Is ADHD a myth?

In August 2026 Channel 4 broadcast a controversial documentary titled The Great ADHD Myth? It was hosted by Dr Max Pemberton, an NHS psychiatrist who argued that ADHD was a “social construct” rather than a valid diagnosis. 

Understandably, the documentary created a lot of distress and confusion for people with ADHD and those considering assessment, as well as a lot of frustration for professionals working in the area. 

Our position, and the position of many other leading experts in the field, is unequivocal – ADHD is a highly heritable and treatable neurodevelopmental condition.  Here is our take:

What does the evidence tell us?

To answer the question of whether ADHD is a myth, we should be led by the research evidence. ADHD is a highly researched area and there are thousands of studies examining the cause, assessment, treatment and outcomes of the condition. Of note are the following:

• Family, twin and adoption studies show that ADHD runs in families. It is highly heritable (around 70-80%), which points to a substantial genetic influence on the condition. 
• Group-level brain imaging studies have shown that people with ADHD have both structural (i.e. differences in brain tissue) and functional (how neural networks operate) brain differences – indicating a biological basis.  
• ADHD medications (stimulants and non-stimulants) have been extensively studied. Well over a hundred studies, with many thousands of participants, have shown good effect sizes for reducing core ADHD symptoms – inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity – evidencing it as a treatable condition.  
• Unidentified and unsupported ADHD is associated with increased risk of co-occurring mental health conditions (e.g. depression, anxiety), substance misuse, offending, poorer educational attainment, emotional dysregulation, relationship difficulties, traffic accidents, sleep problems and obesity – evidencing the importance of timely diagnosis and treatment. 

The evidence is clear – ADHD is not a myth. 

What about the documentary’s experiment with Mason and the views of the professionals who took part?

The documentary followed a young boy called Mason. Mason was taken off his medication and his behaviour was observed. 

The documentary also captured Katya Rubia, a professor of cognitive neuroscience, discussing the limitations of group-level brain imaging studies.

Amongst other arguments, these factors were taken to challenge the position that ADHD is real. 

Since the programme aired, Professor Rubia has spoken with The Guardian newspaper and made her position clear – that she took part in the documentary because she knew the show was aiming to show that ADHD was a myth and she wanted to provide an alternative view. However, she explained that “they cherrypicked, largely misrepresented, truncated and presented my comments out of context to make them fit their narrative”. Professor Rubia and many others have shared their concerns about the programme, with many describing it as irresponsible and potentially damaging. 

The programme included a select few professionals who hold a particular philosophical position on diagnoses, mental health, psychiatry and psychology. It did not interview ADHD diagnosticians or ADHD charities. Most importantly, it did not include the voices of those with ADHD, many of whom have found diagnoses and medication immeasurably helpful to their lives. In short, there was a huge bias in the information and perspectives being presented. 

With regard to the ‘experiment’ with Mason, this is certainly not evidence against the validity of ADHD in any true scientific sense. Real science consists of carefully planned studies with multiple participants, robust outcome measures and a strong control of variables (only changing one thing at a time so we can look at the impact of this change). 

Mason was taken off his medication but several other changes were made at the same time (poor control of variables) – offering parenting support, removal of screens, a new diet and increased exercise/outdoor time. While there might have been some short-term changes, after a number of weeks Mason was described by his teacher as more disruptive, talkative, fidgety and disengaged. What the credits of the documentary then tell us is that Mason later went back on his ADHD medication and his schoolwork improved! 

Essentially, the Mason experiment offered nothing to suggest that ADHD is a myth. If anything, it provided a single case study suggesting the opposite. 

Are there still helpful things to take from the documentary?

It is important that, in anger or defence, we don’t disregard some of the important points made during the documentary. 

The following were discussed and are really important to consider:

• The need to improve our general health and wellbeing. We increasingly live in a world of ultra-processed food, high screen time, stress and declining activity levels. No one is debating that. However, there is no evidence that these factors are causal in ADHD or that altering these factors will “cure ADHD”. That said, there are plenty of studies that show that eating a good diet, using exercise, and getting outside in nature improves general functioning and wellbeing for all, regardless of neurodivergence – so we would highly recommend it! 
• Highlighting the pressures within educational systems. The programme highlighted the struggle of Mason’s teacher to accommodate his ADHD needs in a class of other children. This is a common reality. Schools, as they are currently designed, often struggle to meet the needs of neurodivergent children. This does not mean that ADHD doesn’t exist, but that our education systems need more funding, support and creative thinking to offer the adjustments that neurodivergent children need to thrive. We’re glad that this need was highlighted!
• Challenges around accurate assessment and diagnosis. ADHD-like symptoms are indeed present in the general population. This does not mean that “everyone has ADHD” and so it doesn’t exist as a real disorder. ADHD (the clinical disorder) reflects the 2.5% of individuals who are at the extreme end of the population with high level symptoms, persistence over time, and a significant impact and impairment on their lives. Determining whether a person’s difficulties reflect a ‘clinical disorder’ requires careful and robust assessment. Unfortunately, there are a growing number of private providers completing assessments that ‘cut corners’ to drive profit. This can result in misdiagnosis. This does not indicate that ADHD is a myth, but rather that there needs to be clearer regulation of how ADHD is assessed and by whom. In our service we follow NICE guidance well as The ADHD Assessment Quality Assurance Standard for Children and Teenagers (CAAQAS) and The Adult ADHD Assessment Quality Assurance Standard (AQAS).

If you, like us, do not agree that ADHD is a myth and would like to consider an assessment that is comprehensive and in line with national guidance then get in touch with our team to find out more.