Roseman, Milette, Zhao, and Thombs [1] purport to have found “numerous inconsistencies” in our meta-analysis [2] of the relationship between dispositional optimism and physical well-being that lead them to question the scientific basis for our conclusions. We respectfully disagree with their assessment. We use our reply to respond to the “errors” that they identified, to make a few general points about the practice of meta-analysis, and to answer the question they raise in their provocative title, “Is optimism associated with physical health?”