Thought Field Therapy (TFT) is criticized for not following the usual social science guidelines in research that is appropriate for minimum impact therapies. The usual research guidelines are due to a social science bias where crucial subjective reports are ignored, where tests of statistical significance and control groups are required. TFT may be closer to “hard science” than social science due to extraordinarily high level of success. A few valid points are acknowledged and were already covered, such as importance of autonomic balance when raising SDNN and necessity to restrict movement when electrocardiograph methods not used in measuring heart rate variability. Rejected as possible explanations of TFT's robust results are: placebo, regression to the mean (inappropriate in high and low heart rate variability), and passage of time when such time is merely minutes. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Clin Psychol 57: 1251–1260, 2001.