This is a typical example of the so-called ‘science’ which supports ADHD drugging of children in the UK. The author of the piece, who should be truly ashamed of herself, is someone called Sarah Marsh.
The benefits of taking drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder outweigh the impact of increases in blood pressure and heart rate, according to a study from the University of Southampton.
There are any number of studies which make this kind of claim. (I haven’t read this particular study – only the abstract, see below – and am referring to the media reporting of it). I discuss these in detail in my in-depth report into the ADHD holocaust.
The ‘benefits’, in general in the ADHD narrative, refer to certain behavioural changes. Parents and teachers go through tick box forms and report that certain undesirable behaviours have been ameliorted. Some studies report tiny increments in reading skills. As we dicuss in our paper, the most likely causal pathway for the reduction in ‘hyperactive’ behaviours is probably because the children are shattered by stimulant drug exhaustion. So on the one hand; the ‘benefits’ are behavioural changes – children’s behaviour is more aligned with the demands and expecations of parents and teachers. The costs are, on the other hand, real, physicological detriments, suffered only and purely by the tortured children.
Even, from the point of view of science this is a masquarade and a scandal and Sarah Marsh should be deeply ashamed of herself. We live in a rational, democratic society and a journalist of all people should be able to do GCSE science.
Interestingly, the study on which this news report was based seems to have been published nearly a year ago. This appears to be the report about the study in the Guardian – from April 2025. As so often, one has to hunt around to find the actual paper. Journalists do not provide the public with the source material. Their job is to amply the desired propaganda message of the study while hiding the actual study in case people read it for themselves. This is partly because the studies often do not say what is claimed for them in the media. This study appears to emphasise the “need for careful monitoring”, which has been edited out of Sarah March’s summary.
I followed the link in Marsh’s article to another page on the Guardian, about the University of Southampton – not even a direct link to a specific article. On this page, the third exerpt and the only one apparently about ADHD, led to another page on the Guardian where there was an article written on 6 April 2025 about an ADHD study led by Prof Samuele Cortese at the University of Southampton. I then did an Internet search for: “Prof Samuele Cortese ADHD overall small effects careful monitoring”. The latter two are given as direct quotes in the Guardian article. This led me to the following, with a date of 7 April.
And on that page I found a link to this:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(25)00062-8/abstract
So, because Marsh just links to another Guardian article, (in fact not even that directly), which itself does not reference the source paper, or even a University news release, one cannot be 100% sure that this is the orginal article referenced by Marsh. But, it appears to be; since the dates, names and topics all fit. (The one day in advance in the Guardian could be because the journalist got an advance copy).
It turns out to be a meta study. This is the actual finding of the study by Prof Samuele Cortese, PhD:
Practitioners should monitor blood pressure and pulse in patients with ADHD treated with any pharmacological intervention, and not stimulants only. Given the short duration of available randomised controlled trials, new research providing insights on the causal effects of ADHD medications on cardiovascular parameters in the longer term should be funded.
There is nothing in the abstract about “benefits” at all. Zero. The entire focus of the study appears to be about the changes that ADHD drugs can cause in blood indicators. This is the aim of the study: “We aimed to compare the effects of pharmacological treatments for ADHD on haemodynamic values and electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters in children, adolescents, and adults.”. No scientifically absurd comparison of ‘benefits’ (behavioural changes, in the subjective opinion of parents and teachers), with phsyioloigcal risks.
This happens all the time. The researchers, while plugged into the whole pharma-ADHD scam nonetheless are, usually, bona fide rsearchers who do not tell lies in their papers. (There are cases when the statisitical and interpretative manouvres do look like straight lying; I don’t see that here). So – the finding was about the need for monitoring. In Marsh’s hands this becomes a scientifically illerate story about the “benefits” of ADHD medication outweighing the risks.
(Possibly one of the researchers has done a side-briefing of a pet theory to the media; that happens all the time, as well).
One point emerges from Marsh’s report. There is a rare to be seen admission in the Guardian which, in general, is fully driving the neo-liberal push to “diagnose” as many children as possible and claiming that the exponential rise in diagnoses over the last several years, is due to more sensitive diagnosing, that ADHD “diagnoses” and drug prescriptions are being handed out, (and stuffed into children), based on remote video interviews and parent data. It is disgusting.
Another point stands out in the source paper:
Only four RCTs informed on effects in the medium term and none on the long term.
This was a meta study of “102 randomised controlled trials with short-term follow-up “. It isn’t clear if the authors specifically chose short-term trials but based on theic conclusion, “Only four RCTs informed on effects in the medium term and none on the long term.”, they are noting with surprise that there sample did not include studies with long-term effects monotitoring. This is absolutely standard in the ADHD hoax. Even when studies are done which examine possible harmful effects of giving powerful stimulants, and other drugs to children, these are almost always short-term, depsite the reality that prescription is usually long-term. I think we can figure out why long-term studies are so rarely done. If Sarah Marsh, or anyone else claiming to be a journalist these days, wanted to demonstrate more than an ability to do PR for the pharma industry, “benefits outweight risks”, she could do an investigation into this. (To help her; one place to start might be to look at how these studies are funded). *
* This is an academic paper on the topic. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2868984/ Obviously, there are a lot of ‘independent media’ reports on the Internet on the whole merger of the pharma industry and academica. It is legacy media, which Marsh works for, which still publishes pharma propaganda.
