About the Founder - John Mew
See also: Papers Published By John Mew
Born 1928. His father was a dentist. A dyslexic, he is a lateral thinker who found exams difficult. After qualifying in 1953, he studied Maxilo-facial surgery, before moving to orthodontics in 1965. For many years he remained very much within the establishment becoming president of the Southern Counties Branch of the British Dental Association in 1971. He was honoured with life membership of the British Dental Association in 1999.
In 1958 he put forward the 'Tropic Premise' which suggested that irregular teeth were not necessarily inherited. He became concerned that the mechanics of orthodontic treatment could be harmful to facial growth, and over the subsequent 20 years developed the concept of facial 'Growth Guidance' [Orthotropics®] and the 'Biobloc' system of treatment. At the time the establishment labelled him a maverick and applied enormous political, legal and financial pressure to prevent him from using procedures that are now commonplace.
He has written a number of scientific papers. He has also written a full length text book about his technique "Biobloc", and has lectured and/or taught in most European, and English speaking countries, where he has set up many study groups.
Sports. Always a keen competitor, he played rugby football until he was 50. At the age of 18 he learnt to fly a Tiger Moth, and subsequently took up hang gliding. At the age of 19 he designed and built his own sports car, fabricating most of it from scratch, and later raced it successfully. From 1957 to 1967 he took up motor racing seriously, moving from formula three to formula one, and was one of the last successful private entrants in the sport, entering events all over Europe, and twice breaking the lap record at Brands Hatch.
Full details of John Mew's
racing career
A keen sailor. In 1958 he took part in the first post war
challenge for the Americas cup, and in 1971 was selected for
the British 'International Fourteen' team.
Home. Married to a physiotherapist with three children,
he is especially interested in the construction and repair of
ancient buildings. He lives in a reproduction castle on an island
in a lake in East Sussex (South of London).
Suppression
Personal; Comments by John Mew
It is necessary for professional groups to resist unsupported change and on occasion to suppress unjustified claims. However a greater problem is the mind set of those who have been educated to believe in a particular doctrine. ‘Rules’ encourage inflexible thinking and this can make reasoned discussion difficult. I had the great disadvantage of being dyslexic, which made it difficult for me to pass exams. On the other hand, my lateral thinking enabled me to introduce many new techniques to orthodontics in the 60's and 70's. At that time most of them were unacceptable to the establishment, so much so that I was heavily fined by the National Health Service for providing ‘inappropriate’ treatment. After several years of oppression, I appealed against these fines to the high court, where in 1987 Mr Justice Stuart Smith decided that "these very serious strictures were wholly unwarranted and perhaps go some way to justify the applicant’s doubts as to the impartiality of the Dental Services Committee". He awarded me substantial costs. As a result, the NHS attitude to alternate orthodontics changed and orthodontists in the UK can now freely use expansion and functional appliances.
As soon as I challenged traditional orthodontic belief I was labeled
a maverick and had difficulty in getting of my scientific papers published.
One major paper Mew,JRC. 2004. "The
Postural Basis of Malocclusion: A
philosophical overview". The American Journal of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopedics. 126:729-738 took 23 years and was rejected
15 times although it is now accepted as major contribution to the literature.
Andrew Graham editor of Dental Practice wrote concerning one of my papers "beautifully
reasoned as ever, it makes good and sensible reading, never-the-less
it pains me to tell you we can not publish’. ‘The reasons
as I expect you know are the same as before, namely the disgraceful uproar
from your colleagues".
Another paper, ‘Mew
JRC 2007.
Facial Changes in Identical Twins Treated by Different Orthodontic Techniques.
The World Journal of Orthodontics. 8: 174-188.}, a study of Identical
Twins treated by different methods, took 15 years to get published despite
or possibly because it was very powerful. Another paper “Using
the ‘Best Results’ Method
to Establish the Potential of Different Orthodontic Techniques” showed
that Orthotropics® had a far greater potential than a wide
range of other methods but was rejected because the referees were unfamiliar
with the novel statistics used. This will inevitably delay the acceptance
of Orthotropics®
Many of those who support my views dare not say so, because their career structure might be threatened and students have told me that they have failed their exams because they mentioned my name. The British Orthodontic Society has recently threatened to evict me from membership because of my criticisms of orthodontic research and practice. I have never been invited to present a paper at the British Orthodontic Conference, despite the fact that I have addressed equivalent societies in many other countries and have certainly published more papers than most British university lecturers. In 1989 I wrote to David Di Biase the chairman of the British Association for the Study of Orthodontics saying "My biggest regret is that I do not have the opportunity for intellectual debate. You know of my knowledge and experience in this field and yet I have no chance of sharing it".
Despite the ground support for a more scientific attitude in clinical orthodontics the UK establishment is suppressing free debate on these issues. Regardless of whether Orthotropics® is right or wrong, we need to talk about it.∧ TOP