An advocacy charity for people with ADHD has lodged a formal complaint with media regulator Ofcom after a documentary aired on Tuesday 18 August 2026 suggested the condition is not a genuine brain disorder. The programme, called The Great ADHD Myth?, was fronted by NHS psychiatrist Dr Max Pemberton, who concluded on air that ADHD is "a social construct, not a disorder of the brain". The broadcaster has defended the film, while ADHD UK, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and another charity, ADHD Embrace, have all criticised its framing.
ADHD UK's complaint rejected the programme's central premise outright.
ADHD is not a myth. It is not a social construct.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists separately cautioned against undermining the condition's medical legitimacy, while ADHD Embrace said it was troubled by what it called poor journalistic standards in the finished film.
What did the documentary claim?
The hour-long programme brought together experts sceptical of how ADHD is diagnosed and treated, questioning whether it represents a genuine neurodevelopmental condition. It also followed a 10-year-old boy who came off his medication and adopted lifestyle changes so the filmmakers could observe any effect on his behaviour, with his mother telling viewers at the film's close that he would remain off the drugs for now. A closing caption, however, disclosed that the boy had resumed his medication two months after filming ended and that his schoolwork had subsequently improved, though he reportedly wants to try stopping the medication again at some point in the future.
ADHD UK argued this closing caption effectively undercut the film's own argument.
The programme's own end credits told you what its 60 minutes wouldn't: the boy at its centre went back on his medication, and his schoolwork improved. Their experiment disproved their conclusion. They aired their version anyway. We have already complained to Ofcom.
What happened before the broadcast?
According to an open letter published by ADHD UK on 4 August 2026, the charity had already asked the broadcaster to change the programme's title, alter its promotional material, guarantee a right of reply, and disclose the presenter's previously stated views on ADHD ahead of transmission. The same letter reportedly pressed for clarity on what medical-ethics oversight applied to filming the boy's withdrawal from medication, and requested that the finished programme include clear signposting to support services. The broadcaster wrote back on 10 August 2026, in a reply acknowledging some of the charity's concerns, including unease about the boy whose medication was paused for filming and about wording in the programme's press release identifying boys aged 10 to 14 as the group most commonly prescribed ADHD medication.
How did psychiatrists and charities respond?
Professor Subodh Dave, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, acknowledged that opinions vary on ADHD diagnosis and treatment but warned against dismissing the condition altogether.
Invalidating the condition does a disservice to people with ADHD and professionals involved in their care.
He argued that public debate should instead focus on tackling the lengthy waiting times that leave many people without support for years, rather than disputing the legitimacy of what he described as a well-established neurodevelopmental disorder.
Annette Wilson, founder of ADHD Embrace, said she was dismayed at the standard of reporting in the film, warning it would leave audiences misinformed and more sceptical of the condition generally. She said this risked marginalising people living with ADHD, discrediting the difficulties faced by affected families, and deepening their sense of isolation. Separately, a report from the Independent said an All-Party Parliamentary Group on ADHD, chaired by Adam Dance MP, had also raised concerns that questioning the condition's validity on air could deepen stigma for those diagnosed with it.
How has the broadcaster defended the programme?
In a statement, the broadcaster said the film did not dismiss the lived experience of people diagnosed with ADHD but instead presented the views of a wide range of senior medical figures, many of whom have worked with the NHS or held presidential roles at professional bodies, in questioning conventional understanding of the condition as a neurodevelopmental disorder.
This documentary does not deny the lived experience of those diagnosed with ADHD, but does present the view of an extensive range of senior medical experts - many of whom work or have worked with the NHS or have held presidential roles at professional membership bodies - who seek to question the conventional understanding of ADHD and if it is a neurodevelopmental condition. They also ask whether modern living has contributed to a rise in diagnoses, and whether there may be better alternatives for some children than medication.
The broadcaster added that the film aimed to explore whether societal pressures were contributing to the growth in diagnoses and prescriptions, particularly among boys, and said the family featured were not offered as proof of any single answer.
Whilst the film does not seek to provide answers from one family's experience, their experiences have opened up discussion around whether today's world is equipped to accommodate ADHD behaviours and the ethics of medicating these, particularly in children and particularly when the long-term effects remain unknown.
A national newspaper's review had already flagged the programme as likely to spark controversy before it even aired, awarding it four stars while predicting it would anger some viewers, and judging that Dr Pemberton made his case persuasively; a national newspaper's review described it as the most controversial broadcast of the year. The Times also gave the film four stars, judging that much of it felt convincing, or at least the opening of a necessary conversation.
How many people have complained?
ADHD UK has since set up a dedicated page urging members of the public to submit their own complaints to Ofcom, describing the process as taking about five minutes and providing a template complaint, and stating that the programme misled viewers about ADHD, according to the charity's public complaint page. A separate report said Ofcom was understood to have received more than 1,000 complaints about the programme by 19 August 2026, according to the Mirror. The same report cited a survey finding that 94% of respondents considered the documentary unfair, while 80% believed it could put people off seeking an ADHD assessment. Separately, the Global ADHD Network issued guidance encouraging supporters to raise concerns first with the broadcaster and then escalate to Ofcom if unsatisfied, according to a statement from the Global ADHD Network, indicating a coordinated response from advocacy groups.
What does the evidence say about ADHD prevalence?
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence defines ADHD as a behavioural syndrome marked by hyperactivity, impulsivity and inattention. The NHS estimates that roughly 2.5 million people in England have ADHD, including many without a formal diagnosis. Diagnosis rates for both ADHD and autism have climbed sharply in recent years, and NHS waiting lists for assessments in England are at record levels, with some areas closing lists entirely because of overwhelming demand. Research from University College London points to nearly a twentyfold rise in the number of UK adults diagnosed with ADHD between 2000 and 2018. Despite this surge in diagnoses and referrals, some researchers argue ADHD remains underdiagnosed rather than overdiagnosed: a study published in the Lancet Regional Health Europe journal in June 2026 found that while about 1.2% of adults in England carry an ADHD diagnosis, international prevalence estimates suggest the condition affects 3-5% of people, implying under-diagnosis may persist, particularly among older adults.
The debate over how ADHD is identified and treated has featured elsewhere recently. Separate reporting has described how psychiatrists have warned that a growing number of people are seeking an ADHD diagnosis without wanting treatment, pointing to inconsistent private assessments and asking whether ADHD is sometimes treated as an identity rather than a medical condition. The rise in diagnoses has also had knock-on effects beyond healthcare: coverage of a tribunal award to a Lidl manager showed how rising neurodiversity diagnoses are reshaping workplace disputes and employer obligations. The documentary itself had already been flagged as a talking point in television schedules, appearing in a preview of the evening's line-up alongside a drama on Canada's forced removal of Indigenous children and a Ricky Gervais retrospective.
What happens next?
Ofcom's total complaint figures for the programme were expected to be published the following week, according to the Mirror's reporting. ADHD UK has said it intends to send the broadcaster a fuller submission once it has gathered further evidence of the programme's impact, and has warned it will refer the matter formally to Ofcom if similar failings occur in any future promotion of the film.
Key Facts
- The documentary, presented by Dr Max Pemberton, aired on Tuesday 18 August 2026.
- ADHD UK sent an open letter to the broadcaster on 4 August 2026 before filing its Ofcom complaint.
- The broadcaster replied on 10 August 2026, acknowledging concerns about the featured child and press-release wording.
- More than 1,000 complaints were reported to have reached Ofcom by 19 August 2026.
- A cited survey found 94% of respondents thought the programme was unfair and 80% feared it would discourage people from seeking assessment.
