Published last week in the journal JAMA Network Open, titled “Microplastics in the Olfactory Bulb of the Human Brain,” the study “analyzed the olfactory bulbs of 15 deceased individuals via micro-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and detected the presence of microplastics in the olfactory bulbs of 8 individuals. The predominant shapes were particles and fibers, with polypropylene being the most common polymer.”
According to the results: “A total of 16 synthetic polymer particles and fibers were identified, with 75% being particles and 25% being fibers. The most common polymer detected was polypropylene (43.8%). Sizes of MPs ranged from 5.5 μm to 26.4 μm for particles, and the mean fiber length was 21.4 μm. Polymeric materials were absent in procedural blank and negative control filters, indicating minimal contamination risk.”
This case series provides evidence of MPs found in the human olfactory bulb, suggesting a potential pathway for the translocation of MPs to the brain. The findings underscore the need for further research on the health implications of MP exposure, particularly concerning neurotoxicity and the potential for MPs to bypass the blood-brain barrier.
The researchers concluded
Study co-author Luís Fernando Amato-Lourenço, an environmental scientist at the Free University of Berlin, told CNN in a statement: “Once present in [the olfactory bulb], there can be translocation to other regions of the brain. Translocation depends on several factors, including the shape of the particle, whether it is a fiber or a fragment, its size and the body’s defense mechanisms.”
In August, another study demonstrated that microplastic can penetrate brain tissue.
This study, “Bioaccumulation of Microplastics in Decedent Human Brains Assessed by Pyrolysis Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry” – which is still undergoing peer-review examination – was published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), examined the livers, kidneys and brains of autopsied bodies discovered that all contained microplastics, but chiefly the 91 brain samples had on average roughly 10 to 20 times more than other organs.
The brain samples, which were gathered in early 2024, found that 24 of the brain samples measured on average around 0.5% plastic by weight.
The study’s lead author Matthew Campen, a toxicologist and professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of New Mexico, said in a comment to The Guardian:
It’s pretty alarming. There’s much more plastic in our brains than I ever would have imagined or been comfortable with.
I don’t know how much more plastic our brain can stuff in without it causing some problems.
The Guardian added: ‘The paper also found the quantity of microplastics in brain samples from 2024 was about 50% higher from the total in samples that date to 2016, suggesting the concentration of microplastics found in human brains is rising at a similar rate to that found in the environment. Most of the organs came from the office of the medical investigator in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which investigates untimely or violent deaths.’
“You can draw a line – it’s increasing over time. It’s consistent with what you’re seeing in the environment,” Campen said.
Bethanie Carney Almroth, an ecotoxicologist at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, also commented, saying: “It’s scary, I’d say. There’s nowhere left untouched from the deep sea to the atmosphere to the human brain.”
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
The WinePress has a number of other reports covering the pervasiveness and the growing body of research surrounding deleterious effects of nano- and microplastic contamination in our food, water, soils, and so on.
And what is being done about it? Exactly, nothing; or at least anything that would actually make a difference.
Plastic is cheap, and no business wants to revert backwards because that would hurt their bottom line, and people don’t want to reduce their use of plastics in all things because then the conveniences that we all take for granted would also go away quickly.
Proverbs 20:21 An inheritance may be gotten hastily at the beginning; but the end thereof shall not be blessed.
[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).
The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.
God bless!
Maybe the only place not prayed with toxins is the lands of the elites. Look up people. Cotton balls vs brushed wool fibre.
My grandfather was a pioneer of plastic injection molding in the1940’s. I believe he would be both amazed and appalled by where we have collectively gone with plastics since the 1960’s.