August 19, 2026

expert reaction to the TV show ‘The Great ADHD Myth?

Scientists comment on the Channel 4 TV show ‘The Great ADHD Myth?’ 

Prof Philip Asherson, Emeritus Professor of Neurodevelopmental Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, said:

“I note they focused on children as adults can choose for themselves whether to take medication or not. This is an important distinction. With children it’s particularly important to balance out benefits from adverse effects, paying careful attention to these effects and taking the wishes of the child into account. It was important to find out that in the film the child preferred not to use medication and was happier without. In his case he appeared to be more social and peers liked this, so there was a strong case to stop medication despite the negative impact on his education. However he would need a lot of additional support and the long term impact on his education and self/esteem may be very damaging. A good alterative is to consider trying lower doses, or using medication for part of the day. 

“Some children with ADHD are the clowns that people laugh at and developing social connections can be a struggle. Many untreated children with ADHD develop a negative self-critical mindset, low confidence and poor self-esteem. Risks for developing substance use, anxiety, depression and personality disorder are increased.

“The film showed a positive and supportive school and parenting. These are all very beneficial protective factors. It is true that some people with ADHD thrive and they are often well supported /accommodated by school and family, but this is not always the case. As indicated for children, learning how to best to manage ADHD and tailor the environment can make a huge difference. Nearly all people with ADHD can do some activities things they find interesting/motivating well and this should be nurtured. The decision to use medication should as indicated only follow on from reasonable non-pharmacological support paying attention to both school and out of school situations. Medication is used when severe problems remain that are detrimental to the child now and into the future. Overall it’s a more difficult decision with children as they have little choice, especially in 10-14 age group. This demonstrates the need for effective support services both in education and health services, yet child social, educational and mental services are all severely stretched. The boy in the film might well benefit by going back on medication if his social and educational development suffer. This would need to be closely monitored. A short period off medication with considerable support from family and school is not sufficient to evaluate the longer term impact.

“Certainly they portrayed a boy with ADHD. Not a myth or social construct.

In response to some specific claims/ points in the documentary made in the documentary:

What can the ‘experiment’ with Mason actually tell us? 

“For this individual child, he appeared to be happier and more social off medication in the short term, but that medication had a big positive impact on his formal education. He was fortunate to have strong support from school and home. He had learnt a lot about his own ADHD through the experience of taking medication. It was mentioned that he might go back on medication later if needed. 

The programme suggests multiple factors as interventions for Mason in addition to coming off medication (e.g. no sugary sweets, no processed food, time in nature, no screen use, supplements). What is the evidence base for the impact of this on ADHD?

“The evidence base for these is very limited and poor. There is some evidence for fish oils, avoiding certain food additives, and one RCT using nutritional supplements so very limited data. Good diet and exercise, time in nature and limiting screen time is good for everyone, and could reduce the severity of ADHD. I’d encourage this but these are rarely sufficient solutions for children with ADHD.

What is the evidence base on efficacy and safety of ADHD medications? 

“There is good evidence on both from numerous RCTs. These indicate short term effects. Prescribers should be knowledgeable and mindful of both benefits and adverse effects. Titration to find optimal dose with benefits while limiting adverse effects is essential. Takes time, skill and experience. 

What about side effects such a less energy or being ‘less fun’?

“Yes – these can be a problem. Reducing energy might be desired depending on severity. Some children and adults like /enjoy their active mindset and high energy levels – but can be considered as a class clown by peer group. 

“Others are very distressed. Some will be far happier on medication as calmer, more in control, and might make more friends-be more social rather than less. 

“It is possible to tailor medication to have periods both on and off medication. I’d always take the child’s view into account. Every child is different and paying attention to all potential adverse effects is critical. 

Is it safe to come off ADHD medication ‘cold-turkey’?

“Yes – in most cases not a problem. Children often not treated during holiday periods or weekends. If on medication and thinking about this I would always discuss first with an experienced professional. 

They speak about brain imaging being unable to differentiate a brain with and without ADHD and later conclude that ADHD is ‘not a disorder of the brain’ with no biological marker and one person saying ‘it doesn’t exist in the material reality of the brain and body’- what are your comments on this?

“That would mean that all psychiatry and autism do not reflect real conditions, which is clearly not true. As mentioned there are group differences that indicate the type of processes involved, but there is so much variability in brain structure/function that brain scans are no where near sensitive enough or reliable enough to detect individual differences.

“There is a chapter in NICE on validating criteria for these conditions and many excellent summary papers we can cite. Importantly ADHD can be reliable measured even though this was questioned in the program, and many consistent associations are described in a very extensive literature. 

They also conclude that ADHD is a ‘social construct’ – what does that mean and do you agree?

“ADHD can be reliably measured. Features of ADHD are distributed throughout the population like height, blood pressure, weight etc. ADHD (the clinical disorder) is the extreme and impairing tail of a continuously distributed trait(s).  This does mean that society had decided on a level of impairment that people need help with to prevent both current and future harm. Individual views on how impaired or distressed they feel should also be taken into account. 

