GDC OUTCOME

Featured Video Play Icon

Mike Mew hearing at the GDC – Friday 14th December 2018
Interesting day;
I was at an IOC (Interim Orders Committee) meeting today, to decide if I am a danger to the public through my social media activity and if I am a danger to the patients that I treat to determine risk after an investigative report was made suggesting there were some issues.

The issue seemed to boil down to the regulator not becoming involved in scientific differences – as it should not do.

I’m in the clear, no suspension and no sanctions. No nothing!

The GDC have now to decide if they should take this to a full hearing (today was not a fact finding mission, just risk), which is most likely but not certain.

Thank you very much for everyone who put a testimonial in they really demonstrated a sizable body of professional opinion which agreed with my position.

Thank you all for your support and you desire to do the best thing for your patients. We all walk on the wrong side of the tracks, we all stick our necks out. If I stick my neck out further than you, then you all benefit, it makes you look more center ground. And you know that i will do this anyway, Dad is not getting younger.

Together we are making a difference and these ideas are spreading far and wide.

Thanks again,

Mike Mew

For more information:  click here

Mike Mew’s response to being expelled from the British Orthodontic Society

This post is informative and relates to this video

18,10,07 Response to expulsion from BOS

 

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you very much for your letter dated 3rd October 2018.  With the utmost respect I must disagree with the decision of the committee in regard to my expulsion and wish to lodge a formal appeal to your decision.

There are some material errors in your letter and I feel that I can demonstrate that I am being denied a fair defence.

Having received a formal training in orthodontics, I fully understand your feelings that in asking for debate on the aetiology is a smoke screen.  However, I can assure you that when it is acknowledged that malocclusion is predominantly a symptom of aberrant facial development, environmental in origin, the allegation will be seen in a very different light.

Please correct me if I am wrong but it would appear that currently there is no mechanism within the BOS constitution for an appeal.  It is generally considered that appeals in such a situation should be overseen by an independent organisation and I might suggest that we take advice from the charities commission on this matter.

It is not my intention to be obstructive.  I want the truth with the hope that simple public health measures could minimise or even eliminate malocclusion and the other associated symptoms including sleep apnoea.

Best wishes,

Mike Mew

P.S. Could you possibly confirm that you receive the letter regarding Kevin O’Briens lecture

P.P.S. Could you also confirm if the BOS would wish to lend their support to the petition which I mentioned at the meeting of 26th Sept; link to campaign.

P.P.P.S. Finally could I ask for a response to the concerns which I raise at the same meeting.

British Orthodontic Society allegations, transcribed with links

This post is informative and relates to this video

This transcript has been automatically generated through an Abode system from a PDF and may have some errors on it.  The original was sent to Dr Mew from the BOS on 31st March 18

 

Background.  At the British Orthodontic Conference a meeting was convened at which Dr Mew was unanimously suspended for the British Orthodontic Society (BOS) for comments made on the first video “Beyond the teeth”.  It was stated that unless Dr Mew could provide a written response, validating all the comments in the video, which satisfied the council members, he would then be expelled.  Dr Mew repeatedly responded asking for details of the allegations without success, until the GDC contacted him, as the BOS had also reported Dr Mew to the GDC for the same video.  At this point Dr Mew contacted his indemnity society who pushed the BOS into the response below, at which point the BOS chose to include details on a number of other videos in addition to the original one.

Dr Mew’s legal representatives feel that if several of these accusations are upheld he is very likely to lose his license to practice.  Dr Mew feels that this is a philosophical debate which highlights the current differences between mainstream and non-mainstream orthodontics and such debates should be held in scientific not legal forums.

 

Investigatory Report : Dr Michael Gordon Mew

GDC Registration Number- 69138

Introduction

  1. I have been instructed by the Board of the British Orthodontic Society (“BOS”) to carry out an investigation into the conduct of Dr Michael Gordon Mew (“Dr Mew”) arising from a number of social media posts that have been published in the field of Orthodontics and which purport to advertise his practice called Orthodontic Health Limited trading as Orthotropics.
  2. I am the Chair of the Ethics Committee of BOS and an experienced Orthodontist. I am Consultant Orthodontist at XXXXXXXXXXXX and a former President of BOS. I have 29 years’ experience as a Consultant Orthodontist.
  1. 3. In carrying out this investigation, I have kept an open mind and I have based my findings on the social media postings made by Dr Mew from September 2017 to I have not considered all of the social media activity by Dr Mew but have listed below the video recordings that I have watched and postings I have seen in this matter.

The British Orthodontic  Society

  1. The British Orthodontic Society (“BOS”) is a charity which strives to promote the study and practice of orthodontics, to maintain and improve professional standards in orthodontics and to encourage research and education in orthodontics. In doing so, BOS seeks to improve the quality of dental care for the benefit of patients. The charity’s ultimate beneficiaries are therefore patients, and benefits to patients are provided through the advancement of knowledge, practice and standards in the
  2. The British Orthodontic Society is governed by the rules and regulations set down in its company Memorandum and Articles of Association, originally dated 14 January 1999 and updated subsequently with the last update agreed at the BOS AGM 22 September 2012.
  3. Membership of BOS is not a requirement for orthodontists but many orthodontists choose to join our All Orthodontists are registered with the General Dental Council.

Dr Mew

  1. The purpose of this report is to investigate concerns raised by members of the society that Dr Mew has behaved in a way that essentially amounts to misconduct and I has brought the orthodontic profession into disrepute by making a number of misleading, inaccurate statements about his skills, experience and the treatment  that he can offer to patients.
  2. Dr Mew is an experienced Orthodontist and practices in Purley in Surrey. He has a large online media presence and has undertaken a number of lectures on Orthotropics which is something which was developed by Dr Mew’s father, DrJohn Mew. Dr John Mew was erased from the register of the General Dental Council in December 2017. In undertaking this investigation, I have focussed solely on the conduct of Dr Michael Mew and not that of his father.

Action taken by BOS to date

  1. Dr Michael Mew was suspended in September 2017 under Article 17 of BOS’ Articles of Association which read –

“The Executive may suspend any member whose conduct in its opinion is contrary to the interests of the Society, or who fails to comply with these Articles or with the

Rules and Bye-Laws

  1. The conduct leading to suspension arose from a video that Dr Mew posted on Social Media which the BOS were concerned had, or could have the potential to mislead patients or cause harm.
  2. The video was posted to YouTube on 6 September 2017 and to Dr Mew’s YouTube Channel which contains a link to his clinic, Orthodontic Health Limited in Purley in Surrey.

Action post suspension

  1. On 16 November 2017, Dr Mew wrote to BOS to ask for further information about the conduct and requested that BOS should quote the very words” that he used which caused offence. The purpose of this report is to provide Dr Mew with the requested information.

Issues that have arisen since suspension

  1. At the time of his suspension, Dr Mew was requested to remove the video in question but he has chosen not to do
  2. Additionally, since Dr Mew’s suspension, Dr Mew has posted a number of additional videos to his YouTube account I his Channel which will also be considered in this report and which are a cause of concern.
  3. In producing this report, I wish to make it clear that neither I nor anyone at BOS has any issue with a member raising concerns or putting forward evidence-based suggestions to improve orthodontic care in the United BOS and its members welcome research and scientific evidence which will improve the lives of orthodontic patients and improve care.
    Although they have yet to engage me in any debate on the aetiology of malocclusion which would have considerable bearing on the accusations’ below, most of the videos discuss this issue.

