The Dangers of EMDR Therapy: What You Should Know
Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) is often promoted as a breakthrough in trauma therapy. Recognized by the WHO and APA, it's widely used to treat PTSD, anxiety, and other stress-related conditions. But while many patients report positive outcomes, others experience intense emotional or physical side effects, sometimes severe enough to interrupt treatment entirely.
Before starting EMDR, it's important to understand not only how it works, but also who may be at risk. For example, if you've recently experienced a head injury or unexplained symptoms like dizziness, nausea, or brain fog, it's crucial to rule out a neurological cause first. A quick concussion test online can help identify whether these symptoms stem from a physical issue rather than emotional trauma — a distinction that can change your entire treatment approach.
In this article, we'll explore what EMDR therapy is, why it's controversial, and the potential dangers patients should be aware of before committing to it.
EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) is a form of psychotherapy used to treat trauma, PTSD, anxiety, and related conditions. It involves bilateral stimulation — like eye movements or tapping — to help the brain reprocess painful memories.
Unlike traditional talk therapy, EMDR doesn't require patients to recount trauma in detail. Instead, it focuses on how the body and mind respond to those memories, aiming to reduce emotional reactivity.
While many experience relief after just a few sessions, EMDR can also be intense — and may not be suitable for everyone.
While EMDR is widely considered safe, it's not without risks — especially for individuals with certain mental health conditions, physical sensitivities, or unresolved neurological issues. Understanding the dangers of EMDR therapy is essential before beginning treatment.
EMDR can trigger intense emotional responses. Patients may experience a temporary worsening of anxiety, panic, or depression as traumatic material surfaces during sessions. Some report feeling overwhelmed, detached, or emotionally raw for days afterward. If the brain is not ready to reprocess a memory, the therapy may open more than it can resolve.
Because EMDR targets subconscious memory systems, it's common for patients to experience vivid or disturbing dreams after sessions. This isn't inherently dangerous — in fact, it may indicate that reprocessing is underway — but for some, especially those prone to nightmares or insomnia, it can become a source of emotional exhaustion.
The neurological activation involved in EMDR can lead to mild physical side effects such as tension headaches, fatigue, nausea, or lightheadedness — especially during early sessions. These symptoms are usually short-term, but in certain cases, they may indicate something more serious.
For instance, if you're already experiencing dizziness, fogginess, or balance issues before starting EMDR, it's critical to rule out a neurological condition first. A simple concussion test online can help determine whether these symptoms are related to trauma or possibly an undiagnosed head injury — something that could be worsened by high-stimulation therapies like EMDR.
EMDR may reactivate traumatic memories that were previously repressed or inaccessible. For some individuals, this can be retraumatizing if they don't have the psychological tools or support system in place to process these revelations safely.
Patients with a history of dissociation or complex PTSD may be especially vulnerable to losing touch with present reality during EMDR. In rare cases, this can lead to panic attacks or full-blown flashbacks, which might require crisis intervention if the session isn't managed properly.
Like any powerful therapy, EMDR has real benefits — but they come with real risks. Knowing them in advance allows patients and clinicians to build safeguards into the process.
Despite endorsements from major institutions like the World Health Organization and the American Psychiatric Association, EMDR remains one of the most controversial trauma therapies in mental health care today. So, why is EMDR so controversial?
One of the biggest points of contention is that researchers still don't fully understand how EMDR works. While bilateral stimulation is a core component of the process, some studies suggest that it may not be essential — raising questions about whether the eye movements themselves add value beyond standard exposure therapy.
EMDR is sometimes marketed as a quick fix for trauma — a few sessions and you're 'cured.' In reality, its effectiveness depends on the patient, the therapist's skill, and the complexity of the trauma. This gap between public perception and clinical reality has created skepticism in the medical community.
Not all EMDR therapists are created equal. Some complete only a weekend workshop, while others undergo months of supervised training. This wide range of preparation means that patient outcomes can vary dramatically, leading some to question the reliability of the method across practitioners.
