That's actually part of how the disease presents.
ADHD is a more severe condition. It’s important to avoid equating dislike for uninteresting tasks with ADHD. That’s not what ADHD patients are suffering from.
It’s also very important to avoid giving the impression that stimulant medications are an easy solution for motivation. The motivating side effects of stimulants wears off as tolerance sets in, so people who depend on stimulants for motivation to do boring tasks can end up in a bad place after a few years or even months. ADHD treatment isn’t equivalent to getting motivation from a pill, but it can reduce some of the distractions and impulses that can pull people away from tasks.
That the motivational effects of stimulants wear off is not well supported by the evidence. It will definitely feel like they do to you, but your baseline state after the first few weeks is very likely to still be much better than it was before treatment, despite subjectively feeling identical or worse. Of course, it's well established that stimulant medication isn't the only effective thing - controlling distraction is certainly very effective too.
Was this expert who defined ADHD tested for psychopathy and sadism, or is group conformity and obedience to authority on display here with the existence and definition of ADHD?
I suppose one way a university can get around its ethics boards, is to identify and grade highly psychopaths and sadists, to carry on their work by proxy of their students. A highly deniable move by any means.
No, but if I you are unable to do the things you mildy dislike to the point of being detrimental to your life-quality. There's a difference between "I don't like paying the bills but I'll do it once a month" and "I don't like paying the bills but even if I try to do them I end up not doing them"
I can't really follow your point on the other paragraphs, what are you trying to get at?