The General Dental Council Standards

  1. As an Orthodontist, Dr Mew is subject to the General Dental Council Standards.
  2. The relevant standards that apply to Dr Mew’s alleged conduct are set out below

1.2  “You must treat every patient with dignity and respect at all times”

1.2.1 You should be aware of how your tone of voice and body language might be perceived.

1.2.2 You should take patients’ preferences into account and be sensitive to their individual needs and values.

1.2.3 You must treat patients with kindness and compassion.

1.2.4 You should manage patients’ dental pain and anxiety appropriately

1.3 “You must be honest and act with integrity”

You must justify the trust that patients, the public and your colleagues  place in you by always acting honestly and fairly in your dealings with them. This applies to any business or education activities in which you are involved as well as to your professional dealings.

You must make sure you do not bring the profession into disrepute.

You must make sure that any advertising, promotional material or other information that you produce is accurate and not misleading,  and complies with the GDC’s guidance on ethical advertising

7.1 You must provide good quality care based on current evidence and authoritative guidance

You must find out about current evidence and best practice which affect your work, premises, equipment and business and follow them.

If you deviate from established practice and guidance, you should record the reasons why and be able to justify your decision

7.2 You must work within your knowledge. skills. professional competence and abilities

You must only carry out a task or a type of treatment if you are appropriately trained, competent, confident and indemnified. Training can take many different forms. You must be sure that you have undertaken training which is appropriate for you and equips you with the appropriate knowledge and skills to perform a task safely.

You should only deliver treatment and care if you are confident that you have had the necessary training and are competent to do so. If you are not confident to provide treatment, you must refer the patient to an appropriately trained colleague

 

Dr Mew’s YouTube Channel

  1. Dr Mew’s YouTube Channel can be found as follows­

https://www.youtube.com/user/Orthotropics/featured. The channel was set up on 27 October 2011. As of 23 March 2018, the Channel had 18,466 subscribers to the Channel.

  1. In addition, the YouTube Channel connects to Dr Mew’s clinic’s Facebook Account to which he also posts the YouTube In addition to the videos on Facebook, Dr Mew’s clinic posts a number of public postings.
  2. In conducting this investigation, I have viewed a series of YouTube videos posted by Dr

Mew on YouTube and to his own YouTube Channel and social media posts as follows

 

 

DATE TITLE VIEWS SUMMMARY OF CONTENT DESCRIPTION
6 September

2017

Orthodontics Beyond

Teeth

4962 Interview  with Dr Mew, his father and Dr Steven Lin Subject of Dr Mew’s suspension
24 October

2017

V Log 17,10,24

Getting a Bit

Annoyed

4079 Comment on suspension from BOS, father’s suspension from GDC and earnings
10 November

2017

The Abs Walk 18,466 Advice on how to improve your

 

abdominal muscles
12 January

2018

Mark you may well die a decade early and this is preventable; by Dr Mike Mew 11,239 Advice to Mark Zuckerberg, Founder of Facebook from photographs of his face
16 February

2018

Taylor Swift, Facial and Dental Analysis by Dr Mike – with a purpose 5,453 Advice to Taylor Swift from a photograph of her face
28/09/2017 A Response to Mark

Wertheimer

About

whether there is evidence

for

Orthotropics

23 March

2017

Preventing Children from Needing Orthodontic Treatment in the Future 2,331 Suggesting that orthodontic problems may be avoided or reduced by baby led weaning
27/09/2017 Treatment of Patient

(see BOS letter of 16

October 2017)

7,404 Patient with breathing problem
09/09/2017 Treatment of Patient

2 (see BOS letter of

16 October 2017)

2981 Orthotropic journey- Sam’s video diary 1,2 &3

 

 

Summary Potential Misconduct

My investigation was confined to the reviewing of the above material. There are a vast quantity of videos on Dr Mew’s YouTube Channel and Facebook account and it has not been possible to screen them.

I had a number of concerns about Dr Mew when I viewed his videos and postings. I was expecting Dr Mew’s methods to be rather unorthodox and approached the materials with an open mind. Having reviewed his postings and videos I have grave concerns about Dr Mew’s fitness to practise and it is important that Dr Mew engages with BOS so that the Board can understand the reasons for his conduct.

From the videos, Dr Mew appears to offer advice to patients and the public which has no scientific basis.  Whilst on occasions, Dr Mew has stated openly that orthotropics is a system which needs a huge amount of research, he certainly seems to utilise social media and YouTube to induce patients to come to him for treatment. He openly states in his YouTube video “A reply to Mark Werthheimer” – Im not here to defend it, clearly I advertise the system to get patients to come and see me”. There are links on the YouTube account to his practice and in some of the videos such as the Mark Zuckerberg video he specifically asks Mr Zuckerberg to come and see him.

As well as providing what appears on occasions to be inaccurate advice, Dr Mew seems to stray into an area of medicine for which he seemingly has no experience such as orthopaedics, and paediatrics.

On other occasions, Dr Mew’s comments appear to be highly offensive including reference to patients as “ugly” and offering advice from photographs to celebrities giving diagnoses based on their photographs.

I thought that in fairness to Dr Mew the most sensible way forward was to draft a number of specific allegations and invite him to respond in writing. This will enable Dr Mew to put forward a very clear explanation for his conduct and allow the Board to take this into account in considering  further action (if any). I know that Dr Mew is now represented by Hempsons Solicitors and will no doubt be able to take advice on his response to the allegations.

The Allegations

Having reviewed the evidence listed in the table above, I have drafted the following allegations to which I would ask Dr Mew to respond in writing.

Allegation 1:

  1.  In a videoposted to his YouTube Channel on 61

September, Dr Mew made the following comments –

(a) Yes I think that most orthodontists are still focussing on the alignment of the teeth and not the health of the face” A slight miss quote.

(b) Dr Mew’s father stated I think that that most orthodontists arent aware that incorrect treatment can actually change and possibly even damage the facial appearance so it’s become much more important over recent years as people are generally becoming much more concerned about how they look” You agreed stating Yes I think that they are going beyond concerns of how their teeth look to how their face looks”

(c) Before we could have straight teeth or teeth could be moved, people didnt think about having their teeth moved or straightened but now it becomes apparent that you can influence facial growth”

(d) Dr Mew’s father stated “I do think that you should look at this example behind me of how orthodontics can actually damage or improve faces there are plenty of examples. Many of the public cant imagine that merely moving the teeth will have much effect on the face but it undoubtedly  can and does” Dr Mewagreed  and replied “Yeh I think we need to expand a little on moving teeth”‘

The above statements were (i) misleading (ii) inaccurate (iii) deliberately misleading (iv) without scientific evidence (v) made to induce others to undertake treatment with you I your clinic (vi) bring orthodontics into disrepute.

Allegation 2 :

  1.  In a videoposted to his YouTube Channel on 6th September Dr Mew suggested that the optimum time for treating patients was at the age of 5 or 6. Dr Mew made the following comments –

(a) If a patient walks into my office over the age of 8 theyre into the area where its going to be compromise it depends on how hard they work

(b) If someone comes in at aged 5, 6 I can almost get a complete correction.

