Except... EFT has a very high rate of success compared with other forms of therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder. It is difficult to argue with the success rate that something you are describing as woo has when compared with conventional treatments.
In a world where quantum physics allows for a wide range of woo-like science, it seems inexplicable to me that therapies which do no harm are vehemently opposed, when "the estimated total number of iatrogenic deaths—that is, deaths induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures— in the US annually is 783,936".
First, do no harm.
Incidentally, the people who sabotage Rupert Sheldrake's wikipedia don't seem to concern themselves with the accuracy of their edits, nor do they seem to care whether the research they are removing from his entry is peer reviewed or not, if it doesn't fit within the narrow confines of their idea of scientific... or possible.
I think that this will be a very difficult stance to maintain, making alternative therapies jumps through hoops provided by scientists. Are we to insist that any religious group should also peer review any of their assertions? Artists? Show me where love resides in the human being, and how you construct a science of love. The setting up of artificial barriers to information can never be justified in a free society - and constructing barriers to information about harmless practices that may assist many people... I can't honestly see the justice or victory in that.