“For blood pressure we treat even when asymptomatic with no impairment, to reduce future risk. With ADHD we only treat if impairment is present and sufficiently severe. How we set these thresholds of impairment are important  for individuals and society to consider. Few, if any, would argue that someone with severe ADHD does not need social, educational or medical interventions, but where do we draw the line. Society and medicine has to decide.  By its nature a line must be drawn like obesity and other continuous traits treated at the extremes of normal variation. 

The clinical assessment was a video call interview? Is that the standard way people are diagnosed?

“The video call can limit the quality of information but not usually a problem with adults. I would not use video for children. Face to face is better. But I would question the quality of the assessment not the use of the video. If, as indicated, there were no obvious areas of significant impairment needing an intervention the diagnosis should never have been made. The doctor had no need of medication. Were other explanations explored? It seems he had some traits of ADHD but did not meet the impairment criteria which are essential to the clinical diagnosis. The process should be to establish problems / impairments  that someone wants help with, to decide if sufficient for a medical, social and/or educational intervention. Then decide if ADHD or another condition, or any identifiable situations exacerbating the problems. 

They question the role of private clinics – what do we know about the validity of diagnoses from private clinics?

“We do not! There is a lack data on this. No published quality control. We are concerned about poor practice and lack of knowledge/experience, but largely based on opinion rather than any systematic evaluation. It’s a problem. So we need data to evaluate this. What are outcomes? How many do well? How many have to seek further help from the NHS. How often is the diagnosis a misdiagnosis of another condition, or no condition. I agree with potential for money making schemes rather than good medical practice. Many assessors in these clinics are not psychiatrists.” 

Professor Maddie Groom and Dr Elizabeth Liddle on behalf of the members of the Institute of Mental Health’s Centre for ADHD and Neurodevelopmental Disorders Across the Lifespan (CANDAL), said:

 “The Great ADHD myth asks “whether ADHD is a genuine neurological disorder, or a social construct”.

“The question is profoundly misleading. 

“ADHD is indeed a “social construct” –  defined by behaviours that are contextually “inappropriate”.

“It also has serious long-term academic, vocational and healthcare impacts that are greatly ameliorated by timely recognition and effective support – which may or may not include medication.  This would make it a “genuine” condition, whether or not it had neural and genetic correlates – which it does.

“The construct is certainly problematic –  essentially, a set of externally observable behaviours that rarely reference any inferred underlying inner experience, and are biased by the way the trait typically presents in boys and by cultural and ethnic bias in how behaviour is interpreted. It is a partial, biased, and stigmatising conceptualisation of the underlying trait, missing many of those who need support, and  capturing none of the strengths the trait may confer in other contexts.

“None of that makes ADHD a myth. Insinuating so won’t shorten waiting lists.

“Instead, ADHD services need fundamental reform, to provide timely functional support to meet contextual challenges and find compensatory strengths, and access to both medication and non-pharmacological therapies according to need.”

Dr Rachel Moseley, Principal Academic in Psychology, Bournemouth University, said:

“This pseudo-scientific programme ignores a wealth of rigorous evidence inconvenient for its central premises: that ADHD is a social construct, overdiagnosed and over-medicated. First, the programme leans into neuroscience  – oversimplified and misinterpreted – to support the claim that ADHD is not a neurodevelopmental disorder but a ‘social construct with no basis in the brain or body’. They base this on the argument that there isn’t a clear or single neurological difference characterising ADHD, and you can’t diagnose it from a brain scan. This is true because brains, and ADHD, are much more complicated than this. Science has shown us that the features that comprise the diagnostic construct of ADHD (e.g. inattentiveness, hyperactivity-impulsivity) exist on a dimensional continuum across the general population, and these features have a very real, pretty well-established basis in the brain (see, for instance, Prium et al., 2019; Sonuga-Barke et al., 2023) – but categorically diagnosing people with ADHD requires clinicians to make a judgement call as to when a *higher level of features* gives rise to clinical impairments across everyday life (e.g. in education, employment, relationships). Because of this, and because of the fact that ADHD people all differ slightly in their constellation of features (e.g. inattentive features, sensory sensitivities, hyperactivity), we will *never* find a single brain profile associated with ADHD. This in no way whatsoever equates to ADHD being socially constructed or not a neurodevelopmental condition, as the presenter concludes. ADHD actually has a greater genetic i.e. biological basis, than most mental illnesses (as explained in a recent review Sonuga-Barke et al., 2023), and this speaks against a causal role for environmental factors like screen time or ultra-processed food.

“The ‘experiment’ with Mason was not an experiment. Nor was it a case study. It was an uncontrolled exercise for entertainment’s sake, which teaches us nothing: the child and the family were very aware of the film crew and the narrative of the documentary, and many factors changing during the very short and artificial “test” period means that any changes in the child’s behaviour cannot be attributed to stopping medication (they might, for instance, be related to the stress and/or excitement of being followed by TV cameras). There is also the factor that the child was growing into puberty; an experiment would, in addition to being properly powered with an adequate sample, include appropriately matched comparison groups such as same-aged individuals who continued taking their medication for the same study period, while holding other factors constant between the two groups. We would then be able to understand if changes might be attributable to medication. To suggest that ADHD medication is unhelpful and detrimental, on the basis of an uncontrolled and entirely unscientific exercise involving a single child, is contradicted by robust evidence that ADHD medication is associated with increased life expectancy (Li et al., 2024), and with reduced risk of suicide among other negative outcomes (Zhang et al., 2025). A recent meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials found that ADHD medication was more efficacious than placebo conditions and a range of comparisons (including CBT, mindfulness) in controlling ADHD features over 12 weeks. 