The emotional risks of EMDR — including retraumatization, dissociation, and destabilization — are rarely discussed in promotional materials. Critics argue that patients are not always properly screened or prepared for the intensity of the sessions, especially when underlying conditions (like TBI or psychosis risk) are overlooked.
In short, EMDR is effective for many, but controversial because of its inconsistent outcomes, unresolved scientific questions, and lack of safeguards in some therapeutic settings.
Although EMDR therapy has helped many people recover from trauma, it's not suitable for everyone. For individuals with certain medical or psychological conditions, the risks may outweigh the benefits — especially if no screening or support is in place.
People with certain conditions should proceed carefully or consult a specialist first: Psychosis or dissociative disorders: EMDR may trigger disorientation or flashbacks without proper support.
EMDR may trigger disorientation or flashbacks without proper support. Neurological symptoms: If you're experiencing dizziness, fatigue, or fogginess, rule out head injury with a quickconcussion test online.
If you're experiencing dizziness, fatigue, or fogginess, rule out head injury with a quickconcussion test online. Certain medications: Drugs affecting memory, sleep, or emotional regulation may interfere with EMDR's effects.
Drugs affecting memory, sleep, or emotional regulation may interfere with EMDR's effects. Chronic migraines or epilepsy: Sensory triggers like light or sound may worsen symptoms.
Sensory triggers like light or sound may worsen symptoms. No support system: EMDR can surface intense emotions. Having emotional backup is essential.
Being cautious means being smart — not avoiding healing, but preparing for it safely.
To reduce risks, EMDR should always be guided by a certified, experienced therapist. Before starting, patients should: Undergo a full mental and physical health screening
Discuss any history of neurological symptoms or dissociation
Create a coping plan for intense emotions between sessions
Ensure they have post-session support (friend, therapist, or helpline)
Consider a concussion test online if dizziness, fogginess, or memory issues are present
When done correctly, EMDR can be powerful — but safety should always come first.
EMDR therapy offers real hope for people struggling with trauma, anxiety, and emotional pain. But like any intense treatment, it comes with risks that deserve serious consideration — especially for individuals with underlying neurological or psychological conditions.
If you're considering EMDR, take the time to learn how it works, understand its limitations, and screen for any red flags beforehand. That includes addressing physical symptoms that may not be emotional in origin. Tools like a quickconcussion test online can help rule out hidden issues before you begin.
In the right hands and with the right preparation, EMDR can be transformative. Just make sure you're fully informed — and fully supported — before you begin.
TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
3 hours ago
- News24
Rates of obesity are soaring worldwide. Have we been misunderstanding the problem?
Obesity affects more than 1 billion people worldwide yet there isn't really a conclusive definition of the condition. A Lancet Commission argue that obesity should not just be seen as a risk factor for other diseases – but in some cases, should be seen as a disease itself. In the first of this two-part Spotlight series, we break down the debate around the issue, and its implications for health policy. In 1990, just 2% of all young people around the world aged 5 to 24 were living with obesity. By 2021, this figure had more than tripled to over 6%. This is according to a recent study, which relied on Body Mass Index (BMI) data from 180 countries and territories around the world. It estimates that the rise in obesity among children and young people will only continue in the coming decades. South Africa certainly isn't immune to the crisis. A survey conducted in 2021/2022 found that 16% of all children aged 6 to 18 were 'severely overweight'. Meanwhile, World Health Organization (WHO) data suggests that about 30% of all adults in South Africa are living with obesity, meaning a BMI of over 30, which is almost double the global level. BMI, which simply looks at a person's weight in relation to their height, is a crude measure of obesity. For instance, a person may have a high BMI simply because they have a lot of muscle rather than fat. But while it is agreed that BMI is a flawed indicator at the individual level, many experts recommend using it as a rough proxy for ' health risk at a population level '. For instance, a study which collected data on nearly three million people found that those who had very high BMI levels were, on average, more likely to die at an early age. The study also found that this was true of people with very low BMI levels (those who were underweight). In this context, the above figures paint a concerning picture. Given the rising rates, experts