Considering prior plausibility in clinical trials does not mean ignoring scientific evidence

The response of Rutten et al. to our recent article [1], in which we contend that it is unscientific and unethical to test highly implausible treatments such as homeopathy and reiki in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), represents a common and misguided complaint by advocates of alternative medicine against interpreting clinical trials through the lens of prior plausibility. It is a complaint that is, from a scientific viewpoint, unjustified and relies on a misunderstanding of the history of science, a straw man characterization of arguments for science-based medicine, and an incorrect interpretation of Bayes’ theorem applied to clinical trials of homeopathy.