(c) If someone comes in younger I can give them advice on how they can correct themselves”

 

The above statements were (i) misleading (ii) inaccurate (iii) deliberately misleading (iv) without scientific evidence (v) made to induce others to undertake treatment with you I your clinic (vi) were potentially harmful to patients or potential patients

Allegation 3:

  1. 1n a video posted to his YouTube Channel on 16 October 2017, Dr Mew gave the impression that children with crooked teeth were more likely to be less intelligent, were unable to breathe through their nose, were full of allergies, were more likely to have conditions of the gut and behavioural problem as well as sleep Dr Mew made or agreed with the following statements –

(a) We are going to talk about some areas for intervention as well were talking about sleep apnoea”

(b) Dr Lin replied Well exactly so the patients that we’re seeing so the kids that can’t breathe though their nose, they are full of allergies, and these are reverberating

to far more conditions in the gut, conditions with their sleep, conditions with their behaviour unfortunately”. Dr Michael Mew replied Yes intelligence” and “the intelligence of your child through the rest of its life

The above statements were (i) misleading (ii) inaccurate (iii) deliberately misleading (iv) without scientific evidence (v) made to induce others to undertake treatment with you I your clinic (vi) were potentially harmful to patients (v) unprofessional (vi) offensive

The quotation seem somewhat ambiguous, it appears that MM is referring to the effects of sleep apnea not crooked teeth.

Allegation 4:

  1. In a video posted to his YouTube Channel on 16 October 2017, Dr Mew gave the impression that children with straight teeth were better looking and children with crooked teeth were worst looking and that those children with good health were good looking with straight teeth

(a)  Dr Mew’s father commented I think simply  put if the face grows  correctly  and you start treatment you can fairly reliably  promise that if you start correctly  all your other problems will go and youll have a good looking  child with good health and that is what most people  really want and we have to be careful  not to get side tracked  into too many  of the other issues that will go with thaf’  Dr Mew appears to agree with this and his reply is- “We balance good looking and healthy faces which is the same thing.  Saying people’s faces are good looking is an emotive thing. Sometimes doesn’t come across well particularly if you have a child that doesn’t have a nice-looking face”

(b)  Dr Lin says But  as you say the idea of health and the idea of being good looking

go hand in hand’. Dr Mew replies It’s  the same. It’s the same thing- it’s just a different  view of the same  thing …. /like John  Flutters  comment when  he sees someone with crooked teeth he knows  they are not healthy”

(c) Dr Lin states we can see exactly  what’s  happening throughout the body just by

looking  at the mouth” Dr Mew’s reply “yes”

The above statements were (i) misleading (ii) inaccurate (iii) deliberately misleading (iv) without scientific evidence (v) made to induce others to undertake treatment with you I your clinic (vi) were potentially harmful to patients (v) unprofessional (vi) offensive

Allegation 5

  1. In a video of 24 October 2017, Dr Mew referred to his suspension from BOS, his father’s suspension by the GDC and suggested that (i) the GDC had mishandled his father’s suspension (ii) that the salary he earns was around the same as a hygienist.

The video contained the following statements –

(a) Dad’s  suspended from the GOG so he can’t go back and work. You have actually taken someone’s livelihood away actually  the GOG has taken someone’s livelihood away.  The suspension was upheld  because he did admit  that he had done the wrong thing now I could  scientifically prove that he did do the right thing but I don’t get that opportunity. You dont get that opportunity in court because no expert  no case.  You don’t have an expert stating  your case you are likely to lose. The courts  get bored  of hearing  of this evidence the devil can quote the bible I guess.  Unless  they hear it from an expert they are not particularly interested of

course  if you dont have an expert  you got problems really.  I am also  a little bit

and I have lived with this all my life the orthodontic community treat me a bit like a

leper  really. You know.  I am treated  as wrong and unable  to make  my case.  You know..treated like a leper I cannot  make  a comment without  people  saying  there is no evidence for what I say. But I cant present the logic behind  it. The philosophical ground  behind  it. I just don’t. No-one bites. Anyway  yeah I had better  get on ...Go and engage  people in conversation ….

(b) I am working as hard as I can but I have  a lot of hassle on my plate. It is really

hard work to do what I do. I do a 10 hour day: I think it’s been a light day. I think per hour I’m probably paid like hygienist. So yeah I’d like some help really I would. Post my videos”

The statement in (a) above  was (i) inaccurate (ii) misleading (iii) deliberately misleading (iv)

misled  the public about  the work of the General  Dental Council

The statement in (b) above  was (i) misleading (ii)dishonest

Allegation 6

Dr Mew’s YouTube video shows  a link to a website called  Orthodontic Outrage. In post by Dr

Mew on http://www.orthodontic-outrage.com/informed-consent-prior-to-surgery/ he makes the comment below  which reads-

(a) Modern techniques such as Facial Growth Guidance and Orthotropics can avoid the need for surgery in most children. However most orthodontists and surgeons are untrained in these methods and suppress this information from their patients. They are supported in this by the General Dental Council, the body that is supposed to look after the interests of the public. As a result many patients receive major and potentially life threatening surgery quite unnecessarily”

The above  statements were (i) misleading (ii) inaccurate (iii) deliberately misleading (iv) without  scientific evidence (v) made to induce others to undertake treatment with Dr Mew I his clinic  (vi) were potentially harmful to patients  (v) unprofessional (vi) comprise advice that you are not qualified to give (vii) bring the General Dental  Council into disrepute

John Mew is referring to images of facial damage on this web site, it is his site not mine and I am not responsible for all the content on the site, so that allegation is irrelevant.

Allegation 7

On 16 February 2018 and after his suspension from BOS, Dr Mew posted a YouTube video to his YouTube Channel called “Taylor Swift Facial and Dental Analysis by Dr Mikein the video Dr Mew analyses a photograph of the pop star Taylor  Swift, which contains the following material –

(a)  In the description of the video, Dr Mew wrote Can we help Taylor? She is a very talented star who looks great but could she look better and might her previous orthodontics be putting her upper front teeth at risk?

(b)  Dr Mew stated -“Taylor …we’ve  got to work on our body and oral posture and function. Specifically we look at the combination of mewing and the abs walk. But the general space improvements we can make. My concern would be. Taylor, if you are watching this is if you have fixed retainers or you put retainers in at night, you are effectively holding your teeth forward out of your balance zone. We know that the teeth the bones and the gum sit in the balance zone and if you change this artificially with orthodontics that’s fine its made the teeth straight but now you are holding it there with the retainer. So, you are holding the teeth out of the balance zone in time

if you are not careful and you continue that swallow pattern and your posture the bone and gums will want to return to that balance zone leaving the teeth out of the balance zone so I would watch the gum and bone level on your upper front teeth. That would be my concern my actual, acute concern for you anyway all the best love your music

In the video Dr Mew recommended treatment for Taylor  Swift as a patient  which  was (a) not requested (b) for which there was no evidence-based diagnosis (c) no clinical  indication.

Allegation 8

On 12 January 2018, Dr Mew posted a video to his YouTube Channel for Mark Zuckerberg the founder of Facebook. The video was entitled “Mark you may well die a decade early and this is preventable; by Dr Mike MewThis post was viewed 11,239 times. In the post, Dr

Mew states “you need to know these messages” and he made  the following statement –

(a) Almost  everyone who uses one of these will get worse, worse, worse” [referring to sleep apnoea  treatments]

(b) Dr Mew diagnosed Mark Zuckerman with sleep  apnoea  and stated  that the treatments do not work (not sure that this is true).

