Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Controversy and Debate: Memory Based Methods Paper 3: Nutrition's ‘Black Swans’: Our reply

2018; Elsevier BV; Volume: 104; Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.07.013

1878-5921

Edward Archer, Michael L. Marlow, Carl J. Lavie,

Obesity and Health Practices

We sincerely appreciate the response from our esteemed colleagues, Nerea Martín-Calvo and Miguel Ángel Martínez-González, and welcome the opportunity to continue the scientific discourse. Controversy and debate: Memory-Based Methods Paper 4Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyVol. 104PreviewWe appreciate the opportunity to end up this debate by rebutting the response by Edward Archer, Michael Marlow, and Carl Lavie. Once again, we want to show our deepest disagreement with their opinions and philosophical–theoretical considerations about the self reported dietary assessment methods (SR-Ms) in nutritional epidemiology. Expert debates are, without any doubt, a highly valuable tool to guarantee the progress of scientific knowledge. However, a fair debate requires that scientists conform to the truth and be unbiased in their arguments. Full-Text PDF