On the 19th of August 2026 I sat down to watch a documentary that aired on Channel 4, titled The Great ADHD Myth?, presented by Dr. Max Pemberton. It was a concerning watch for a number of reasons, chiefly:

1. Dr. Pemberton appeared to be attempting to take a scientific approach, yet the application of the scientific method demonstrated in the program was flimsy
2. A child was used as a test subject with questionable Safeguarding protection

 

Before I start this article in earnest I want to acknowledge ADHDUK's article about this program and its flaws, which includes a letter to Channel 4, and Channel 4's response. To quote them on one of the most important points: "ADHD is not scientifically controversial. It is recognised by the World Health Organization, the NHS, NICE and every major medical body on earth. Physicians described it in 1798 – two centuries before the smartphone and 150 years before ultra-processed food."

 

The Science

I will start this section by saying that I'm not a trained scientist. As a child, I learned with interest about the scientific method, but I wouldn't be your first choice of person to design a robust drug trial where things can go badly wrong when poorly designed. However, I first suspected that the science was questionable when Dr. Pemberton showed an MRI scan in progress on somebody with ADHD, and seemed to conclude that ADHD is not detectable by MRI, which seemed to be added to the evidence that ADHD must therefore not be real.

You might notice that my wording in that previous paragraph was woolly. That's because this experiment was also presented in woolly terms. Given that the documentary claimed that ADHD's existence is debatable beyond being a social construct, I wonder how they sourced an individual with ADHD to scan? Why did they not scan more people, since science is supposed to be repeatable? They also didn't use a control - someone without ADHD for the purpose of comparison - to also be scanned. I personally was looking forward to seeing comparative scans on screen, but this was only briefly shown at an oblique angle with no detailed explanation given.  As ADHDUK states in their article, ADHD is already recognised by many organizations whose job it is to provide healthcare. The title of The Great ADHD Myth? implies that ADHD may not exist. This is unethical as it fails to make use of established knowledge. 

Much of the programme focused on a boy who was initially on ADHD medication, and was taken off it temporarily to see what changed. The trial he was put through raises more questions about the robustness of Channel 4's application of the scientific method, but also the ethics of how he was treated and the protection either provided, or didn't. Showing a child on TV absolutely should raise questions about child safety that need to be addressed properly. ADHDUK sent Channel 4 a letter about the trial, and they responded by email - with no name signed. 

 

The Boy's Trial

The experiment started with taking him off his ADHD medication for 6 weeks. I was unclear what question the experiment sought to answer. Only one child was experimented on (so how can we know whether the results are repeatable?), and they changed more than one variable. I think they wanted to test what effect the medication was having, if any - but they also took away his video games, changed his exercise regime, and locked away all the sugary snacks. How could they know what impact the medication was having when they changed so many variables all at once? 

ADHD has a history of being associated with boys more so than girls. Having more subjects in the experiment would allow the inclusion of some girls. Indeed, I also find myself asking why the one test subject was a boy. Was this a genuinely random choice, or was the male test subject the result of a bias that we've seen before in clinical testing? "until the early 1990s, women of childbearing age were kept out of drug trial studies due to medical and liability concerns about exposing pregnant women to drugs and risking damage to their fetuses". This reason for excluding females in drug trials would clearly not apply to the boy's peers, who would be prepubescent girls. 

ADHDUK also pointed out that the Safeguarding framework supposed to protect the boy was far weaker than it should have been. Somebody trained to work with children may have more to comment on about that than me, but I found the footage Channel 4 aired of the boy, including times where he was angry, concerning. I don't think Channel 4 could even apply the principle of 'the ends justify the means', as the experiment lacked a solid conclusion. 