(c)  Dr Mew recommended- The alternative come and see me or talk to me”

(d) I believe I am getting with best facial changes in adults yet achieved

(e) I am also certainly in my opinion getting the best facial changes upswing in facial form in young children. I mean my results are outstanding yeah they are outstanding”

(f)  I am not meaning to be rude I am a doctor I am here to help people. I am here to make people better

(g) I presented in Philadelphia and I said to people that I thought 10 per cent of people over 60 in North America and probably Western Europe are doing to die

10 years earlier because of sleep apnoea and its consequences”

(h) I could tip that scale for everyone else on the planet”

The diagnosis of Mark  Zuckerberg’s alleged sleep apnoea  was (i) inappropriate (ii)

irresponsible (iii) unprofessional (iv) inaccurate (v)without clinical evidence

The statements in (a) (d) (e) (f) (g) and (h) were (i) inaccurate (ii) misleading (iii) deliberately misleading (iv) made to induce others to attend  Dr Mew’s clinic

Allegation 9

On 10 November 2017 Dr Mew posted a video to his YouTube Channel entitled  “The  Abs Walk”  which had 18,466  views. In the video, Dr Mew appears to give the suggestion that he is qualified to help patients to improve posture  and abdominal muscles –

(a)   Someone with good head and neck posture is far less likely to have sleep apnoea.

We know people with sleep apnoea tend to usually gain calories, to gain pounds” (b) This goes way beyond orthodontics and I do this for greatly the benefit of the world

and trying to get a message out there because I think it is important to get that....a lot

of people follow me”.

(c)  During  the video, Dr Mew shows  of a group of black men appearing to be slaves  and chained by the neck and uses the words “A shameful history without question but these guys have got great abs” and “I bet you that they have never been down the gym and they have never done a single sit up they are just naturally like that

The slave issue is discussed (see the replies to the comment highlighted via this link) in the discussion below.  These are Australian Aboriginals, not slaves, there was no history of slavery in Australia that I am aware of.  There were, however, not always treated well which I elude to in my comments.

The statement in (a) above  is (i) inaccurate (ii) misleading (iii) not an area of medicine on which Dr Mew is qualified to advise  patients

The statement in (c) above  was (i) unprofessional (ii) offensive

Allegation 10

On 23/03/2017 , Dr Mew posted a video to his YouTube entitled “Preventing Children from

Needing Orthodontic Treatment in the Future”  In the video Dr Mew  suggested that orthodontic problems may be avoided or reduced by baby led weaning. He also suggested a means of aiding a choking baby that is contrary to the recommended paediatric guidelines.

In the video Dr Mew made the following remarks-

(a) “babies should go from breast or bottle to something solid. Try not to give them soft food”

(b) “Give them hard food…Also large lumps of hard food – at this age it is very difficult to choke- their hyoid hasn’t dropped and if she (the baby) does take something on

board that causes her to choke, right now, it’s very easy to turn her upside down and give her a sharp smack on the back”

The statements in (a) & (b) above are (i)inaccurate (ii) misleading (iii) not an area of medicine on which Dr Mew is qualified to advise patients (iv) Dr Mew’s advice has the potential to cause harm or death to a baby

This is the concept of BLW (Baby Led Weaning),  these are controversial issues but well discussed in other groups, suggesting no net increase in choking.  Also this video was posted some time before initial allegation was raised.

Allegation 11

On 27 September 2017, Dr Mew posted a video to his YouTube entitled “Adult treatment video diary1” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAhsqogVMel

This video is a taped discussion  with a patient who is complaining  of breathing issues.  The consultation   has  a  general  direction  of  outlining  a  treatment  plan  but  throughout   the consultation  Mr Mew appears  to attempt to exaggerate  the symptoms. At 1.2 he states that ENT treatment philosophy is symptomatic and implies that it does not relate to the cause of a problem.  Importantly,  at 3.20 the patient states that his resting oxygen saturation was 85%. It is submitted that if the oxygen saturation is below 90% this is defined as critical and the patient should be seen by a medical practitioner. (British Thoracic Society guideline for oxygen use in Adults in Healthcare and Emergency Settings.)   Mr Mew appeared to find this amusing and did not immediately address this problem. He suggested that at course of orthodontic treatment would be provided. This would take several months.

(i)  The statements regarding the ENT treatment are not in an area of medicine on which Dr Mew is qualified to advise patients.

(ii) Dr Mew’s video was misleading and had the potential to cause harm to patients

Fred is currently under the care of an ENT department, and is very unhappy with the treatment provided.

Allegation 12

On 6th September 2017 Dr Mew posted the first part of a video diary, there were two follow up videos posted on 27th September and 4th October

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWyjaEC2rFo&t=15s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iScDrnbVd3w&t=65s  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAE3vbOoE6c

(if the last link does not work try here)

These are a series of videos showing a patient who is having treatment to improve the function of his face.

 

(i)         This type of care recommended by Dr Mew is not based on evidence

(ii)        The type of care recommended by Dr Mew breaches  GDC standard 7.1.1.

(iii)        The video concerned a vulnerable patient who is being treated unnecessarily. (iv)           The treatment is inconsistent with Dr Mew’s  other statements that you cannot

change the face after 8-10 years old.

(v)        The video is (a) misleading (b) untrue and (c) Dr Mew displayed conduct which is unprofessional and I or irresponsible

The case is progressing very nicely with clear and obvious upswing in facial form.  Stunning really.

Recommendations

It is important that the Board does not pre-judge Dr Mew. Although there is a great deal of video evidence which, on the face of it, looks concerning, it is important that Dr Mew is given the opportunity to put forward his explanations, his experience and views.

Dr Mew should be asked to provide a response to all of the comments in this report and in particular the allegations that have been set out above.

The response should initially be provided in detail and in writing. I would suggest that Dr Mew is given two weeks in which to provide a written response. A written response will ensure that the board of BOS fully understand Dr Mew’s position and that there are no misunderstandings.

Thereafter consideration should be given to oral representations from Dr Mew. This will enable the Board to ask further questions about his written response.

If Dr Mew can satisfactorily respond to the allegations, he will need to have his suspension lifted.

Dr Alison Murray

Chair of Ethics, British Orthodontic Society

28 March 2018

This document has been automatically transcribed by Adobe software which may have caused some minor inaccuracies.

British Orthodontic Society allegations, original

This post is informative and relates to this video 

Investigatory Report : Dr Michael Gordon Mew

GDC Registration Number- 69138

Introduction

 

  1. I have been instructed by the Board of the British Orthodontic Society (“BOS”) to carry out an investigation into the conduct of Dr Michael Gordon Mew (“Dr Mew”) arising from a number of social media posts that have been published in the field of Orthodontics and which purport to advertise his practice called Orthodontic Health Limited trading as Orthotropics.
  2. I am the Chair of the Ethics Committee of BOS and an experienced Orthodontist. I am Consultant Orthodontist at XXXXXXXXXXXX and a former President of BOS. I have 29 years’ experience as a Consultant Orthodontist.
  1. In carrying out this investigation, I have kept an open mind and I have based my findings on the social media postings made by Dr Mew from September 2017 to I have not considered all of the social media activity by Dr Mew but have listed below the video recordings that I have watched and postings I have seen in this matter.

The British Orthodontic  Society

  1. The British Orthodontic Society (“BOS”) is a charity which strives to promote the study and practice of orthodontics, to maintain and improve professional standards in orthodontics and to encourage research and education in orthodontics. In doing so, BOS seeks to improve the quality of dental care for the benefit of patients. The charity’s ultimate beneficiaries are therefore patients, and benefits to patients are provided through the advancement of knowledge, practice and standards in the
  2. The British Orthodontic Society is governed by the rules and regulations set down in its company Memorandum and Articles of Association, originally dated 14 January 1999 and updated subsequently with the last update agreed at the BOS AGM 22 September 2012.
  3. Membership of BOS is not a requirement for orthodontists but many orthodontists choose to join our All Orthodontists are registered with the General Dental Council.

