Distribution patterns of infection with multiple types of human papillomaviruses and their association with risk factors

Background: Infection with multiple types of human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the main risk factors associated with the development of cervical lesions. In this study, cervical samples collected from 1,810 women with diverse sociocultural backgrounds, who attended to their cervical screening program in different geographical regions of Colombia, were examined for the presence of cervical lesions and HPV by Papanicolau testing and DNA PCR detection, respectively. Principal Findings: The negative binomial distribution model used in this study showed differences between the observed and expected values within some risk factor categories analyzed. Particularly in the case of single infection and coinfection with more than 4 HPV types, observed frequencies were smaller than expected, while the number of women infected with 2 to 4 viral types were higher than expected. Data analysis according to a negative binomial regression showed an increase in the risk of acquiring more HPV types in women who were of indigenous ethnicity (+37.8%), while this risk decreased in women who had given birth more than 4 times (-31.1%), or were of mestizo (-24.6%) or black (-40.9%) ethnicity. Conclusions: According to a theoretical probability distribution, the observed number of women having either a single infection or more than 4 viral types was smaller than expected, while for those infected with 2-4 HPV types it was larger than expected. Taking into account that this study showed a higher HPV coinfection rate in the indigenous ethnicity, the role of underlying factors should be assessed in detail in future studies.

The project of land restitution in Colombia: an illustration of the civilizing force of hypocrisy?

This article offers a theoretical interpretation of the dispositions on land restitution contained in the famous “Victims’ Bill”, which was debated in the Colombian Congress during the year 2008. The bill included specific mechanisms aimed at guaranteeing the restitution of land to victims of the Colombian armed conflict. At the time, the bill was endorsed by all the main political actors in the country –notably the government and the elites that support it, on the one hand, and victims’ and human rights organizations and other opposition groups, on the other–. The fact that the restitution of land to victims of the Colombian armed conflict was being considered as a serious possibility by all political actors in the country seemed to indicate the existence of a consensus among actors whose positions are ordinarily opposed, on an issue that has traditionally led to high levels of polarization. This consensus is quite puzzling, because it seems to be at odds with the interests and/or the conceptions of justice advocated by these political actors, and because the restitution of land faces enormous difficulties both from a factual and a normative point of view, which indicates that it may not necessarily be the best alternative for dealing with the issue of land distribution in Colombia. This article offers an interpretation of said consensus, arguing that it is only an apparent consensus in which the actors are actually misrepresenting their interests and conceptions of justice, while at the same time adopting divergent strategies of implementation aimed at fulfilling their true interests. Nevertheless, the article concludes that the common adherence by all actors to the principle of restorative justice might bring about its actual realization, and thus produce an outcome that, in spite (and perhaps even because) of being unintended, might substantively contribute to solving the problem of unequal land distribution in Colombia. Even though the article focuses in some detail on the specificities of the 2008 Bill, it attempts to make a general argument about the state of the discussion on how to deal with the issue of land distribution in the country. Consequently, it may still be relevant today, especially considering that a new Bill on land restitution is currently being discussed in Congress, which includes the same restitution goals as the Victims’ Bill and many of its procedural and substantive details, and which therefore seems to reflect a similar consensus to the one analyzed in the article.