"New drug 'cuts risk of men abusing children within weeks'"

This was posted on VirPed. It’s from a recent article in The Guardian.

New drug 'cuts risk of men abusing children within weeks’
Study says volunteers reported a rapid reduction in desire without impaired self-control

Nicola Davis
Wed 29 Apr 2020

The risk of some men sexually abusing children could be quickly reduced by a drug that lowers testosterone levels, researchers have found.

The team behind the project, which was put up for crowdfunding four years ago, said the drug – degarelix acetate – produced the results in men with paedophilic disorder in just two weeks. The drug was developed as a treatment for prostate cancer treatment and blocks the production of testosterone.

“We finally have something to offer that has a quick-acting effect,” said Dr Christoffer Rahm, a psychiatrist and researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, who led the study.

Rahm said the project is aimed at preventing risk to children, as well as improving the lives of men experiencing attraction to minors – an approach he says complements the work of police and others.

The new study, published in the journal Jama Psychiatry, reports how the team recruited 52 men from callers to a national telephone helpline called PrevenTell, which helps people who self-identify as having unwanted sexuality, who were subsequently diagnosed with paedophilic disorder.

The team assessed the men’s risk of committing child abuse, using a mix of self-reporting and psychological testing, taking into account a range of issues from sexual preoccupation to impaired self-regulation.

The researchers then put the men into two groups, one of which received two injections of a placebo while the other group received two injections of degarelix acetate, with the men unaware of which they received. Two weeks later, the men’s risk of committing child abuse was re-assessed.

The team found that, relative to the placebo group, the men treated with degarelix acetate showed a fall in risk level, in particular showing a reduction in high sexual desire and attraction to children, although not impaired self-regulation. The effects were still present, if not stronger, at 10 weeks, with many men saying they wanted to continue with the medication.

The drop was only deemed clinically significant in the small number of participants who were originally classified as at high risk of child sex abuse.

Dr Michelle Degli Esposti of the University of Oxford, who was not involved in the work, said developing effective treatments for individuals with paedophilic disorder was important. But she cautioned that the study involved only a small, self-selected group of men.

Also the study did not look directly at whether the drug reduces the occurrence of child sexual abuse itself, said Degli Esposti, adding: “This limits the generalisability of the findings and its potential wider benefits in tackling child sexual abuse.”

She said the study also raised ethical questions, asking: “Should we be focusing on medicating individuals who have sexual desire for children and, if so, do we expect these individuals to take drugs that have known side-effects? Or should we instead be focusing on tackling the upstream societal and structural factors that place children at risk of being sexually abused?

“It may not be a question of either/or, and such questions go beyond the findings of this specific study, but it is important to consider the implications of medicalising profound societal problems such as child sexual abuse.”

My comment:

As a pedophile I refuse to castrate myself even if it would lower my risk of sexually offending. I am not ashamed of the decision. We do not expect people to choose death to reduce their risk of sexually offending. We shouldn’t expect them to choose castration either.

If you are attracted to adults and you say my decision is selfish, you are a hypocrite. How many times do we not hear about men sexually assaulting and harassing women? Teleiophiles have a risk of sexually offending, too.

Truth is most pedophiles don’t need castration to manage their attraction. If they need help, therapy is very likely to be sufficient. Sexual arousal and masturbation is part of what makes life good. Castration must never be a first-hand option.

We have interviewed Christoffer for our podcast. Watch or listen here. https://prostasia.org/vodcast/a-new-breakthrough-in-the-treatment-of-pedophilic-disorder/


I think high risk ones should be forced onto the drugs.

I think high risk ones should be forced onto the drugs.

Such a policy would only prevent high-risk individuals from seeking help.

I believe Dr Rahm said in the interview that he is required to report those who are at immediate risk of abusing an identifiable child. This is a reasonable approach, considering that the client has provided informed consent.There are several ways to prevent high-risk clients from abusing children. What’s crucial is that both parties agree on the terms.

A life without desire is the life of a condemned man. This is in no practical way any different from execution. Heck, even a (fictitious portrayal of a) Nazi knows this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bonbDK50Y8A&t=4865s


I can’t help wonder what the scope of “immediate” is.

1 Like

What I mean is if a child molester has been convicted, we should force the higher risk ones onto these drugs as an experiment to see if it works. Those convicted of indecent exposure, possession, sexual or non-sexual assault against an adult should be spared from forced medication. This should be for guilty high risk people convicted beyond reasonable doubt.

She said the study also raised ethical questions, asking: “Should we be focusing on medicating individuals who have sexual desire for children and, if so, do we expect these individuals to take drugs that have known side-effects? Or should we instead be focusing on tackling the upstream societal and structural factors that place children at risk of being sexually abused?

We could do both. Indirect coerced medication of high risk ones. For high risk convicted, forced medication should be used as the default option.

Addressing societal level with sex education which has been shown to reduce instances of sexual assault. States with sex education generally have lower sexual assaults than those without. Have authorities process rape kits rather than leaving them shelved for absurdly long periods of time. When it comes to dealing with non-contact sex offenses, a look into how PhotoDNA scanning in browsers and personal user’s hard drives can significantly reduce access and or storage of CSAM.