Dr Mew

  1. The purpose of this report is to investigate concerns raised by members of the society that Dr Mew has behaved in a way that essentially amounts to misconduct and I has brought the orthodontic profession into disrepute by making a number of misleading, inaccurate statements about his skills, experience and the treatment  that he can offer to patients.
  2. Dr Mew is an experienced Orthodontist and practices in Purley in Surrey. He has a large online media presence and has undertaken a number of lectures on Orthotropics which is something which was developed by Dr Mew’s father, DrJohn Mew. Dr John Mew was erased from the register of the General Dental Council in December 2017. In undertaking this investigation, I have focussed solely on the conduct of Dr Michael Mew and not that of his father.

Action taken by BOS to date

  1. Dr Michael Mew was suspended in September 2017 under Article 17 of BOS’ Articles of Association which read –

“The Executive may suspend any member whose conduct in its opinion is contrary to the interests of the Society, or who fails to comply with these Articles or with the

Rules and Bye-Laws

 

  1. The conduct leading to suspension arose from a video that Dr Mew posted on Social Media which the BOS were concerned had, or could have the potential to mislead patients or cause harm.
  2. The video was posted to YouTube on 6 September 2017 and to Dr Mew’s YouTube Channel which contains a link to his clinic, Orthodontic Health Limited in Purley in Surrey.

Action post suspension

  1. On 16 November 2017, Dr Mew wrote to BOS to ask for further information about the conduct and requested that BOS should quote the very words” that he used which caused offence. The purpose of this report is to provide Dr Mew with the requested information.

Issues that have arisen since suspension

  1. At the time of his suspension, Dr Mew was requested to remove the video in question but he has chosen not to do
  2. Additionally, since Dr Mew’s suspension, Dr Mew has posted a number of additional videos to his YouTube account I his Channel which will also be considered in this report and which are a cause of concern.
  3.  In producing this report, I wish to make it clear that neither I nor anyone at BOS has any issue with a member raising concerns or putting forward evidence-based suggestions to improve orthodontic care in the United BOS and its members welcome research and scientific evidence which will improve the lives of orthodontic patients and improve care.

The General Dental Council Standards

  1. As an Orthodontist, Dr Mew is subject to the General Dental Council Standards
  2. The relevant standards that apply to Dr Mew’s alleged conduct are set out below

1.2  “You must treat every patient with dignity and respect at all times”

1.2.1 You should be aware of how your tone of voice and body language might be perceived.

1.2.2 You should take patients’ preferences into account and be sensitive to their individual needs and values.

1.2.3 You must treat patients with kindness and compassion.

1.2.4 You should manage patients’ dental pain and anxiety appropriately

1.3 “You must be honest and act with integrity”

You must justify the trust that patients, the public and your colleagues  place in you by always acting honestly and fairly in your dealings with them. This applies to any business or education activities in which you are involved as well as to your professional dealings.

You must make sure you do not bring the profession into disrepute

You must make sure that any advertising, promotional material or other information that you produce is accurate and not misleading,  and complies with the GDC’s guidance on ethical advertising

7.1 You must provide good quality care based on current evidence and authoritative guidance

You must find out about current evidence and best practice which affect your work, premises, equipment and business and follow them.

If you deviate from established practice and guidance, you should record the reasons why and be able to justify your decision

7.2 You must work within your knowledge. skills. professional competence and abilities

You must only carry out a task or a type of treatment if you are appropriately trained, competent, confident and indemnified. Training can take many different forms. You must be sure that you have undertaken training which is appropriate

for you and equips you with the appropriate knowledge and skills to perform a task safely.

You should only deliver treatment and care if you are confident that you have had the necessary training and are competent to do so. If you are not confident to provide treatment, you must refer the patient to an appropriately trained colleag

Dr Mew’s YouTube Channel

  1. Dr Mew’s YouTube Channel can be found as follows­

https://www.youtube.com/user/Orthotropics/featured. The channel was set up on 27

October 2011. As of 23 March 2018, the Channel had 18,466 subscribers to the

Channel.

  1. In addition, the YouTube Channel connects to Dr Mew’s clinic’s Facebook Account to which he also posts the YouTube In addition to the videos on Facebook, Dr Mew’s clinic posts a number of public postings.
  2. In conducting this investigation, I have viewed a series of YouTube videos posted by Dr

Mew on YouTube and to his own YouTube Channel and social media posts as follow

 

DATE TITLE VIEWS SUMMMARY OF CONTENT DESCRIPTION
6 September

2017

Orthodontics Beyond

Teeth

4962 Interview  with Dr Mew, his father and Dr Steven Lin Subject of Dr Mew’s suspension
24 October

2017

V Log 17,10,24

Getting a Bit

Annoyed

4079 Comment on suspension from BOS, father’s suspension from GDC and earnings
10 November

2017

The Abs Walk 18,466 Advice on how to improve your

 

 

abdominal muscles
12 January

2018

Mark you may well die a decade early and this is preventable; by Dr Mike Mew 11,239 Advice to Mark Zuckerberg, Founder of Facebook from photographs of his face
16 February

2018

Taylor Swift, Facial and Dental Analysis by Dr Mike – with a purpose 5,453 Advice to Taylor Swift from a photograph of her face
28/09/2017 A Response to Mark

Wertheimer

About

whether there is evidence

for

Orthotropics

23 March

2017

Preventing Children from Needing Orthodontic Treatment in the Future 2,331 Suggesting that orthodontic problems may be avoided or reduced by baby led weaning
27/09/2017 Treatment of Patient

(see BOS letter of 16

October 2017)

7,404 Patient with breathing problem
09/09/2017 Treatment of Patient

2 (see BOS letter of

16 October 2017)

2981 Orthotropic journey- Sam’s video diary 1,2 &3

Summary Potential Misconduct

My investigation was confined to the reviewing of the above material. There are a vast quantity of videos on Dr Mew’s YouTube Channel and Facebook account and it has not been possible to screen them.

I had a number of concerns about Dr Mew when I viewed his videos and postings. I was expecting Dr Mew’s methods to be rather unorthodox and approached the materials with an open mind. Having reviewed his postings and videos I have grave concerns about Dr Mew’s fitness to practise and it is important that Dr Mew engages with BOS so that the Board can understand the reasons for his conduct.

From the videos, Dr Mew appears to offer advice to patients and the public which has no scientific basis.  Whilst on occasions, Dr Mew has stated openly that orthotropics is a system which needs a huge amount of research, he certainly seems to utilise social media and YouTube to induce patients to come to him for treatment. He openly states in his YouTube video “A reply to Mark Werthheimer” – Im not here to defend it, clearly I advertise the

system to get patients to come and see me”. There are links on the YouTube account to his practice and in some of the videos such as the Mark Zuckerberg video he specifically asks Mr Zuckerberg to come and see him.

As well as providing what appears on occasions to be inaccurate advice, Dr Mew seems to stray into an area of medicine for which he seemingly has no experience such as orthopaedics, and paediatrics.

On other occasions, Dr Mew’s comments appear to be highly offensive including reference to patients as “ugly” and offering advice from photographs to celebrities giving diagnoses based on their photographs.

I thought that in fairness to Dr Mew the most sensible way forward was to draft a number of specific allegations and invite him to respond in writing. This will enable Dr Mew to put forward a very clear explanation for his conduct and allow the Board to take this into account in considering  further action (if any). I know that Dr Mew is now represented by Hempsons Solicitors and will no doubt be able to take advice on his response to the allegations

The Allegations

Having reviewed the evidence listed in the table above, I have drafted the following allegations to which I would ask Dr Mew to respond in writing.

