Trauma social, memoria colectiva y paradojas de las políticas de Olvido en el Uruguay tras el terror de Estado (1973-1985): memoria generacional de la post-dictadura (1985-2015)

Este trabajo pregunta cómo las memorias colectivas de experiencias de trauma social como el terrorismo de Estado en el Uruguay han perdurado para ser transmitidas a través de las generaciones, en el contexto de políticas transicionales de oblivion, políticas extremas de silenciamiento social y negación de los abusos a los derechos humanos sufridos a manos del Estado. Este trabajo ofrece puntos analíticos de reflexión hacia una concepción sociológica del trauma colectivo, en base al estudio del caso uruguayo, centrado en la experiencia de las víctimas del terrorismo de Estado bajo el régimen cívico-militar (1973-1984) y de las políticas transicionales post-autoritarismo (1985-2015). Las reflexiones que aquí se resumen se basan en dos décadas de investigación etnográfica y socio-cultural de las transmisiones de estas experiencias a nivel privado, familiar, comunitario y cultural. El texto concluye analizando las consecuencias y costos sociales y humanos de las políticas transicionales basadas en la llamada «pacificación», el olvido y el silenciamiento públicos hasta 2005, y posteriores avances en la última década. Las conclusiones subrayan la dinámica de las memorias emergentes en tanto conflictos subyacentes, previamente silenciados y no reconocidos en la esfera pública, desde la era de violencia política y del terrorismo de Estado a la era de la reemergencia de la memoria de este período a nivel colectivo y social.This work asks how the collective memory of socially traumatic experiences after state terrorism in Uruguay have endured to be transmitted across generations, in the context of transitional policies of Oblivion, extreme policies aimed at social silencing and denial of the human rights abuses suffered in the hands of the state. This work offers some analytic points of reflection towards a sociological concept of collective trauma, based on the study of the Uruguayan case, focusing on the experience of victims of state terror under the civil-military regime (1973–1984) and the post-authoritarian transitional policies (1985–2015). These reflections summarized here are based on two decades of ethnographic and socio-cultural research on the transmissions of these experiences in the private, familiar, community and cultural realms. The text concludes by analyzing the consequences and social and human costs of transitional policies of Oblivion based on what has been called reconciliation by “pacification”, oblivion and public silencing until 2005, and the advances in the past decade. The conclusions underline the dynamics of emerging memories as the results of underlying conflicts, silenced and unrecognized in the public sphere, from the era of political violence and state terrorism to the era of the re-emergence of the memory at the social and collective levels.Cet article s’interroge sur la façon dont les mémoires collectives d’expériences traumatiques collectives, comme le terrorisme d’État en Uruguay, ont perduré pour être transmises à travers les générations dans le contexte de politiques transitionnelles d’oblivion, politiques extrêmes de silenciation sociale et de négation des violations des droits de l’homme commises par des agents d’État. Il offre des points d’analyse et de réflexion pour une conception sociologique du traumatisme collectif en se basant sur l’étude du cas uruguayen et en se centrant sur l’expérience des victimes du terrorisme d’État sous le régime civil-militaire (1973-1984) et dans les politiques transitionnelles post-autoritaires (1985-2015). Les réflexions résumées ici sont basées sur vingt ans de recherches ethnographiques et socio-culturelles des transmissions de ces expériences aux niveaux privé, familial, communautaire et culturel. L’article conclue en analysant les conséquences et les coûts sociaux et humains des politiques transitionnelles basées sur la dénommée « pacification », l’oubli et la mise sous silence, jusqu’en 2005 et les avancées de la dernière décennie. Les conclusions soulignent la dynamique des mémoires émergentes en tant que conflits sous-jacents, préalablement passés sous silence et non reconnus dans la sphère publique, depuis la période de la violence politique et du terrorisme d’État et jusqu’au moment de réémergence de la mémoire aux niveaux collectif et social