If we do all these things, we get the biggest bang for the buck. It must be done.

Do you have a reference?

1 Like

Okay Prostasia, your dangerous quack click-bait has gotten my attention.

1 Like

All drugs of this nature should be banned, all researchers disbarred and all practioniners thrown in prison for life.

1 Like

Conversion therapy kills and has killed many throughout history. I find it morally rephensible that you would adovcate such a thin as “treatment”. I will find to the death to end all attempts to legitimise such evil means as “treatment” or to “ormalize it.” Over my cold dead corpse. I would sooner see the antis burn this foundation to the ground than to entertain this notion for an instant longer.

Conversion therapy is murder. Conversion therapy apologism is manslaughter. Enough is enough.

Any “map” who supports this or apologises for it is an anti in disguise, a severely confused person or so brainwashed to hate themselves that their consent is invalid for such an operation.

Conversion therapy is an outright trigger phrase in more normal spaces like LGBT, not just because of more vicious tactics, but due to many committing suicide due to this very procedure, including one of the fathers of computing due to being gay. There is no room for apologetics. Do or die.

I urge anyone here to immediately report any post Ethical AI makes which furthers Nazi ideology. This user needs to be banned.

Frankly, you might as-well bring back hanging, if you go down this road, people would be less miserable to boot, not this pseudo-liberal pretend to be tolerant torture nonsense. It is easier to measure the death toll of this too over suicides from injections or pills.

Of course not, this is an anti who loves taking U.K. statistics out of context and cleverly ignores what people say to further their agenda.

The over 80% number, to my knowledge, is from a widely debunked study which tried to justify the existence of the sex offender’s register. In reality, the numbers were far lower, but it filled the political agenda.

Perhaps, we should use those drugs on Ethical AI and tweak with their brain a bit to fix their propensity to false statistics.

1 Like

That sounds quite dangerous. Alan Turing died due to something like this; that says a lot. Drugs can’t act as the end all be all to mental health problems. I’m no expert on this situation, but I try to use both my head and heart in equal measure.


The 80% number wasn’t even peer reviewed. It was just a magazine spouting gibberish, but the number caught on.

I really don’t want to act as your fact checker every-time you throw out inflated numbers to further stigmatize an already stigmatized group.


Capital punishment is more humane than slowly torturing someone to death over many years.

Oh, and by the way, these drugs often make the problem worse, so chew on that dumb apologetics.


If you can’t consent to sex with people underage.

If you can’t consent to sex with someone who is mentally incapacitated.

Why should someone be able to consent to torture and eventual death due to being railroaded by the legal system and society who may not have the mental capacity for it due to depression? Many British doctors refuse to do this for ethical reasons, ethics the Ethical AI clearly does not have. It is against the oath to do no harm.

Guess what, all those complaints about being incapable of controlling themselves and all manner of excuses while they were in prison, all magically disappeared the moment they were released, despite pleading with the doctors. It’s an excuse for early release in a lot of cases, but cutting someone’s arm off or cutting their wrists for a couple of months as a precondition of release is barbaric.

Better to plead the insanity defense than to take actual responsibility for your actions.

The risk level is also likely determined by a quack. This means that “fantasies” are a risk factor. A lot of people simply wind up lying to the quacks as it is easier that way and the number doesn’t mean anything. One side trying to game the other.

Obviously there is a difference between maps and offenders, and offenders to child rapists. But when it comes to child rapists, I don’t fucking care about the “Medical ethics” for them. I didn’t bother checking the statistics on them. I have no idea what the sexual recidivism for child rapists is, maybe it’s not 80%, but it’s probably not fucking far off. I would certainly support a bill where child rapists are experimented on for the purpose of lowering their risk level in exchange of getting rid of the SOR. Non child rapist offenders will be given Circles of Support and Accountability which have been proven to reduce criminal recidivism, including criminals with sex offense convictions. Child rapists will be experimented on for the purpose of lowering risk factors.

It’s amusing that you think drugs to fix problems with sexual recidivism is torture or conversion therapy. It’s obvious to me it’s not designed for you. If we are to advance human civilization, some need to be sacrificed for the greater good. And I’m sure we all know who that would be.

Perhaps in the future, a cure could be developed to fix sexual attractions to prepubescent minors. It maybe risky, so we should experiment on child rapists first. Most child rapists are not maps, but a sizable fraction are. There is plenty of resources that can be used, more than we need. Much work is needed.

It was something like 20% over five years, although there are suspicions the numbers are inflated.

Why don’t you bring back the death penalty then, Dr. Mengele? Someone can’t re-offend if they’re dead and you have voiced on several occasions your want to bring it back. Why go out of your way to perform some bizarre torture?

1 Like

Do you know what “Heat of the moment” is? I’m opposed to the death penalty, I just get extremely angry whenever I think about child rapists. And no it’s not “torture”, especially if they ask for the medication. But the idea we can only put them on medication if they consent is pointlessly bureaucratic.

Show me proof that this is “torture”.