Allegation 1:

 

  1. In a video posted to his YouTube Channel on 6 September, Dr Mew made thefollowing comments –

(a) “Yes I think that most orthodontists are still focussing on the alignment of the teeth and not the health of the face”

(b) Dr Mew’s father stated “I think that that most orthodontists arent aware that incorrect treatment can actually change and possibly even damage the facial appearance so it’s become much more important over recent years as people are generally becoming much more concerned about how they look” You agreed stating “Yes I think that they are going beyond concerns of how their teeth look to how their face looks”

(c) “Before we could have straight teeth or teeth could be moved, people didnt think about having their teeth moved or straightened but now it becomes apparent that you can influence facial growth”

(d) Dr Mew’s father stated “I do think that you should look at this example behind me of how orthodontics can actually damage or improve faces there are plenty of examples. Many of the public cant imagine that merely moving the teeth will have much effect on the face but it undoubtedly  can and does” Dr Mewagreed  and replied “Yeh I think we need to expand a little on moving teeth”‘

The above statements were (i) misleading (ii) inaccurate (iii) deliberately misleading (iv) without scientific evidence (v) made to induce others to undertake treatment with you I your clinic (vi) bring orthodontics into disrepute.

Allegation 2 :

In a video posted to his YouTube Channel on 6th September Dr Mew suggested that the optimum time for treating patients was at the age of 5 or 6. Dr Mew made the following comments –

(a) “If a patient walks into my office over the age of 8 theyre into the area where its going to be compromise it depends on how hard they work

(b) “If someone comes in at aged 5, 61 can almost get a complete correction.

(c) If someone comes in younger I can give them advice on how they can correct themselves”

The above statements were (i) misleading (ii) inaccurate (iii) deliberately misleading (iv) without scientific evidence (v) made to induce others to undertake treatment with you I your clinic (vi) were potentially harmful to patients or potential patients

Allegation 3:

23. 1n a video posted to his YouTube Channel on 16 October 2017, Dr Mew gave the impression that children with crooked teeth were more likely to be less intelligent, were unable to breathe through their nose, were full of allergies, were more likely to have conditions of the gut and behavioural problem as well as sleep Dr Mew made or agreed with the following statements –

(a) We are going to talk about some areas for intervention as well were talking about sleep apnoea”

(b) Dr Lin replied Well exactly so the patients that we’re seeing so the kids that can’t breathe though their nose, they are full of allergies, and these are reverberating

to far more conditions in the gut, conditions with their sleep, conditions with their behaviour unfortunately”. Dr Michael Mew replied Yes intelligence” and “the intelligence of your child through the rest of its life

The above statements were (i) misleading (ii) inaccurate (iii) deliberately misleading (iv) without scientific evidence (v) made to induce others to undertake treatment with you I your clinic (vi) were potentially harmful to patients (v) unprofessional (vi) offensive

Allegation 4:

In a video posted to his YouTube Channel on 16 October 2017, Dr Mew gave the impression that children with straight teeth were better looking and children with crooked teeth were worst looking and that those children with good health were good looking with straight teeth

(a)  Dr Mew’s father commented “/think simply  put if the face grows  correctly  and you start treatment you can fairly reliably  promise that if you start correctly  all your other problems will go and youll have a good looking  child with good health and that is what most people  really want and we have to be careful  not to get side tracked  into too many  of the other issues that will go with thaf’  Dr Mew appears to agree with this and his reply is- “We balance good looking and healthy faces which is the same thing.  Saying people’s faces are good looking is an emotive thing. Sometimes doesn’t come across well particularly if you have a child that doesn’t have a nice-looking face”

(b)  Dr Lin says “But  as you say the idea of health and the idea of being good looking

go hand in hand’. Dr Mew replies “It’s  the same. It’s the same thing- it’s just a different  view of the same  thing …. /like John  Flutters  comment when  he sees someone with crooked teeth he knows  they are not healthy”

(c) Dr Lin states “we can see exactly  what’s  happening throughout the body just by

looking  at the mouth” Dr Mew’s reply “yes”

The above statements were (i) misleading (ii) inaccurate (iii) deliberately misleading (iv) without scientific evidence (v) made to induce others to undertake treatment with you I your clinic (vi) were potentially harmful to patients (v) unprofessional (vi) offensive

Allegation 5

  1. In a video of 24 October 2017, Dr Mew referred to his suspension from BOS, his father’s suspension by the GDC and suggested that (i) the GDC had mishandled his father’s suspension (ii) that the salary he earns was around the same as a hygienist.

The video contained the following statements –

(a) “Dad’s  suspended from the GOG so he can’t go back and work. You have actually taken someone’s livelihood away actually  the GOG has taken someone’s livelihood away.  The suspension was upheld  because he did admit  that he had done the wrong thing now I could  scientifically prove that he did do the right thing but I don’t get that opportunity. You dont get that opportunity in court because no expert  no case.  You don’t have an expert stating  your case you are likely to lose. The courts  get bored  of hearing  of this evidence the devil can quote the bible I guess.  Unless  they hear it from an expert they are not particularly interested of

course  if you dont have an expert  you got problems really.  I am also  a little bit

and I have lived with this all my life the orthodontic community treat me a bit like a

leper  really. You know.  I am treated  as wrong and unable  to make  my case.  You know..treated like a leper I cannot  make  a comment without  people  saying  there is no evidence for what I say. But I cant present the logic behind  it. The philosophical ground  behind  it. I just don’t. No-one bites. Anyway  yeah I had better  get on ...Go and engage  people in conversation ….

(b) I am working as hard as I can but I have  a lot of hassle on my plate. It is really

hard work to do what I do. I do a 10 hour day: I think it’s been a light day. I think per hour I’m probably paid like hygienist. So yeah I’d like some help really I would. Post my videos”

The statement in (a) above  was (i) inaccurate (ii) misleading (iii) deliberately misleading (iv)

misled  the public about  the work of the General  Dental Council

The statement in (b) above  was (i) misleading (ii)dishonest

Allegation 6

Dr Mew’s YouTube video shows  a link to a website called  Orthodontic Outrage. In post by Dr

Mew on http://www.orthodontic-outrage.com/informed-consent-prior-to-surgery/ he makes the comment below  which reads-

(a) Modern techniques such as Facial Growth Guidance and Orthotropics can avoid the need for surgery in most children. However most orthodontists and surgeons are untrained in these methods and suppress this information from their patients. They are supported in this by the General Dental Council, the body that is supposed to look after the interests of the public. As a result many patients receive major and potentially life threatening surgery quite unnecessarily”

The above  statements were (i) misleading (ii) inaccurate (iii) deliberately misleading (iv) without  scientific evidence (v) made to induce others to undertake treatment with Dr Mew I his clinic  (vi) were potentially harmful to patients  (v) unprofessional (vi) comprise advice that you are not qualified to give (vii) bring the General Dental  Council into disrepute

Allegation 7

On 16 February 2018 and after his suspension from BOS, Dr Mew posted a YouTube video to his YouTube Channel called “Taylor Swift Facial and Dental Analysis by Dr Mikein the video Dr Mew analyses a photograph of the pop star Taylor  Swift, which contains the following material –

(a)  In the description of the video, Dr Mew wrote Can we help Taylor? She is a very talented star who looks great but could she look better and might her previous orthodontics be putting her upper front teeth at risk?

