I have a question for you. For context, in case you haven't read it, we are discussing scientific paper reporting a large population study (almost 150,000 newly-diagnosed ADHD patients, aged 6–64 years old) which compared the outcomes of those who were medicated (~57%) and those who were unmedicated (~43%). Around 88% of the medicated cohort were prescribed methylphenidate (e.g. Concerta or Ritalin).

The conclusions of the study, copy-pasted from the abstract, were:

> Drug treatment for ADHD was associated with beneficial effects in reducing the risks of suicidal behaviours, substance misuse, transport accidents, and criminality but not accidental injuries when considering first event rate. The risk reductions were more pronounced for recurrent events, with reduced rates for all five outcomes. This target trial emulation study using national register data provides evidence that is representative of patients in routine clinical settings.

My question is this: if we assume ADHD does not exist, what is going on here?

Specifically, how do you explain so-called "ADHD" patients who were medicated having a statistically significant lower risk of suicidal behaviours, substance misuse, transport accidents, criminality, and recurrent accidental injuries than those who were not medicated?

Do you think non-"ADHD" individuals (i.e. who don't fit the current diagnostic criteria for this assumed fictional disorder) would also display a reduced risk of suicidality, accidents, etc. if they were to take methylphenidate on a daily basis?