plastic particles enter us every year through food and breathing; an additional 90,000 particles are added if we only drink bottled water. (3) Another study estimates 39,000 to 193,000 particles per year. (4) Around 200,000 particles per year would become 16 million over the course of 80 years of life. SIXTEEN MILLION non-biodegradable foreign bodies in us – unbelievable.

Quickly eliminated?

Could it not be that our body largely excretes such particles, because they are biologically unusable, either through the liver, kidneys, intestines, skin or breathing – as it does more or less quickly with other pollutants? Of the notorious “forever chemicals”, for example – the PFAS from cosmetics, textiles, and food packaging – we get rid of at least the short-chain ones within a few days and weeks. When aluminum is ingested, the excretion rate is between 95 and 99%.

Microplastics can actually be detected in our urine and feces. (5) An Austrian study found 20 particles of nine different types of plastic, 50 to 500 micrometers in size, per ten grams of intestinal contents in eight adult test subjects from several continents. (6) That is why industry experts were quick to give the all-clear: we apparently excrete the stuff undigested, similar to fiber, seed shells, and fruit kernels.

The fact that microplastics appear in our excrement does not mean that they are not found elsewhere. And unfortunately, they are, as more and more studies are making frighteningly clear.

According to this, only larger plastic particles over 10 µm (1 micrometer = 1 millionth of a meter = 0.000001 m) do not remain in the body. But what about smaller particles, especially nanoplastics? They consist of just a few to a few thousand atoms or molecules; most of them are in the nanometer range, between 1 and 100 nanometers (nm). (A nanometer is a millionth of a millimeter. For comparison, the diameter of a human hair is about 80,000 nanometers. Viruses are 30 to 50 nanometers in size. A DNA strand has a diameter of about 2.5 nanometers, a protein molecule measures around 5 nanometers, while a red blood cell is about 7,000 nanometers in size. A needle tip is already gigantic in size: it measures 1 million nanometers. More than a million nanoplastic particles fit into the dot on the i in a newspaper article.) Such synthetic tiny things are only partially excreted either via stool and urine or by the body catching them in the lungs by producing saliva with which it expels them.

But the rest – cautious estimates vary between 0.1 and 1% – overcomes our body’s natural protective barriers – and remains in us. Nanoparticles that we breathe in penetrate the extremely thin walls of the alveoli and enter the blood. Immune cells absorb them and transport them into the bloodstream via the lymphatic system. Nanoparticles that we ingest with drinking water and food penetrate the intestinal mucosa. Once they enter the bloodstream, the liver, spleen, and kidneys only partially filter them. The rest migrate to all organs and tissues in our body – and nest in them. They also easily overcome the blood-brain barrier within hours.

Their concentration is particularly high in the gray matter under our skulls. And it is growing. Infrared and electron microscopy found significantly more nano- and microplastics in the brains of people who died in 2024 than in samples from 2016 – and up to 30 times more than in the liver or kidneys, as a US research group led by Matthew Campen from the University of New Mexico reports in the journal Nature Medicine. In the liver, the average concentration rose from 141.9 to 465.3 micrograms per gram of tissue within eight years, and in the brain, from 3,420 to 4,763 micrograms per gram. Polyethylene, which is found in foil and bottles, was the most commonly detected plastic. It makes up 40 to 65 percent of the plastic in the liver and kidneys and as much as 75 percent in the brain.

Seven grams of plastic in the brain

Will the brain somehow get rid of the intruders over time? Another research paper by Campen’s team, published on February 3, 2025, in Nature Medicine, disappoints hopes: The stuff accumulates mercilessly. Within just eight years, the concentration of microplastics in our brains has increased by 50%. The average human brain today contains about seven grams of microscopic plastic particles – that’s how much seven paper clips weigh. (7)

Twelve brain samples from 2019 to 2024 from people with proven dementia turned out to be noticeably highly contaminated: They contained between 12,000 and 48,000 micrograms of plastic per gram of tissue – four to ten times more than in non-affected people.

“These data are associative and do not prove the causal role of such particles in health impairment,” the research group states. Nevertheless, the connection urgently needs an explanation. It raises fears of the worst.

A team of researchers from the Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences in Beijing is fueling concern. They recently presented observations from laboratory tests that indicate that microplastics can clog blood vessels in the brains of mice. When fed with them, the animals move more slowly, have a more challenging time orienting themselves, and are less persistent, according to the study.