argue that we need health systems to be able to track and respond to obesity urgently. But, according to a Lancet Commission published in January, health systems around the world may struggle to do this, because of a failure to accurately conceptualise and measure what obesity actually is. READ | SA plastic surgery trends: From lip fillers to facelifts, what each generation wants done The Lancet commission was developed by 58 experts from different medical specialties and though it has been the subject of debate, it has since been widely endorsed as a new way to understand obesity. Spotlight takes a look at what it concluded. Delaying treatment for no reason Obesity is often regarded as a risk factor for other diseases, for instance, type 2 diabetes. But according to the commission, there are certain cases in which obesity is not just a risk factor, but a disease itself – one that should be immediately treated. One of the reasons for this is that obesity not only contributes to the emergence of other conditions but sometimes leads to clinical symptoms directly. For example, the cartilage that protects the joints in a person's knees can sometimes become eroded when adults carry too much weight. In this case, a person could suffer from joint pain, stiffness and reduced mobility where obesity is clearly the cause. Take another example. If fat deposits build up in the abdomen, this may limit how much the lungs can expand, causing breathlessness. Similarly, a build-up of fat around the neck can narrow a person's upper airways, which can cause sleep apnoea. Thus, obesity is not simply something which increases the risk of developing a separate disease in the future - but something which can directly (and presently) affect the functioning of organs. More broadly, the commission argues that by hindering a person's 'mobility, balance and range of motion' obesity can in certain cases 'restrict routine activities of daily living'. In these instances, obesity is a disease by definition, according to the commission. This is given that it defines disease as a 'harmful deviation from the normal structural or functional state of an organism, associated with specific signs and symptoms and limitations of daily activities'. But why does this conceptual debate matter? Because at present, people often have to wait for other diseases to crop up before insurers or public health systems cover them for weight loss drugs or bariatric surgery - a procedure to help with weight loss and improve obesity-related health conditions. And when they do cover these services, it is often only after severe delay. Because obesity is only considered to be a risk factor, it isn't typically treated with the same urgency as life-threatening diseases, according to the authors of the commission. Professor Frances Rubino, the lead author of the commission, details how this problem manifests in the healthcare system. 'I've been doing bariatric surgery for 25 years in four different countries; in America, Italy, France and the UK,' he tells Spotlight, 'In all of those countries, to meet the criteria for surgery people very often have to undergo six to 12 months of weight monitoring before their surgery is covered. So systematically you delay treatment'. He continues: 'Someone who has clinical obesity and has heart failure as a result of it is waiting for a year for what reason? That condition will only worsen and if the patient is still alive, the treatment [is] going to cost the same amount to the payer but it's going to be less effective.' Can't people just diet? One of the reasons that some academics have historically been reluctant to classify obesity as a disease is because of a fear that this may reduce people's agency - instead of taking proactive steps to diet and exercise, people with obesity may simply view themselves as afflicted by a disease. The belief that people with obesity can simply diet their way out of their situation is in fact partially why Rubino's patients were forced to wait long periods of time before receiving bariatric surgery. Rubino explains: 'In America, many private payers [i.e. medical insurance schemes] have required weight monitoring programmes, where patients do nothing else other than see a dietician for 12 months, and if they skip one appointment, they have to start all over again. I think that in some cases, this has been misguided by the idea that you want to see if obesity can be reversed by somebody going on a diet.' This, according to him, is a 'misconception', arguing that if someone faces such severe levels of obesity that they require surgery, diet is unlikely to offer a solution. Indeed, research has shown that it's very rare for people with obesity to lose large amounts of weight quickly without surgery or medication. For instance, a study on over 176 000 patients in the UK found that among men with 'simply obesity' or a BMI of 30-34.9, only 1 in 210 were able to achieve a 'normal' weight level within a year. Among men with morbid obesity or BMI of 35 or more, the chance was less than 1 than in 1 000. Chances for women