Scientists from Durham University have launched a forceful rebuttal against US presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr, following his controversial claim that Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is an invented condition.
The researchers, specialising in neurodevelopmental conditions, have labelled Kennedy's remarks as 'deeply damaging' and warned they risk undoing decades of public health progress and stigmatising those living with the condition.
The Controversial Claim
Kennedy, who is running as an independent candidate, made the assertion during a speech, suggesting ADHD was 'non-existent' and merely a construct. This statement immediately drew fierce criticism from the global medical and scientific community.
Professor Marko Nardini from Durham University's Department of Psychology led the response. 'These comments are not just incorrect, they are dangerous,' he stated. 'They dismiss the very real experiences of millions of individuals and families, and undermine the rigorous scientific evidence that underpins our understanding of ADHD.'
The Scientific Consensus
The Durham team emphasised that ADHD is one of the most extensively researched medical conditions worldwide. Its diagnosis is based on strict, evidence-based criteria.
Key points from the scientists' rebuttal include:
- ADHD is a valid neurodevelopmental condition with a strong genetic basis.
- Brain imaging studies show clear structural and functional differences in individuals with ADHD.
- Effective treatments are available and well-researched, significantly improving quality of life.
The scientists expressed particular concern that such high-profile misinformation could deter people from seeking vital diagnosis and support.
Political Repercussions and Wider Context
The incident has also stirred the political pot. Kennedy's comments were made shortly after a meeting with former President Donald Trump, raising questions about the influence of anti-science rhetoric in modern politics.
The researchers concluded by urging public figures to base their statements on scientific evidence, especially on matters of health, to prevent causing real-world harm to vulnerable populations.
