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
Professional groups are sometimes accused of resisting change and even of suppressing new ideas. Often this is based on justified concerns, after all many new techniques have subsequently turned out to be ineffective. Indeed many orthodontists have tried the methods that I recommend and failed to get good results. It is hard for me to comment on this but I do accept that "Orthotropics®" is two or three times as difficult as traditional methods and this may be part of the problem.However a greater problem is the mind set of those who have been educated to believe in a particular doctrine. This particularly applies to ‘good’ students who pass all their exams first time. Such individuals have succeeded by learning the ‘rules’ and many of the professors who teach them had followed the same rules. The creation of these empirical ‘rules’ has clearly simplified the training of new orthodontists. However ‘rules’ encourage inflexible thinking and this can make reasoned discussion difficult. On the other hand free thinking students rarely reach such positions, and in my case the additional disadvantage of being dyslexic, made it difficult for me to pass any exams at all, with no hope of gaining a teaching appointment.On the other hand, my lateral thinking enabled me to introduced 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 in 1987, where 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 most orthodontists in this country can now freely use expansion and functional appliances although few give me much acknowledgement. Twenty two years ago I put forward an alternate explanation for the cause of malocclusion. Since then I have submitted this paper thirteen times to various journals but it was always rejected. It has now been accepted by the American Journal of Orthodontics and will be published shortly. Apart from some updates, it is the same as when I first wrote it which presumably means that the establishment are changing their views. If this hypothesis is ultimately accepted, many existing techniques will no longer be appropriate, which will raise major concerns within training establishments. This may explain the fairly united campaign to suppress my work and belittle my reputation, usually with faint praise.I have also written a paper about an alternative form of treatment called Orthotropics® that was based on this hypothesis. In this study a group of twelve identical twins were treated with either orthotropics or by conventional extraction methods. This protocol must be the ultimate test of any technique and as far as I know has never been achieved in any other study. An independent panel judged the facial appearance while all other assessments were factual. It concluded
“On this evidence some traditional techniques appear to damage faces. Guiding skeletal growth, by expansion and by correcting oral habits and posture, appears to provide improved facial appearance and more stable, less crowded dental alignment in the long term, without a reliance on extractions”
The paper was turned down by the establishment referees because ‘the results could have been due to chance’. This is strange as the power of twin studies is that they eliminate any genetic factors leaving only environmental changes and treatment effect. Current Random Controlled Trials comparing genetically different individuals have proved very expensive and rather ineffectual and I think the establishment will eventually accept that twin research would be more valuable.The conclusions made in both these papers discredits much of the treatment currently provided and as such are strongly resented by the establishment. They clearly wish to prevent any increase in the use of alternative methods, and try to prevent ‘inappropriate’ publications by heavy lobbying of the editors concerned. 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". Mike Grace, editor of the British Dental Journal, went even further and following criticism from the orthodontic referees, took the unusual step of refusing publish any further articles of mine saying "I was no longer prepared to use referees time, nor my own editorial staff time in continuing to try and give you the opportunity for publication". He has recently refused to publish a mildly worded ‘opinion’ paper, which challenges established orthodontic practice not because it was flawed but because the ‘establishment’ referees thought it might "mislead ‘general dentists who do not understand enough about orthodontics’. Anyone who would like a copy should contact john.mew@virgin.net.Letters have been written behind my back suggesting that lecture facilities should be denied to me. 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.For many years I was very much one of the establishment, serving on many influential committees. However as soon as I challenged traditional orthodontic belief I was labelled a maverick and excluded from most channels of communication and my repeated requests to join committees, or debates or to present papers were rejected. The British Orthodontic Society has never ever invited me to present a paper at any of its meetings, despite the fact that I have addressed equivalent societies in many other countries and have certainly published more papers in refereed journals than most British university lecturers. The London teaching hospitals have repeatedly refused to allow me to address their post-graduate students because "You sound very convincing" and "if they believed you they would fail their exams".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". Lyle Johnston from the University of Michigan USA, probably the most influential orthodontists in the world, refused to address the issue of ‘mouth posture’, saying "it would be like debating whether the moon is made of green cheese". Their most subtle weapon is not to reply to my letters, a senior Consultant at Guys Hospital, who teaches that malocclusion is inherited, offered to justify this belief by showing me the relevant research, but despite four reminders has produced nothing.
Despite the ground support I receive both here and abroad
the UIK establishment are successfully suppressing free debate on these
issues. If my views are wrong they should be exposed, if they are correct
these two papers could be the most important ever written on the subject
of orthodontics. Either way we need to talk about it.
Above all it makes me angry that orthodontists will discuss facial damage
between themselves but keep quiet about it in public.
∧ TOP