(b)  Dr Mew stated -“Taylor …we’ve  got to work on our body and oral posture and function. Specifically we look at the combination of mewing and the abs walk. But the general space improvements we can make. My concern would be. Taylor, if you are watching this is if you have fixed retainers or you put retainers in at night, you are effectively holding your teeth forward out of your balance zone. We know that the teeth the bones and the gum sit in the balance zone and if you change this artificially with orthodontics that’s fine its made the teeth straight but now you are holding it there with the retainer. So, you are holding the teeth out of the balance zone in time

if you are not careful and you continue that swallow pattern and your posture the bone and gums will want to return to that balance zone leaving the teeth out of the balance zone so I would watch the gum and bone level on your upper front teeth. That would be my concern my actual, acute concern for you anyway all the best love your music

In the video Dr Mew recommended treatment for Taylor  Swift as a patient  which  was (a) not requested (b) for which there was no evidence-based diagnosis (c) no clinical  indication.

Allegation 8

On 12 January 2018, Dr Mew posted a video to his YouTube Channel for Mark Zuckerberg the founder of Facebook. The video was entitled “Mark you may well die a decade early and this is preventable; by Dr Mike MewThis post was viewed 11,239 times. In the post, Dr

Mew states “you need to know these messages” and he made  the following statement –

(a) “Almost  everyone who uses one of these will get worse, worse, worse” [referring to sleep apnoea  treatments]

(b) Dr Mew diagnosed Mark Zuckerman with sleep  apnoea  and stated  that the treatments do not work

(c)  Dr Mew recommended- The alternative come and see me or talk to me”

(d) “I believe I am getting with best facial changes in adults yet achieved

(e) I am also certainly in my opinion getting the best facial changes upswing in facial form in young children. I mean my results are outstanding yeah they are outstanding”

(f)  “I am not meaning to be rude I am a doctor I am here to help people. I am here to make people better

(g) “I presented in Philadelphia and I said to people that I thought 10 per cent of people over 60 in North America and probably Western Europe are doing to die

10 years earlier because of sleep apnoea and its consequences”

(h) “I could tip that scale for everyone else on the planet”

The diagnosis of Mark  Zuckerberg’s alleged sleep apnoea  was (i) inappropriate (ii)

irresponsible (iii) unprofessional (iv) inaccurate (v)without clinical evidence

The statements in (a) (d) (e) (f) (g) and (h) were (i) inaccurate (ii) misleading (iii) deliberately misleading (iv) made to induce others to attend  Dr Mew’s clinic

Allegation 9

On 10 November 2017 Dr Mew posted a video to his YouTube Channel entitled  “The  Abs Walk”  which had 18,466  views. In the video, Dr Mew appears to give the suggestion that he is qualified to help patients to improve posture  and abdominal muscles –

(a)   Someone with good head and neck posture is far less likely to have sleep apnoea.

We know people with sleep apnoea tend to usually gain calories, to gain pounds” (b) This goes way beyond orthodontics and I do this for greatly the benefit of the world

and trying to get a message out there because I think it is important to get that....a lot

of people follow me”.

(c)  During  the video, Dr Mew shows  of a group of black men appearing to be slaves  and chained by the neck and uses the words “A shameful history without question but these guys have got great abs” and “I bet you that they have never been down the gym and they have never done a single sit up they are just naturally like that

The statement in (a) above  is (i) inaccurate (ii) misleading (iii) not an area of medicine on which Dr Mew is qualified to advise  patients

The statement in (c) above  was (i) unprofessional (ii) offensive

Allegation 10

On 23/03/2017 , Dr Mew posted a video to his YouTube entitled “Preventing Children from

Needing Orthodontic Treatment in the Future”  In the video Dr Mew  suggested that

orthodontic problems may be avoided or reduced by baby led weaning. He also suggested a means of aiding a choking baby that is contrary to the recommended  paediatric guidelines.

In the video Dr Mew made the following remarks-

(a) “babies should go from breast or bottle to something solid. Try not to give them soft food”

(b) “Give them hard food…Also large lumps of hard food – at this age it is very difficult to choke- their hyoid hasn’t dropped and if she (the baby) does take something on

board that causes her to choke, right now, it’s very easy to turn her upside down and give her a sharp smack on the back”

The statements in (a) & (b) above are (i)inaccurate (ii) misleading (iii) not an area of medicine on which Dr Mew is qualified to advise patients (iv) Dr Mew’s advice has the potential to cause harm or death to a baby

Allegation 11

On 27 September 2017, Dr Mew posted a video to his YouTube entitled “Adult treatment video diary1” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAhsqogVMel

This video is a taped discussion  with a patient who is complaining  of breathing issues.  The consultation   has  a  general  direction  of  outlining  a  treatment  plan  but  throughout   the consultation  Mr Mew appears  to attempt to exaggerate  the symptoms. At 1.2 he states that ENT treatment philosophy is symptomatic and implies that it does not relate to the cause of a problem.  Importantly,  at 3.20 the patient states that his resting oxygen saturation was 85%. It is submitted that if the oxygen saturation is below 90% this is defined as critical and the patient should be seen by a medical practitioner. (British Thoracic Society guideline for oxygen use in Adults in Healthcare and Emergency Settings.)   Mr Mew appeared to find this amusing and did not immediately address this problem. He suggested that at course of orthodontic treatment would be provided. This would take several months.

(i)  The statements regarding the ENT treatment are not in an area of medicine on which Dr Mew is qualified to advise patients.

(ii) Dr Mew’s video was misleading and had the potential to cause harm to patients

Allegation 12

On gth September 2017 Dr Mew posted the first part of a video diary, there were two follow up videos posted on 27th September and 4th October

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWyjaEC2rFo&t=15s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iScDrnbVd3w&t=65s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAE3vbOoE6c

These are a series of videos showing a patient who is having treatment to improve the function of his face.

  1. U) This type of care recommended by Dr Mew is not based on evidence

(ii)        The type of care recommended by Dr Mew breaches  GDC standard 7.1.1.

(iii)        The video concerned a vulnerable patient who is being treated unnecessarily. (iv)           The treatment is inconsistent with Dr Mew’s  other statements that you cannot

change the face after 8-10 years old.

(v)        The video is (a) misleading (b) untrue and (c) Dr Mew displayed conduct which is unprofessional and I or irresponsible

Recommendations

It is important that the Board does not pre-judge Dr Mew. Although there is a great deal of video evidence which, on the face of it, looks concerning, it is important that Dr Mew is given the opportunity to put forward his explanations, his experience and views.

Dr Mew should be asked to provide a response to all of the comments in this report and in particular the allegations that have been set out above.

The response should initially be provided in detail and in writing. I would suggest that Dr Mew is given two weeks in which to provide a written response. A written response will ensure that the board of BOS fully understand Dr Mew’s position and that there are no misunderstandings.

Thereafter consideration should be given to oral representations from Dr Mew. This will enable the Board to ask further questions about his written response.

If Dr Mew can satisfactorily respond to the allegations, he will need to have his suspension lifted.

Dr Alison Murray

Chair of Ethics, British Orthodontic Society

28 March 2018

 

Decision against Dr Mike Mew by Jonathan Sandler of the British Orthodontic Society

This post is informative and relates to this video

 

Dr Michael Mew

C/o Hempsons Solicitors

Hempsons House

40 Villiers Street

London

WC2N 6NJ

 

3 October 2018

 

Dear Dr Mew

Outcome of Wednesday’s meeting

I write further to the meeting which took place on Wednesday 26 September 2018 at 2pm in the QE2 Centre in London prior to the Board Meeting of the same date. You were accompanied to the meeting by your father, Mr John Mew.

