The author appears to have a philosophical issue with the DSM itself, more than a useful argument. One could make the same complaint about many of the condition

The author appears to have a philosophical issue with the DSM itself, more than a useful argument. One could make the same complaint about many of the conditions defined in the DSM. The DSM faces an insurmountable challenge in attempting to taxonomize mental issues. In "reality" next to none of the syndromes and disorders there "exist", except in terms of collections of symptoms and treatments, and assumptions about what's "normal". Honestly nothing he says goes against anything anyone who's done even a cursory study of ADHD will already know. But he leaves out a lot that folks without much familiarity with ADHD won't already know, such as that many people with ADHD take medicines other than stimulants: anti-depressants, blood pressure medicines. A lot of drugs have been found to address the underlying problems, and each class works differently in different people. The fact is that, like every other aspect of brain chemistry and function, we understand very very little about ADHD. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that people with the disorder should stop taking medicine that works for them. It means we need to study it more to find out how to better describe and explain all the intricate connections between behavior, diet, genetics, environment, sleep, screens, family, school, work, weather, vitamins, and drugs interplay to create what we now call ADHD.