A short, independent exploration of UK search behaviour, Google results and AI answers following Channel 4's
I spent a few hours following the data rather than the controversy. The findings challenged some of my own assumptions — and raised a bigger question about what happens when people search for health evidence after a controversial story.
Sceptical search interest did not show the increase I expected.
Clinical and symptom-led search interest remained the stronger signal.
Across two sceptical Google queries audited, 90% of the captured top-five results were media/controversy-led and 10% clinical.
Across nine tests using OpenAI, Anthropic and Google models, eight led with clinical framing and none led with "myth" framing.
The analysis is exploratory and does not establish causality.
This analysis drew on a range of methods and tools:
UK search-intent data
SERP and API analysis
Google search-result auditing
OpenRouter
OpenAI, Anthropic and Google models
Source and authority analysis
This is independent exploratory research completed over a few hours. It is a hypothesis generator, not a clinical study. Findings should be read in that spirit.
Enter your email address to access the PDF report. Your first name is optional. Marketing consent is separate and entirely your choice — it is not a condition of downloading.
Keep me updated about future Looking Back, Thinking Forward research and analysis.
Your data will be stored securely. By submitting this form you agree to the Privacy Policy. Marketing consent is recorded separately and you can withdraw it at any time.
This research is deliberately open to challenge. If you work in ADHD research, clinical practice, neurodiversity, education, SEND, health policy or have relevant lived experience, I'd like to hear what questions deserve deeper research.
Looking Back, Thinking Forward.
"Provocation creates questions. Let's invest in better answers."