“Assessments for ADHD, and then for ADHD medication, are detailed and lengthy. ADHD is *never* diagnosed on the basis of a single screening test as portrayed, nor on chance instances of normal childhood behaviours like fidgeting, as implied. ADHD is diagnosed on the basis of well-tested diagnostic criteria which require evidence of prolonged difficulties evidenced across multiple contexts and over time (symptoms’ should have been present for at least six months and started before the age of 12), and diagnosis ideally involves corroboration by multiple informants.  Moreover, to imply that clinicians are over-zealous in dispensing diagnoses and medication – “drugging so many young people”, in one speaker’s words, or “pouring substances” into children as stated by the presenter – is a gross distortion of reality.  Proportionally few children and adults are receiving medication for ADHD (French et al., 2025), and those who are have faced long, distressing waits to receive medication (on top of years-long waits for initial ADHD assessment), as shown in a recent Healthwatch report and a scientific review. ADHD medication is not easily dispensed, but again subject to a healthcare professional’s assessment of the patient’s best interests.

“More people are being diagnosed today than were diagnosed ten or twenty years ago – yes. Does this mean that ADHD is overdiagnosed – i.e. that diagnoses are illegitimate or in some way unreal? No. Apart from the fact that a large body of work shows that ADHD is still markedly underdiagnosed in the UK (with almost 94% of ADHD people over age 65 undiagnosed), there are many reasons why diagnoses are increasing – and why this is a GOOD thing.  Chief among the reasons for rising diagnoses is that a) we’re much better at identifying ADHD, especially in people traditionally overlooked, like girls, women and ethnic minorities; b) we’re now aware that even less obvious or apparently “mild” ADHD-related differences – in people who, indeed, might have been overlooked ten or twenty years ago – have enormous impacts on people’s lives and opportunities, which is why our diagnostic thresholds have widened to include these individuals. We know, for instance, that undiagnosed and unsupported ADHD is associated with some devastating outcomes, including educational exclusion, unemployment, mental illness and suicide (French et al., 2023). By starting from the premise that ADHD is “overdiagnosed” and framing increasing rates of diagnosis in a dubious, negative light, the programme ignores robust scientific evidence that even people with “mild” features of ADHD are subject to these kinds of detriments if not diagnosed and supported – as such, many academics consider increased recognition of neurodivergent people as a very positive thing, as it allows us opportunities to intervene before people reach crisis point (Moseley-Braund et al., 2026). It also ignores the immensely positive value that a diagnosis can have in helping ADHD people understand themselves, be more self-compassionate, improve their relationships, self-care and self-regulation (as in our recent work, and in this report by Healthwatch). 

“Calling ADHD a social construct has extremely severe ramifications in increasing stigma against those who hold ADHD diagnoses or are waiting for assessment. We know that programmes like this increase stigma, and we know that stigma is associated with mental illness in neurodivergent people (Masuch et al., 2025; Moseley et al., 2025). We also know that many children and adults wait for ADHD assessment while struggling with their mental health and daily lives, and few receive any support while waiting, which makes them very vulnerable (see Healthwatch report, 2025). Our own work also tells us that invalidating the experiences, needs and difficulties of neurodivergent people  – as the programme does  – causes severe psychological distress.

“Channel 4 prides itself on being “progressive”, on “making informed choices”, seeking “underrepresented perspectives, consulting those with lived experience and groups representing communities’ voices”. It is as such extremely disappointing to see them air such an uninformed, pseudo-scientific, inflammatory and irresponsible programme, particularly after they were informed that the programme would increase harmful ADHD stigma in an open letter by a coalition of academics, professionals and people with lived experience of ADHD. Far from being “taking on conventional thinking on ADHD”, the programme jumps on the bandwagon of a dangerous trend, especially prevalent in the past year, which questions the validity and legitimacy of needs associated with ADHD and autism diagnoses, those who hold them and those who seek them. 

Declared interests

Prof Philip Asherson: In the last 5 years, Asherson received payments for consultancy and/or educational talks from Neuraxpharm, Johnson and Johnson, Takeda, Jannsen, Flynn Pharma, Medice, Neuraxpharm, Bedrock Health, WE Pharma Limited, InfectoPharm, AGB Pharma; and royalties from PATOSS, Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press. He is paid for delivering training on management of ADHD by UKAAN. He is Honorary President for the UK Adult ADHD Network (UKAAN).

Dr Elizabeth Liddle: I have a revenue-sharing agreement with the University of Nottingham in connection with a computer game we are developing as a school-based resource to help children with ADHD learn better control over where they are looking.

Dr Rachel Moseley: No conflicts of interest

For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.