Words make a difference: when poor ‘journalism’ becomes damaging.

                                                               Spoiler alert: It is genuine.

In this article I seek to demolish this sensationalist bit of telly with some real facts.

Strictly speaking, this piece is not all about writing, creating or being an author. But it IS about something someone wrote and made a ‘documentary’ about, which has inspired a great deal of written response. And I’m a writer who has a personal interest. So, having watched ‘The Great ADHD myth?’ broadcast on Channel 4 on August 18^th, 2026, I must respond.

 

Before it even went out, I and many others took issue with the title. Putting a question mark after the provocative word, ‘myth’ is not a get out of jail free card, Channel 4. Let’s start with something very important: it is not up for debate: ADHD is a ‘recognised neurodevelopmental condition’ (WHO) and has been for a number of decades. Its existence is not up for debate, in the way of Bigfoot, aliens, and the Lochness Monster. There are a number of questions that should be asked about wating lists, support and understanding, but this should not be confused with undermining and belittling or demonising the lived experiences of those who have it and their families or advocates. The symptoms of ADHD were first described in the UK in 1798, by Physician, Sir Alexander Crichton, and 1902 is considered the starting point for the named ‘disorder’ in children. In the 60s- to the 80s it had names like ‘Hyperkinetic reactive disorder’ and ADD and then in the 90s ADHD was added – because over time we always discover more, and we expect to evolve with that discovery. In the year 2000 it was widely recognised as a clinical condition and in 2008 adult ADHD was formally recognised. The psychiatrist, Alex Pemberton, who does not specialise in neurodevelopmental conditions, but in weight loss and addiction, has a number of credits to his name, some of which seemed admirable, but in this programme, he takes up the mantle of his recent role as a Daily Mail columnist and presents us with a poorly researched, unscientific, sensationalist piece of tabloid clickbait. It is edited with bias, framed to support his non-evidenced opinion, (by the way, concluding to prove entirely the opposite in fact), and it should never have been allowed. 

 

These are the broadcasting rules it contravenes: ‘materially mis-leading (rule 2.2). failure of due care to a child participant (rules 1.28 -1.29), and harmful treatment of a recognised disability (section 2). Responding to the documentary, Professor Subdoh Dave, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists has responded: ‘The way we speak about neurodevelopmental conditions really matters. It can fuel harmful stigma experienced by people living with the condition and risk discouraging people from seeking the treatment they need…research suggests that…it is still under-recognised, under-diagnosed and under-treated in the UK…invalidating the condition does a disservice to people with ADHD and professionals involved in their care.’ Now, experts such as Professor Kat Rubia, who appeared in the programme are stating that they were edited and their words taken out of context, and that they wish to dissociate themselves from it. Those supporting the stance of the broadcast were not specialists in this area: asking a family GP to comment with an opinion and pass it off as expertise is, respectfully, like asking a divorce lawyer to comment on a murder trial, and we must view the agenda of the ‘alternative therapies’ expert with scepticism when she is likely making a profit from offering her own products. 

 

What struck me was that none of the ‘experts’ had ADHD. How they could say with any real understanding what it feels like is questionable. Feeling ‘edgy’, Chris Bagely, is not really a complete summary of this condition. One of the ‘talking heads’ recruited has retired and we must consider that their beliefs possibly need updating, since current leaders in the field are very quickly distancing themselves from their comments. And Dr Sammi Timmi suggesting medication is a ‘cultural experiment’ is surely tantamount to misconduct – medication is rigorously tested. The concept that you can get a diagnosis in 20 minutes and have your meds delivered to your door immediately is a complete fabrication. People are waiting on lists for as long as 7 years – constantly struggling to be believed – having to go down a Right to Choose pathway, (which is NHS funded) where GPs are not always responding to their diagnosis and they are not getting their medication. A diagnostic process is far more in-depth than the snippet he showed you on television. It takes several appointments, clinical notes, background information and cognitive testing to form a clinical diagnosis – much like diagnosing any similar condition. Those are the facts. The programme completely ignored the titration period, which is essential to make sure the dose is correct and working for the patient, and can be a lengthy process over a number of months. Only very dodgy drugs are ordered on the phone and delivered by courier, Dr Max, and surely fabricating symptoms to gain access to and taking a controlled drug is suspicious ‘drug-seeking behaviour’ which would signal a red-flag at any good medical practice? Surprise, surprise, the drug did not make Maxi feel good. No, because it does not work in the same way on a neurotypical brain. Although I might have an alternative diagnosis for him, since we are giving armchair diagnoses – and it’s not ADHD mate! I’m pretty sure that if I took Chemotherapy drugs, I wouldn’t feel good – because I don’t have cancer! But by The Max P logic, Chemotherapy drugs are BAD DRUGS and we shouldn’t be over-prescribing them.

 

The method in which he ‘proves’ a person can ‘fake’ ADHD was perfect ‘Ben Shapiro logic’ – if you don’t know who he is, look him up – his amazing ‘logic’ includes reasoning that if climate change puts people’s homes under water, they’d simply sell their houses and move…Yeah. The guy who helped to get Trump re-elected. Of COURSE you can fake anything – If I said to a doctor I could not see anything, and based on that I was given sight aids, does this now mean blindness does not exist? His argument starts to drift into armchair philosophy – if I can’t tell if someone is blind, are they? If I don’t experience what someone else is experiencing, they must be faking it. But ask yourself – why would they fake it? (Maybe to get access to controlled drugs, Dr P?) Please don’t day it’s to get ‘benefit’ money by the way – if you think that you seriously need to educate yourself.