were roughly twice as good as men's - so still exceedingly small. READ | Closed doors, open hearts: The activists filling the gaps in Southern African sexual healthcare Thus, if someone is severely obese and their excess weight is causing life-threatening symptoms, putting them on a diet for a year is unlikely to result in the urgent changes that may be required for them to get better. In fact, Rubino argues that they may simply die of their condition in the interim. Taking a medical approach more quickly is easier now than ever before due to the regulatory approval of GLP-1 agonists like semaglutide and tirzepatide – Spotlight previously reported on the availability of these new diabetes and weight loss medicines in South Africa. An article by WHO officials from December states that because of the approval of these medicines '[h]ealth systems across the globe now may be able to offer a treatment response integrated with lifestyle changes that opens the possibility of an end to the obesity pandemic'. Not all people with obesity are ill There is a more scientific argument against categorising obesity as a disease. This is that while obesity can sometimes result in the negative health symptoms discussed above (like respiratory issues or reduced mobility) it doesn't always do this. In fact, the commission acknowledges that some people with obesity 'appear to be able to live a relatively healthy life for many years, or even a lifetime'. One of the reasons for this is that excess fat may be stored in areas that don't surround vital organs. For instance, if fat is stored in the limbs, hips, or buttocks, then this may cause less harm than if it is stored in the stomach. Since obesity doesn't always cause health problems, it isn't always a disease. In order to deal with this conceptual hurdle, the commission classifies obesity into two categories - clinical and preclinical obesity. If a person has pre-clinical obesity, this means they have a lot of excess fat, but no obvious health problems that have emerged as a result. In this case, obesity is not classified as a disease, though it may still increase the chance of future health problems (depending on a range of factors, like family history). For a person to have clinical obesity, they must have a lot of excess fat as well as health problems that have already been directly caused by this. It is this that the commission defines as a disease. This classification system, according to Rubino, ensures not only that we urgently treat people living with clinical obesity, but also that we don't overtreat people - since if a person falls into the pre-clinically obese group, then they may not need treatment. But if we're going to treat clinical obesity as a disease, we'll need clear methods of diagnosing people. Since BMI is deeply flawed and provides little information about whether a person is ill at the individual level, health systems will need something else. In part 2 of this Spotlight special series, we'll discuss the options offered by the commission, and how this all relates to the situation in South Africa.
Time Business News
13 hours ago
- Time Business News
The Dangers of EMDR Therapy: What You Should Know
Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) is often promoted as a breakthrough in trauma therapy. Recognized by the WHO and APA, it's widely used to treat PTSD, anxiety, and other stress-related conditions. But while many patients report positive outcomes, others experience intense emotional or physical side effects, sometimes severe enough to interrupt treatment entirely. Before starting EMDR, it's important to understand not only how it works, but also who may be at risk. For example, if you've recently experienced a head injury or unexplained symptoms like dizziness, nausea, or brain fog, it's crucial to rule out a neurological cause first. A quick concussion test online can help identify whether these symptoms stem from a physical issue rather than emotional trauma — a distinction that can change your entire treatment approach. In this article, we'll explore what EMDR therapy is, why it's controversial, and the potential dangers patients should be aware of before committing to it. EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) is a form of psychotherapy used to treat trauma, PTSD, anxiety, and related conditions. It involves bilateral stimulation — like eye movements or tapping — to help the brain reprocess painful memories. Unlike traditional talk therapy, EMDR doesn't require patients to recount trauma in detail. Instead, it focuses on how the body and mind respond to those memories, aiming to reduce emotional reactivity. While many experience relief after just a few sessions, EMDR can also be intense — and may not be suitable for everyone. While EMDR is widely considered safe, it's not without risks — especially for individuals with certain mental health conditions, physical sensitivities, or unresolved neurological issues. Understanding the dangers of EMDR therapy is essential before beginning treatment. EMDR can trigger intense emotional