In response to our Comment,1 Jean-Arthur Micoulaud-Franchi and Thomas Fovet2 argued that more time and research might confirm the clinical promise of electroencephalography (EEG) neurofeedback. This common stance, however, seems to stem more from an allegiance to a technique—EEG neurofeedback—than from measured scientific reasoning. In a way, the science is clear: power analyses tell us how big a sample we need to detect an expected effect; experimental design dictates how we must control for psychosocial influence; and nearly 60 years of research have yielded surprisingly little evidence to support claims of regulatory brain-based mechanisms, which supposedly drive EEG neurofeedback outcomes. How much longer should one wait before coming to a conclusion? How many more experiments do we need?