Even if we explore the results of this study from a social perspective rather than a clinical one, I feel the documentary failed to explore the implications and helpful takeaways. The boy's teacher had a wonderful perspective that it was harder to teach him while he was unmedicated, but that she had seen how much better his relationships with his classmates became during the experiment, and believed that this was better for him than being able to sit through lessons quietly. Surely, this would have been a great time to introduce the topic of neuro-inclusive schools? Why not switch him from an exam-based system to a continuous assessment system, given his experiences as detailed in the epilogue?

 

Channel 4's Letter

The letter, sent anonymously from C4 to ADHDUK, includes a number of statements I found disingenuous. 

This was the first to catch my eye: "I would like to make it clear at the outset that the documentary in no way seeks to dispute the lived experience of people with ADHD or that people with an ADHD diagnosis face real challenges."

I certainly experienced the documentary disputing the validity of the existence of ADHD. 

Next comes: "Channel 4 has a remit which includes offering a platform for alternative views, stimulating public debate and challenging the status quo." This statement appears to imply that debate is always better than no debate. I don't believe that. If the existence of something has been proved, then its existence no longer needs to be debated. By all means introduce to us the ways in which it can be observed. If ADHD doesn't show up on MRI scans, then okay, it doesn't.  Except, it does. "T1-weighted structural MRI studies have revealed reduced gray matter volume in regions implicated in executive function, particularly the frontal cortex, basal ganglia, and cerebellum, along with evidence of delayed cortical maturation. DTI findings highlighted abnormalities in white matter integrity, particularly in the fronto-striatal-cerebellar circuits and connections between the corpus callosum and cingulum. Task fMRI studies have demonstrated reduced activation of brain networks involved in cognitive control, timing, and reward processing, including fronto-striatal and fronto-parietal networks. Furthermore, rs-fMRI research has shown altered connectivity patterns within and between key brain networks, including the default mode, fronto-parietal, and salience networks." (Mizuno, 2025)

Stimulating discussion is healthy - depending on the discussion. Since ADHD exists, Channel 4 could have stimulated any one of dozens of other conversations about it.

I'm also curious what C4 meant by the term "status quo". Are they implying that scientifically proven facts are comparable to dogma? Moving on: "With the above in mind the title of the show has been posed as a question intentionally. The programme seeks to encourage debate. The title is not a definitive statement."

Questions have question marks, yes, but they also generally include the words "who", "what", "when", "why" or "where". What question is the phrase "The Great ADHD Myth?" asking?

Channel 4 also states, "We note that you have raised concerns about the inclusion in the programme of a boy who stops taking his medication. The observational study of one boy is not presented as anything more than that in the programme." The limitations of the study were not discussed in the programme, so viewers were not adequately prepared to assess what they saw. This leaves interpretation of the study dangerously open.

Further: "The welfare of the boy and his family were of paramount importance both before, during and after the production process." I wonder how the boy will feel in 20 years, knowing that footage was aired of him having an emotional meltdown on national TV, the footage of which will remain in storage for many years to come and perhaps be searchable on social media? I'd be mortified if it was me. How did that footage of his meltdown impact his current relationships? As a child, he lacked the capacity to consent to being shown on television. At one point in the process, he said he wanted a lawyer, which I feel reflects how badly he wanted protection. "An independent doctor, his GP, a medical risk assessment company and three independent psychiatrists were all engaged to advise on the medication break." Did they consider the social impact of this study, or were they solely focused on the clinical aspect?

The letter closes with Channel 4 defending its right to independence in the development of documentaries in the name of encouraging debate. It rejected ADHDUK's input, which is an interesting choice given ADHDUK's specialist understanding of the lived experience of ADHD. 

 

Conclusion

I have believed for a long time that most TV is a confection, made to stimulate people to want to watch more. I don't believe it's the top priority of most channels to necessarily inform people. For this reason, Exercise caution when watching documentaries, and explore alternative sources of information to make sure you understand the facts, and can distinguish them from opinions or unproven assertions. TV is easy to absorb, but that doesn't mean we should treat it any differently than any other source of information, particularly when we're seeking information.

Photo by Miguel Á. Padriñán on Pexels.