Management of obesity in adults: European clinical practice guidelines

Stworzenie jednolitych wytycznych postępowania w otyłości jest złożone. Obejmują one zarówno zalecenia diagnostyczne, lecznicze, jak i działania w zakresie prewencji. Wobec wielu publikacji i różnic poglądów oraz świadomości krótkotrwałości efektu odchudzającego u poszczególnych osób wielu uważa, że trudno jest ustalić właściwe postępowanie w otyłości. Różnorodność zasad postępowania w kraju oraz pomiędzy regionami Europy utrudnia ustalenie i wprowadzenie standardów. W ustalaniu obecnych wytycznych za podstawę brano wiedzę opartą na dowodach (EBM), a w razie wątpliwości uzupełniano na podstawie doświadczenia klinicznego i różnorodności regionalnej oraz uzgodnionego stanowiska zespołu. W podsumowaniu stwierdzono, że: 1) lekarz jest odpowiedzialny za rozpoznanie otyłości jako choroby oraz pomoc w odpowiedniej prewencji i leczeniu; 2) leczenie powinno być oparte na dobrej praktyce klinicznej i EBM; 3) leczenie otyłości powinno wyznaczać indywidualne realne cele i dożywotnie postępowanie.The development of consensus guidelines for obesity is complex. It involves recommending both treatment interventions and interventions related to screening and prevention. With so many publications and claims, and with the awareness that success for the individual is short-lived, many find it difficult to know what action is appropriate in the management of obesity. Furthermore, the significant variation in existing service provision both within countries as well as across the regions of Europe makes a standardised approach, even if evidence-based, difficult to implement. In formulating these guidelines, we have attempted to use an evidence based approach while allowing flexibility for the practicing clinician in domains where evidence is currently lacking and ensuring that in treatment there is recognition of clinical judgment and of regional diversity as well as the necessity of an agreed approach by the individual and family. We conclude that 1) physicians have a responsibility to recognise obesity as a disease and help obese patients with appropriate prevention and treatment, 2) treatment should be based on good clinical care and evidence- based interventions and 3) obesity treatment should focus on realistic goals and lifelong management

Dengue Virus Type 4 Phylogenetics in Brazil 2011: Looking beyond the Veil

Dengue Fever and Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever are diseases affecting approximately 100 million people/year and are a major concern in developing countries. In the present study, the phylogenetic relationship of six strains of the first autochthonous cases of DENV-4 infection occurred in Sao Paulo State, Parana State and Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil, 2011 were studied. Nucleotide sequences of the envelope gene were determined and compared with sequences representative of the genotypes I, II, III and Sylvatic for DEN4 retrieved from GenBank. We employed a Bayesian phylogenetic approach to reconstruct the phylogenetic relationships of Brazilian DENV-4 and we estimated evolutionary rates and dates of divergence for DENV-4 found in Brazil in 2011. All samples sequenced in this study were located in Genotype II. The studied strains are monophyletic and our data suggest that they have been evolving separately for at least 4 to 6 years. Our data suggest that the virus might have been present in the region for some time, without being noticed by Health Surveillance Services due to a low level of circulation and a higher prevalence of DENV-1 and DENV- 2

Management of obesity in adults: European clinical practice guidelines

The development of consensus guidelines for obesity is complex. It involves recommending both treatment interventions and interventions related to screening and prevention. With so many publications and claims, and with the awareness that success for the individual is short-lived, many find it difficult to know what action is appropriate in the management of obesity. Furthermore, the significant variation in existing service provision both within countries as well as across the regions of Europe makes a standardised approach, even if evidence-based, difficult to implement. In formulating these guidelines, we have attempted to use an evidence-based approach while allowing flexibility for the practicing clinician in domains where evidence is currently lacking and ensuring that in treatment there is recognition of clinical judgment and of regional diversity as well as the necessity of an agreed approach by the individual and family. We conclude that i) physicians have a responsibility to recognise obesity as a disease and help obese patients with appropriate prevention and treatment, ii) treatment should be based on good clinical care and evidence-based interventions and iii) obesity treatment should focus on realistic goals and lifelong managemen

Management of Obesity in Adults: European Clinical Practice Guidelines

The development of consensus guidelines for obesity is complex. It involves recommending both treatment interventions and interventions related to screening and prevention. With so many publications and claims, and with the awareness that success for the individual is short-lived many find it difficult to know what action is appropriate in the management of obesity. Furthermore, the significant variation in existing service provision both within countries as well as across the regions of Europe makes a standardised approach, even if evidence-based, difficult to implement. In formulating these guidelines, we have attempted to use an evidence-based approach while allowing flexibility for the practicing clinician in domains where evidence is currently lacking and ensuring that in treatment there is recognition of clinical judgment and of regional diversity as well as the necessity of an agreed approach by the individual and family. We conclude that i) physicians have a responsibility to recognise obesity as a disease and help obese patients with appropriate prevention and treatment, ii) treatment should be based on good clinical care and evidence-based interventions and iii) obesity treatment should focus on realistic goals and lifelong management