A review of the evidence on energy psychology (EP) was published in this journal. Although Feinstein's stated intention of reviewing the evidence is one we support, we noted that important EP studies were omitted from the review that did not confirm the claims being made by EP proponents. We also identify other problems with the review, such as the lack of specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, misportrayal of criticism of EP, incorrectly characterizing one of the studies as a randomized clinical trial, and lack of disclosure regarding an EP-related business. We note that in the American Psychological Association, decisions on classification of therapies as empirically supported are most rightfully the function of Division 12-appointed committees of psychologists. It is not enough for any one individual or group of proponents of a particular approach to make such a determination.