 

Do you think we should not give cancer drugs to people with cancer? Should people with depression just pull themselves together and stop being sad? Maybe those with OCD should just get over it and be a bit messier? Perhaps – the menopause is a myth? Should you get treatment for psoriatic arthritis because it doesn’t show up on a brain scan? Neither does foetal alcohol syndrome. Here are some other conditions which do not show on a brain scan: Concussion and mild TBI; depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and bi-polar disorder; Alzeimer’s and Parkinson’s early stage; epilepsy and seizure disorders; migraines. According to the quack-science of this so called ‘study’ none of these exist. Sadly, we have entered an age where critical thinking is declining and this kind of pseudo-logic and sensationalism plays right into this, tapping into the knee-jerk outrage brigade. 

 

Furthermore, calling it an ‘experiment’ was a travesty. It was certainly not controlled – the sample size was ONE 10-year-old boy. They withdrew his medication and forced him to go cold turkey. This is unethical and cruel. The medication would have been out of his system fairly fast, and over 6 weeks they changed his lifestyle – removing screens, going out into nature – almost as if his parents were suddenly bothered to spend quality time with him because they were on TV! Well, of course an ADHD child would improve at home – the ADHD brain thrives on dopamine so a novelty routine would give him that hit. However – if you could face the pain of watching until the end, the credits informed us he struggled so much at school that he went back on the meds. So, if the little hypothesis suggested anything, it suggested the premise of the documentary was wrong: ADHD exists and some people need medication to succeed. 

 

One of the biggest problems was that the lived experiences, the women, the adults and late-diagnosed, the girls, were all missing from this cartoon of a show whose one mission was to re-enforce the narrative of an increasingly ableist agenda. Coming at a time when anybody who can be described as ‘other’ are being targeted, and the agenda is to remove support and cut so-called ‘benefits’ I wasn’t surprised that this turned up. It came hot on the heels of an aging retiree armchair-diagnosing Chris Packham through the telly as ‘not autistic enough’ and the article proclaiming too many young women use walking sticks. 

 

The whole debacle reminded me of the Andrew Wakefield scam in the 90s. The now discredited ex-Dr produced a paper which essentially lied about MMR causing autism. He was very convincing, mainly because he had the weight of the media behind him. But I have seen his ‘study.’ It is not a study at all. In a similar fashion to Max Pemerbton’s attention-seeking little bit of telly, Wakefield’s sample was 12 cherry-picked boys, some of whom were not autistic, although he wrote the lie that they were, and some of whom had parents who stated that they believed the vaccine did not cause autism. (because it doesn’t) He was accused of child abuse by performing invasive and painful, traumatic tests without informed consent, and drew his conclusions from a few parental opinions. All that because he was making money from a drug company to provide his separate jabs. He was also paid by a lawyer who was trying to build a case to sue an MMR manufacturer on behalf of one parent because he had no evidence other than that he could fabricate. The single source Wakefield cited in his ‘study’ was from an equally struck-off colleague who suggested his own ‘bone-marrow’ could ‘cure’ autism. And here’s me believing that snake oil was no longer peddled…

 

Finally, and there’s so much more I could say, but I will try to keep it short, how can Channel 4 be allowed to broadcast this shambolic show based on a handful of opinions? The show was littered with ‘I see sugar as responsible’, ‘in my view’, ‘I believe’, ‘in my opinion’ which is a problem when it is presented as scientific fact. The retired Dr Iona Heath clutched her DSM-5 manual like a string of pearls whilst declaring, ‘it used to be so much smaller, like a paperback!’ Well, Scarlett O-Hara, I do declare you are right! And that is because we know so much more now since you last refreshed your knowledge. ‘How do you measure a unit of squirm?’ asks Dr Timms, ‘You see my point?’ No, Dr T, I do not, because I don’t understand gobbledygook. How do you measure a unit of idiot? I don’t know but they still exist!

 

The only valid point the programme made was that our school system, and indeed our society is failing a huge percentage of our population. But overall, the ‘documentary’, in short, was this: A Dr with an agenda for the Daily ‘Heil’ decides an established condition does not exist, treats a child with potential harmful consequences, takes controlled drugs and gets a bunch of non-specialists to agree with his opinion with no evidence. And the only thing he proves is that he was wrong. 

 

But it is the harmful consequences, to the lives of those who have been disbelieved and invalidated their entire lives, those who might go into work the next day and get told ‘see I knew it wasn’t real’, or the child who is now labelled as the naughty kid making everything up; those who end up in prison; those who end up dead, that must be considered. ADHD can have a devastating impact on people’s lives and well-being. On a very basic level, in the name of all that is human, why would anyone want to make people’s lives more difficult and more unhappy? The Hippocratic Oath states, ‘First, do no harm.’ Channel 4, and Max Pemberton: in the name of a quick buck and sensationalist splash:

 

YOU HAVE DONE HARM and you should be held to account.

Virginia Betts, neurodivergent author, performer, poet and actor is also an established expert in educating those with neurodivergent conditions, with over 30 years experience. She has worked with prisoners, and has spoken at a neurodiversity conference as an authority on lived experience. She has acted as an expert witness and advocate in court, winning the case for a child to be appropriately educated.