responses. Patients may experience a temporary worsening of anxiety, panic, or depression as traumatic material surfaces during sessions. Some report feeling overwhelmed, detached, or emotionally raw for days afterward. If the brain is not ready to reprocess a memory, the therapy may open more than it can resolve. Because EMDR targets subconscious memory systems, it's common for patients to experience vivid or disturbing dreams after sessions. This isn't inherently dangerous — in fact, it may indicate that reprocessing is underway — but for some, especially those prone to nightmares or insomnia, it can become a source of emotional exhaustion. The neurological activation involved in EMDR can lead to mild physical side effects such as tension headaches, fatigue, nausea, or lightheadedness — especially during early sessions. These symptoms are usually short-term, but in certain cases, they may indicate something more serious. For instance, if you're already experiencing dizziness, fogginess, or balance issues before starting EMDR, it's critical to rule out a neurological condition first. A simple concussion test online can help determine whether these symptoms are related to trauma or possibly an undiagnosed head injury — something that could be worsened by high-stimulation therapies like EMDR. EMDR may reactivate traumatic memories that were previously repressed or inaccessible. For some individuals, this can be retraumatizing if they don't have the psychological tools or support system in place to process these revelations safely. Patients with a history of dissociation or complex PTSD may be especially vulnerable to losing touch with present reality during EMDR. In rare cases, this can lead to panic attacks or full-blown flashbacks, which might require crisis intervention if the session isn't managed properly. Like any powerful therapy, EMDR has real benefits — but they come with real risks. Knowing them in advance allows patients and clinicians to build safeguards into the process. Despite endorsements from major institutions like the World Health Organization and the American Psychiatric Association, EMDR remains one of the most controversial trauma therapies in mental health care today. So, why is EMDR so controversial? One of the biggest points of contention is that researchers still don't fully understand how EMDR works. While bilateral stimulation is a core component of the process, some studies suggest that it may not be essential — raising questions about whether the eye movements themselves add value beyond standard exposure therapy. EMDR is sometimes marketed as a quick fix for trauma — a few sessions and you're 'cured.' In reality, its effectiveness depends on the patient, the therapist's skill, and the complexity of the trauma. This gap between public perception and clinical reality has created skepticism in the medical community. Not all EMDR therapists are created equal. Some complete only a weekend workshop, while others undergo months of supervised training. This wide range of preparation means that patient outcomes can vary dramatically, leading some to question the reliability of the method across practitioners. The emotional risks of EMDR — including retraumatization, dissociation, and destabilization — are rarely discussed in promotional materials. Critics argue that patients are not always properly screened or prepared for the intensity of the sessions, especially when underlying conditions (like TBI or psychosis risk) are overlooked. In short, EMDR is effective for many, but controversial because of its inconsistent outcomes, unresolved scientific questions, and lack of safeguards in some therapeutic settings. Although EMDR therapy has helped many people recover from trauma, it's not suitable for everyone. For individuals with certain medical or psychological conditions, the risks may outweigh the benefits — especially if no screening or support is in place. People with certain conditions should proceed carefully or consult a specialist first: Psychosis or dissociative disorders: EMDR may trigger disorientation or flashbacks without proper support. EMDR may trigger disorientation or flashbacks without proper support. Neurological symptoms: If you're experiencing dizziness, fatigue, or fogginess, rule out head injury with a quickconcussion test online. If you're experiencing dizziness, fatigue, or fogginess, rule out head injury with a quickconcussion test online. Certain medications: Drugs affecting memory, sleep, or emotional regulation may interfere with EMDR's effects. Drugs affecting memory, sleep, or emotional regulation may interfere with EMDR's effects. Chronic migraines or epilepsy: Sensory triggers like light or sound may worsen symptoms. Sensory triggers like light or sound may worsen symptoms. No support system: EMDR can surface intense emotions. Having emotional backup is essential. Being cautious means being smart — not avoiding healing, but preparing for it safely. To reduce risks, EMDR should always be guided by a certified, experienced therapist. Before starting, patients should: Undergo a