Researchers at the University of Rhode Island had previously investigated how microplastics ingested through water and food affect the behavior of mammals. To do this, they added 0.1 to 0.2 micrometer microplastic particles to the drinking water of young and old mice for three weeks, dosed between 0.0025 and 0.125 milligrams per liter. A control group continued to receive pure water. After the three weeks, the scientists had the mice undergo various behavioral tests. The result: those animals that had ingested plastic particles in their drinking water behaved differently than the control mice after a short time. “It was astonishing that such not particularly high doses of microplastics could cause such changes after such a short time,” explains co-author Jaime Ross. The older animals exposed to microplastics in particular walked around significantly more and repeatedly stood upright, as if they were trying to orient themselves or looking for something. All in all, these behaviors reminded the scientists of dementia patients.

Of course, we are not giant two-legged mice. Due to differences in brain structure, the findings cannot be easily transferred to humans, the Beijing study authors make clear in the journal Science Advances. But the results are not irrelevant either. They raise a terrible suspicion.

How microplastics damage our brain

How do microplastic particles damage the brain? They do this in many ways:

1. Nanoplastics not only easily penetrate the blood-brain barrier – they can impair it, making it more permeable to other pollutants. Studies have shown that tiny plastic particles transport other toxins into the brain – as a “Trojan horse”, so to speak. Scientists have found heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, chromium, arsenic, zinc, mercury, and nickel, as well as pesticides, plasticizers, traces of fire retardants, and abrasion from paint attached to them.

2. Certain immune cells – neutrophils and macrophages (“phagocytes”), two types of white blood cells – pounce on them and surround them in order to break them down. In doing so, they swell up. These bulky cells can clog fine blood vessels, which can lead to reduced blood flow and cause neurological deficits. (8)

3. If the immune system recognizes plastic particles as foreign bodies, it can react with inflammation. Chronic inflammation in the brain is associated with neurodegenerative diseases.

4. In the intestine, microplastics promote harmful bacteria, which leads to so-called dysbiosis: the composition of the intestinal flora changes, with three possible consequences:

– Dysbiosis can overactivate the immune system and promote inflammation. Released inflammatory substances, e.g., cytokines, can reach the brain and have a neuroinflammatory effect there.

– The intestinal barrier is weakened so that bacterial components such as lipopolysaccharides enter the blood. These toxins can also make the blood-brain barrier more permeable, promoting inflammation and neuronal brain damage.

– Unhealthy intestinal flora changes the signals of the vagus nerve, the main neuronal connection between the intestine and the brain. This can intensify stress reactions, anxiety, or depressive moods.

– Many intestinal bacteria produce neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, and GABA, which are essential for mood, motivation, and relaxation. A disturbed intestinal flora can reduce the production of these messenger substances.

5. Nanoplastics stimulate the production of free radicals, highly reactive molecules that have one or more unpaired electrons. Due to this deficiency, they try to steal electrons from other molecules, which turns them into free radicals if the theft is successful. Antioxidants such as vitamin C and E, glutathione, coenzyme Q10, and selenium counteract this disastrous chain reaction: they neutralize free radicals by giving them electrons without becoming unstable themselves. However, if too many free radicals form, an imbalance of antioxidants occurs: oxidative stress. This can damage cell membranes, proteins, mitochondria, and DNA, which impairs the function of the nerve cell. In the worst case, it leads to cell death.

6. Nanoplastic particles can also damage nerve cells directly due to their physical properties. They often have sharp edges or irregular shapes that damage and break through cell membranes.

7. Nanoplastics are deposited in the microglial cells, which act as defense cells in the brain. This leads to reduced cell growth and slowed cell division, cell morphology changes, and inflammatory messengers are produced more frequently. Apoptosis: cellular suicide occurs more frequently among microglial cells. (9)

8. Nanoplastics can enter the cell membrane, blocking calcium, potassium, or sodium channels. This can affect the electrical excitability of the nerve cell, impair signal transmission, and disrupt neuronal networks.

9. Due to their surface charge, nanoplastic particles can interact with cell receptors or activate them incorrectly, leading to false signals.

10. A process called “endocytosis” allows nanoplastic particles to overcome the cell barrier: pinched-off bubbles of the cell membrane transport them into the cell interior, where they can affect all structures and processes.

