Orlando Bloom’s Blood Cleanse: The Truth About Apheresis for Microplastic Removal

When Orlando Bloom revealed he had undergone a £10,000 blood-filtering procedure in London to remove microplastics and “forever chemicals” from his body, it sparked headlines, skepticism, and genuine scientific curiosity. The Pirates of the Caribbean and Lord of the Rings star reportedly visited Clarify Clinics for a form of apheresis — a process in which blood is drawn, filtered, and returned — with the clinic claiming 90–99% removal of microplastics and certain persistent chemicals.

Is this celebrity wellness trend grounded in science, or is it just expensive hype? The answer lies somewhere in between — and new peer-reviewed research is beginning to shift the conversation from speculation to measurable biology.

Microplastics Are Now Inside Us

Micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) are no longer theoretical. They have been detected in human blood, brain tissue, placenta, testes, and breast milk. These particles — often smaller than 5 mm, with many in the nanometer range — enter the body through food, water, air, and consumer products. Once inside, they can trigger inflammation, oxidative stress, and hormonal disruption. Some carry additives like BPA and phthalates, which are known endocrine disruptors.

While the full long-term health consequences are still being mapped, associations with cardiovascular risk, metabolic dysfunction, and neuroinflammation are actively under investigation.

What Orlando Bloom Actually Did

Apheresis (specifically therapeutic plasma exchange or related double-filtration techniques) is a well-established medical procedure. Blood is removed via a venous catheter, separated into cells and plasma, the plasma is filtered or replaced, and the cleaned blood is returned. It has been used for decades in autoimmune diseases, certain neurological conditions, and toxin removal (e.g., in some poisoning cases).

Bloom’s treatment was a commercial application of this technology marketed for detox and microplastic reduction. The key scientific question is no longer can particles be removed — emerging data suggest they can — but how effectively, which particles, and what clinical benefit follows.

The Emerging Evidence: Particles Are Being Removed

Two recent studies provide the first direct evidence that apheresis can physically reduce the circulating burden of microplastic-like particles:

- A 2025 study published in Brain Medicine (Bornstein et al., Technische Universität Dresden) examined patients with post-infectious myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) who underwent INUSpheresis — a specific form of double-filtration plasmapheresis. Researchers analyzed the concentrated “eluate” (the waste fluid removed during the procedure) using attenuated total reflection Fourier-transform infrared (ATR-FT-IR) spectroscopy. They identified microplastic-like particles, including signatures consistent with polyamide 6 (nylon) and polyurethane, in the removed material. Prerinse controls from the equipment were negative, confirming the particles originated from the patients’ blood. This was the first published evidence that therapeutic apheresis can sequester MNP-like particles from human circulation.

- A 2026 study in the Journal of Clinical Apheresis (Weinstein et al., Circulate Health) measured microplastic particles in patients before and after therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE). In individuals with detectable levels, mean circulating microplastic counts dropped significantly (from 52.2 to 21.1 particles per 100 µL). The procedure used the Spectra Optia system and replaced plasma with 5% albumin solution.

These studies do not yet prove long-term symptom resolution or disease reversal, but they demonstrate that the physical removal of microplastic-like particles from blood is biologically plausible and measurable.

Why INUSpheresis Stands Out

Not all apheresis is identical. INUSpheresis (the technique used in the Dresden study) employs double-filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP).

In standard therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE), large volumes of plasma are removed and typically replaced with albumin or donor plasma. This can be effective but is less selective and can deplete beneficial proteins.

INUSpheresis uses two filters in sequence:

1. A first filter separates plasma from cellular components.

2. A second, more selective filter removes targeted molecules (including inflammatory mediators, autoantibodies, certain toxins, and now shown to capture MNP-like particles) while returning most essential plasma proteins to the patient.

This makes it better tolerated for repeated or wellness-oriented use and more aligned with the goal of reducing harmful circulating burden without unnecessarily stripping healthy components. The fact that the first peer-reviewed evidence of microplastic-like particle removal came from an INUSpheresis protocol is notable for clinics offering this specific modality.

The Realistic View

Apheresis for microplastic removal is not a proven “cure” or anti-aging miracle. It is an emerging application of an established medical technology.

What we can say with reasonable confidence today:

- Microplastics and nanoplastics are present in human blood and tissues.

- Double-filtration apheresis (INUSpheresis) and standard TPE can reduce the measurable circulating load of these particles.

- The procedure also removes other inflammatory and potentially harmful plasma components.

What remains uncertain:

- How much clinical benefit (symptom improvement, long-term health outcomes) follows from particle reduction alone.

- Optimal protocols, frequency, and patient selection.

- Whether reducing circulating levels meaningfully lowers tissue burden over time.

The most responsible position is that this represents a promising tool for individuals with high documented toxin loads or chronic inflammatory states, best used as part of a broader strategy that includes reducing ongoing exposure.

Bottom Line

Orlando Bloom’s decision brought mainstream attention to a real and growing scientific question: Can we actively remove some of the environmental plastics and chemicals that have become ubiquitous in our bodies?

The early data — particularly from studies using double-filtration techniques like INUSpheresis — suggest the answer is increasingly “yes, at least in measurable quantities.” Whether that translates into meaningful health gains for any given individual depends on their overall toxin burden, health status, and how the procedure is integrated into a comprehensive plan.

As research accelerates, procedures like INUSpheresis are moving from the fringes of “wellness” into the realm of evidence-informed medical options for addressing the modern environmental toxic load. For those exploring advanced detoxification, the key is distinguishing between marketing claims and the actual peer-reviewed data — and choosing providers who operate with both scientific rigor and clinical transparency.

At ZIV, we help health-conscious individuals and families take a proactive, personalized approach to detoxification through our partner clinics — giving you and your loved ones the best possible foundation for long-term health.

Ready to take control of your toxic load? Contact ZIV today to learn more about our personalized detox programs.

This article is for educational purposes. Always consult with your healthcare provider regarding personal health decisions.