full mental and physical health screening Discuss any history of neurological symptoms or dissociation Create a coping plan for intense emotions between sessions Ensure they have post-session support (friend, therapist, or helpline) Consider a concussion test online if dizziness, fogginess, or memory issues are present When done correctly, EMDR can be powerful — but safety should always come first. EMDR therapy offers real hope for people struggling with trauma, anxiety, and emotional pain. But like any intense treatment, it comes with risks that deserve serious consideration — especially for individuals with underlying neurological or psychological conditions. If you're considering EMDR, take the time to learn how it works, understand its limitations, and screen for any red flags beforehand. That includes addressing physical symptoms that may not be emotional in origin. Tools like a quickconcussion test online can help rule out hidden issues before you begin. In the right hands and with the right preparation, EMDR can be transformative. Just make sure you're fully informed — and fully supported — before you begin. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Newsweek
16 hours ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States With Highest Levels of Tiny, Toxic Air Pollution
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. California and Oregon are among the U.S. hotspots for dangerous submicron (PM1) air pollution—those with particles less than a micron, or a millionth of a meter wide—according to new research. Researchers at Washington University of St. Louis have been quantifying the amount of submicron particles in the air across the country over the last 25 years. The data, which calculated submicron estimates based on known rations of what makes up PM 2.5 particles (those less than 2.5 microns wide), suggest that many areas in the east of the contiguous U.S. contain hotspots. Because PM1 pollution is much smaller than PM2.5 (and at least six times smaller than human blood cells), it has the potential to lead to even worse health effects, as it is small enough to slip past the body's defenses. Parts of Arizona, California, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon and Texas all appear to have higher concentrations of submicron particulate matter, shown by darker red areas on the researchers' map, as below. A map of the U.S. showing the concentration of submicron particulate matter, with higher concentrations shown by darker red areas. A map of the U.S. showing the concentration of submicron particulate matter, with higher concentrations shown by darker red areas. Atmospheric Composition Analysis Group Conversely, parts of Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming appear to have far fewer dark patches on the map, suggesting much lower levels of submicron particulate matter. Parts of Arizona and New Mexico showed high concentration levels in some areas, and much lower levels among other regions of their respective state. Higher concentrations of PM1 were found in major urban and industrial areas and areas affected by wildfires, highlighting the role of combustion sources in producing harmful particles. This contrasts with lower concentrations being prevalent across the arid west. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that 99 percent of the global population breathes in air containing high levels of pollutants and exceeds the WHO guidelines. The combined effects of ambient air pollution with household air pollution are associated with 7 million premature deaths every year. Both outdoor and indoor air pollution can cause respiratory diseases, as the small particles are able to get deep into the lungs or potentially even into the bloodstream. Exposure to particle pollution can cause heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and difficulty breathing, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. According to Chi Li, assistant research professor and first author of the study, the small particles identified tend to come from direct air emissions, such as black carbon particles from diesel engines, or the smoke from wildfires. PM1 can also form through secondary processes however, when sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides are spit out through fuel combustion and burning coal, Li noted. The significance of pollution regulation should not be overlooked, as the dataset reveals that PM1 levels dropped sharply from 1998 to 2022, as a result of regulations such as the Clean Air Act of 1970. Newsweek has contacted Li via email for comment. Do you have a tip on a science story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about air pollution? Let us know via science@ Reference Li, C., Martin, R. V., Donkelaar, A. van, Jimenez, J. L., Zhang, Q., Turner, J. R., Liu, X., Rowe, M., Meng, J., Yu, W., & Thurston, G. D. (2025). Estimates of submicron particulate matter (PM1) concentrations for 1998–2022 across the contiguous USA: Leveraging measurements of PM1 with nationwide PM2·5 component data. The Lancet Planetary Health, 9(6).