11. In the cell, nanoplastics manipulate the cytoskeleton, a framework of fibers that is responsible for the shape of the cells and their movement, for material transport, cell division, and cell differentiation. This makes the cell more flexible and mobile – including cancer cells.

12. Nanoplastics are tiny enough even to gain access to the cell nucleus. There, they can damage the DNA of the nerve cell, which can lead to genetic changes and cell malfunctions.

13. When nanoplastics penetrate mitochondria, they can inhibit energy production – ATP synthesis – which weakens cell function.

14. The endoplasmic reticulum is also at risk: a specialized cell structure that plays a key role in protein and lipid synthesis. It consists of a widely branched membrane system that is connected to the nuclear envelope and runs through the cell plasma. If it is damaged, proteins could be folded incorrectly. Correct folding – a special three-dimensional structure – is crucial for a protein to be able to perform its tasks. If it is incorrect, it leads to loss of function, toxic deposits, and cellular stress.

15. In the brain, nanoplastics bind to the protein alpha-synuclein and disrupt its normal degradation. This promotes the formation of fibrils and toxic protein clumps that are characteristic of neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s. (10)

16. At least in animal experiments, nanoplastics in the brain lead to a decrease in the GFAP marker, a protein that is important for the structure and stability of certain glial cells in the central nervous system. It is involved in the repair of nerve damage, contributes to the blood-brain barrier, and influences neuronal functions. A reduced GFAP level is associated with depression and early stages of neurodegenerative diseases.

17. When nanoplastics interfere with synapses, they disrupt the release or reuptake of neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin, or glutamate. In addition, they could sabotage the formation of synapses, which disrupts neuronal communication.

18. Nanoplastic particles impair the function of lysosomes. These cell organelles contain digestive enzymes with which they normally break down excess biomaterial and “recycle” it, i.e., they ensure that it is processed again cellularly. If this “garbage disposal” does not work properly, harmful substances accumulate in the nerve cells.

19. Inflammation in the brain caused by microplastics can affect the function of the hypothalamus and pituitary gland, which are involved in the production of TRH (thyrotropin-releasing hormone) and TSH (thyroid-stimulating hormone), respectively. This can misregulate the production of thyroid hormones.

20. Children are most at risk. Their central nervous system is not yet fully developed, and the blood-brain barrier is more permeable than in adults. In their brains, nanoplastics can impair the formation of neurons and synapses – with long-term effects on the body, mind, and soul.

Of these constant micro-attacks on our physical integrity, each one is likely to make us sick in the long run. If all 20 actually happened, they could result in a medical catastrophe.

Catastrophic consequences

The consequences of plastic contamination of our brains are fatal. When nerve cells die, the risk of neurodegenerative diseases increases. Cognitive functions deteriorate, and learning, memory, and the ability to concentrate decrease. Anxiety, depression, or altered sleep patterns can occur. If motor nerve cells are affected – for example, in the area of the substantia nigra – movement disorders or coordination problems can occur. The risk of Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s increases. If microplastics affect sensory nerve cells, it can cause perceptual disorders, such as altered pain sensation, numbness, and other malfunctions of the sensory organs, eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin. Cancer cells become more “wanderlusted”, which promotes metastases. (11) Reduced production of neurotransmitters increases the risk of mood swings, depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders. Inflammation fueled by microplastics can lead to diseases such as diabetes and rheumatism. Clogged arteries increase the risk of strokes and heart attacks. Thyroid hormones are crucial for brain development in early childhood – a disruption can lead to cognitive deficits.

“If plastic were really so toxic, I think we would all be gone because of our general exposure to plastic,” Verena Kopatz, a biotechnologist from the Medical University of Vienna, tries to reassure us. This consolation is weak: not every poison kills its victims as suddenly as cyanide, sarin, or strychnine. Some do it slowly over decades, as all too many chain smokers have to learn the hard way. Even a Mrs. Kopatz will probably be “gone” much sooner than expected, physically or mentally – even if she can celebrate several birthdays beforehand with a fairly sharp mind.

Defenseless?

Are we defenseless against the threat, especially the generations after us? Will we ever get rid of the stuff again? Or will we end up as plastic idiots?

The human organism has a great ability to get rid of pollutants that have penetrated. But tiny plastic things are apparently too much for it – at least once they have penetrated the brain.

Can medicine help? There are hot tips circulating on the internet, such as an “anti-plastic tea” made from mullein and olive leaves, lemon balm, and fenugreek seeds. However, there is no evidence that this will work to detox the brain. There is currently no known method for removing plastic particles that have already entered the brain. None. We are all contaminated. And we will remain so for the rest of our lives. Consequently, the only thing we can do is reduce the further intake of microplastics and nanoplastics in the future – and at the same time, lead as healthy a life as possible, preventing other risk factors such as poor diet and too little exercise from making the damage even worse.

How do we avoid ingesting microplastics?

To ensure that as little microplastic as possible gets into our bodies, we should choose natural products instead of plastic in everyday life – e.g., toothbrushes made of bamboo or wood, drinks bottles made of glass and fabric bags instead of plastic bags, and avoid plastic packaging. We should avoid cleaning and dishcloths made of microfiber – as well as cosmetics with polyethylene because these often contain microplastics. We should prefer textiles made of natural materials such as cotton or wool to avoid the release of microplastics – and wash clothes made of synthetic fibers as rarely as possible.

However, the devil is in the detail when it comes to self-protection. For example, if you don’t make tea, the second most consumed drink in the world after water, with leaves, but instead immerse commercially available tea bags in hot water and stir them, you are ingesting plenty of nylon, polypropylene or cellulose, which is what the covers are made of: As a study published in November 2024 in the journal Chemosphere found, every single plastic tea bag brewed at brewing temperature releases around 11.6 billion microplastic particles and 3.1 billion nanoplastic particles.

According to a study, anyone who drinks the recommended 1.5 to 2 liters of water daily from plastic bottles ingests around 90,000 microplastic particles per year in this way alone. Those who choose tap water instead can reduce the amount they ingest by 50,000. High-quality filters based on the principle of reverse osmosis or ion exchange are able to largely remove microplastics from drinking water.

How can the air be cleaned of nanoplastic particles? So-called HEPA filters (High-Efficiency Particulate Absorbing), consisting of a dense network of glass fibers, can capture particles up to 0.3 micrometers in size, with an impressive efficiency of 99.97%. (Microplastic particles are often in the range of 0.1 to 1 micrometer.) Such devices cost between 50 and 190 euros. Research is now being carried out on special microplastic air filters that use nanomaterials or special membranes.

The most likely apocalypse

It takes a lot of optimism to believe that these measures will reliably protect us from mental regression. Because plastic particles accumulate in the brain, the burden increases day by day.

Moreover, it is not just microplastics that are damaging our brains. Fine dust, heavy metal particles, exhaust fumes from combustion engines, chemicals such as PFAS, pesticide residues, artificial food additives, and ingredients in medicines and vaccines also attack it continuously after they have easily overcome the blood-brain barrier. The most likely apocalypse for humanity may not be a nuclear war or a pandemic, an asteroid impact, or an alien invasion – but collective self-poisoning.

Not everyone finds this entirely deplorable. After all, the plastic age has brought the medical industry a fabulous long-term economic stimulus program. Even some politicians who think there can never be enough social control may find something comforting in even the bleakest prospects: billions of neurodegenerative idiots who are dozing off with plastic brains should be pretty easy to govern. But maybe control freaks are getting too excited: won’t their heads be teeming with stupid plastic minis too? (P.S.: doesn’t the daily madness of the news suggest that this has long been the case?)

How do we cope with the inevitable?

When all the passengers realized that the Titanic was going to sink and that there weren’t enough lifeboats available, some moaned and cried, prayed, stared apathetically into space, killed themselves in despair – others just kept dancing. How do we deal with a future, apparently unavoidable catastrophe?

This question has always been a central theme for philosophers. Over the course of more than two millennia, they have taken various approaches that ultimately boil down to one piece of advice: Don’t see the catastrophe as senseless destruction, but as a challenge to consciously shape your own way of dealing with it.

Stoics such as Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius advised us to concentrate on what is within our power. We should understand the inevitable rationally and accept it with composure instead of allowing ourselves to be overwhelmed by emotions. Their recommendation was: Accept the catastrophe as part of the natural course of things and concentrate on your inner attitude. Live virtuously, regardless of external fate.

Existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus discovered freedom in confronting the inevitable. They emphasized the ability to live a fulfilled life despite an absurd or bleak future: accept the catastrophe but create your own meaning in the remaining time. Camus’ “Myth of Sisyphus” shows us that even when fate seems meaningless, people can maintain their dignity through their attitude.

Nihilists express themselves similarly. Accept what comes to you without falling into despair. Stop looking for a higher meaning or purpose – there is none. Realizing that life is meaningless in the face of catastrophe can be relieving rather than depressing. Because it frees you from the burden of having to give life meaning, it helps you let go of fears and worries about the future – and focus on the here and now.

Pragmatists like William James and John Dewey recommend acting as far as you can. Even if a catastrophe is imminent, practical action can make a difference – whether for others or for your own experience. Look for concrete ways to make the best of the fatal situation.

Buddhism sees every disaster as part of the natural cycle of creation and decay, no matter how terrible. This must be accepted – not angrily or sadly, but with equanimity. Meditate on the transience of life, free yourself from fear and suffering, and find peace in the present moment.

Which path is the right one?

That depends on your personality and your own worldview. Some find comfort in stoic serenity, while others draw strength from existentialist rebellion or pragmatic action. However, all wise men agree on one piece of advice: do not ignore or deny what is coming your way. Do not fall into passivity and resignation because of it. Don’t think about escaping by suicide – you’ll be dead soon enough and for long enough. Accept the inevitable. And actively look for ways to lead a fulfilled, responsible life nonetheless. Focus on its most important, valuable aspects – despite or precisely because of the knowledge of the impending disaster. If what you fear actually happens sooner or later, your healthy lifespan will be shortened. What sense does it make to burden this more pleasant part of your future with constant fear of catastrophe, full of self-pity that leaves no room for love and joy, relaxation and enjoyment? Wouldn’t that be even more catastrophic?

(Harald Wiesendanger)

For the same topic, see the KLARTEXT articles “Scary: Plastic Poison in the Brain and “Microplastics In Us: A Time Bomb“

Support “Ways Out Charity“! With your support, we can help and move forward. > https://bit.ly/3wuNgdO

Anmerkungen

(1) https://www.newcastle.edu.au/newsroom/featured/plastic-ingestion-by-people-could-be-equating-to-a-credit-card-a-week/how-much-microplastics-are-we-ingesting-estimation-of-the-mass-of-microplastics-ingested; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389420319944

(2) Rachid Dris u.a.: “Synthetic fibers in atmospheric fallout: A source of microplastics in the environment? “, Marine Pollution Bulletin 104 (1-2) 2016, S. 290-293, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X16300066

(3) Environmental Science & Technology, 2019; doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01517, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Human-Consumption-of-Microplastics.-Cox-Covernton/573d5cdb9f0fb3b91b97203f5337400a2bcef940; https://www.focus.de/wissen/natur/wie-viel-mikroplastik-steckt-in-uns_id_10800276.html

(4) https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4991/11/2/496; https://wasserdreinull.de/blog/mikroplastik-und-die-menschliche-gesundheit/

(5) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412022001258?via%3Dihub#f0005; https://www.sueddeutsche.de/gesundheit/mikroplastik-mensch-1.4181146

(6) Siehe Süddeutsche Zeitung, 24.10.2018: „Plastik im Bauch“.

(7) Alexander J.Nihart u.a.: “Bioaccumulation of Microplastics in Decedent Human Brains “. Nature Medicine (2024): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03453-1, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03453-1

(8) https://www.sciencemediacenter.de/angebote/mausstudie-wie-mikroplastik-das-gehirn-schaedigen-koennte-25012; https://www.br.de/nachrichten/wissen/mikroplastik-wandert-ins-gehirn-plastik,UbHIzoj

(9) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721058952; https://www.forschung-und-wissen.de/nachrichten/medizin/mikroplastik-toetet-abwehrzellen-des-gehirns-13375567

(10) https://www.wellblue.com/blog/nanoplastik-im-menschlichen-gehirn/; https://www.spektrum.de/news/parkinson-durch-plastikmuell/2198302; https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adi8716 (11) https://www.scinexx.de/news/medizin/unsere-zellen-vererben-ihr-nanoplastik/; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653524003564?via%3Dihub

Do we end up as Plastic Idiots?