The meeting was called under Article 17 of the Articles of Association which reads – “The Executive may suspend any member whose conduct in its opinion is contrary to the interests of the Society, or who fails to comply with these Articles or with the Rules and Bye-Laws. The Executive may recommend to the Board that the suspended member be expelled from the Society. No member shall be expelled by the Board unless and until he has been given notice in writing of the resolution to

expel him and given an opportunity to make representations orally or in writing to the Board”. You were suspended in September 2017 and you elected to present representations orally to the Board.

The interests and aims of the Society are set out in our Mission Statement on our website and are to strive “to promote the study and practice of orthodontics, to maintain and improve professional standards in orthodontics and to encourage research and education in orthodontics. In doing so, BOS seeks to improve the quality of medical care for the benefit of patients” As part of these aims, is our need and desire to provide accurate information to patients, thereby ensuring high standards of patient safety and quality of care.

Principal Address and Registered Office: 12 Bridewell Place, London EC4V 6AP Telephone: 020 7353 8680 Fax: 020 7353 8682  Email: ann.wright@bos.org.uk BOS is a Company Limited by Guarantee Registered in England and Wales, Company Number 03695486

 

Your representations

At your request, the meeting was audio recorded. You were also provided with a hard copy of the Hearing Pack which consisted of documents that you had been provided with previously to include the investigatory reports and correspondence with your solicitors, Messrs Hempsons. I attach a copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting as requested by you.

We would not normally allow accompaniment by a relative to the hearing, but we agreed to this for your assistance. We also agreed to provide you with a projector to present your representations at your request but you not to use this equipment.

At the meeting, you were given the opportunity to put forward everything you wanted to say to the Board, for the Board to properly consider the issue of your proposed expulsion.  You read out a prepared statement. The Board listened to what you had to say and there was a short break whilst the Board co-ordinated their questions to avoid repetition. You were then asked some questions about your presentation and about the allegations which had been sent to you in March 2018.

Having listened to what you had to say and having considered the matter in full, the unanimous decision of the Board is that in our opinion, your conduct is contrary to the interests of the Society. It is the Board’s opinion that your social media campaign has made a number of statements which

have misled or have the potential to mislead patients and the public. The Board considers that your actions through your social media campaign constitute a potential risk to patients (both physical and psychological) and are inconsistent with the Society’s aims of maintaining and improving professional standards to improve the quality of patient care.

 

Reasons for the decision

Throughout the hearing you repeatedly alleged that the Society was trying to silence you because you had unorthodox views. This is untrue. As the chair of the meeting, Professor Sandler made clear to you that the Society promotes research into Orthodontics and welcomes alternative views. We accept that Orthodontics is not a perfect science and we are constantly seeking to improve our methods and critique ourselves in line with evidence-based practice.

We have no issue with unorthodox views and ideas for change which is how Orthodontics developed the first place. New ideas however, should be backed by scientific research, with evidence based on patient studies. We have seen no such evidence or patient studies from you to date, nor did you present such evidence during the meeting when given the opportunity to do so. On the contrary,

you stated – “I should not have to provide any evidence as a registered specialist, and a member of your organisation suspended or not”. These are your hypotheses and therefore the onus is on you is to provide the evidence to support them using recognised scientific methods.

Whilst we do not have any issue with your alternative views on Orthodontics, we do take issue with your social media campaign which, in our opinion, misleads the public, patients and advises on areas of medicine (to include Orthopaedics, Paediatrics, ENT and Neurology) in which you admitted you have no expertise. Accordingly, this is against the aims of the Society and causes potential risks to patients / patient safety. The social media campaign that you have run seems to us to demonstrate an unhealthy obsession with publicity to the detriment of patients.  You were asked by the Society to take down a number of your videos in the past but you have refused to do so.

The allegations

You were given a set of very specific allegations in March 2018 set out in a detailed report prepared by Alison Murray, our Chair of Ethics. You have never provided a full response to those allegations, just a blanket denial prior to the hearing, despite being asked to do so. The meeting on Wednesday

26 September 2018 was going to be the first opportunity we had to hear your detailed responses to those specific allegations. Notwithstanding this, your responses at the hearing were vague and elusive.

You claimed that you were not able to respond to a large number of allegations (namely allegations

1-4, 7-9 and 11) because you stated this would require “a discussion on the aetiology of malocclusion and quite possibly one on the pathology”.  All of the allegations in this category concerned what appeared to be clear evidence of misleading and untrue information provided to the public and patients, via your social media sites. It is not accepted by the Board that you were unable to respond to these questions and there was every opportunity for you to do so. It was very much felt that you were putting forward the need for a debate on orthodontics as a “smokescreen” to avoid responding to the specific allegations.

In relation to other allegations you said that you would not respond because you would be later providing information to the General Dental Council (“GDC”). For example, regarding the concerns about your social media on baby led weaning, you stated – “I am not going to make a full defence to this as it is very likely that I will have to do this, make this again, to the GDC and I’m duly suspicious that any comments that I may make now maybe used against me at the GDC

You also claimed in relation to allegations 11 and 12 (which were specific concerns about patient care) that there was evidence to assist you, but this would involve revealing patient information and this prevented you from responding.  We accept that patient confidentiality is extremely important, but there was no need to disclose the patient’s personal information and you could have spoken in general terms about the patients’ care, particularly as these queries arose from information already published on your public YouTube videos, presumably with patient consent. Again, this felt like another excuse to avoid dealing with the allegation.

You stated for the first time (despite being provided with the allegations in March 2018) that you had been misquoted in allegation 3, in that you were not stating that people with crooked teeth were less intelligent but that your comment referred to those with sleep apnoea. You confirmed during the meeting that you have no qualifications over and above any of the Orthodontists present at the meeting. You are not medically qualified and have not undergone any additional training in medical disciplines.

None of the Orthodontists at the meeting felt qualified to make a statement that those with sleep apnoea are less intelligent. It is difficult to understand why you feel that you are qualified to do so. Further we understand that there are some studies which claim that sleep apnoea can reduce cognitive ability, but it would be difficult to accept that this affects intelligence. At the meeting our Chair of Ethics (AM) and you (MM) had the following discussion recorded in the transcript –

AM         So you’re saying that patients who have sleep apnoea are more stupid

 

MM       They have cognitive difficulties, yeah

 

AM         You said they were more intelligent if they didn’t have sleep apnoea

 

MM       Well that seems to be what science seems to say yeah

 

Once again, you appear to have strayed into other areas of medicine in which you have no expertise and have made public comments suggesting that those with sleep apnoea are less intelligent on the basis that to you “that seems to be what science seems to say” but without any actual evidence.

In any event, having reviewed the evidence, it would appear to the Board that you were indeed stating in the video that those with crooked teeth are less intelligent. The discussion on the video was about expanding the palate and Dr Lin then speaks about the types of patients he sees. Dr Lin claims that he sees patients with issues with the gut, issues with sleep and behavioural issues. Your comment was that this involves – “the intelligence of your child for the rest of their life

Later in the same video your father suggests that those with crooked teeth are less healthy and you agree with him. We are concerned that you are deliberating using “scare mongering” tactics to lure the public into entering into a course of treatment as well as potentially causing many patients and their carers considerable psychosocial distress. As a Board, we do not consider that these statements on social media are appropriate and they bring Orthodontics into disrepute.

We also thought it was highly inappropriate to release the video with a personal message to Mark Zuckerberg entitled “Mark, you may well die a decade early and this is preventable; by Dr. Mike Mew” and to diagnose Mr Zuckerberg. In the Mark Zuckerberg video you state “I am not meaning to be rude, I am a doctor I am here to help people. I am here to make people better” and at the hearing, it was suggested to you that it could be a criminal offence to hold yourself out as a medical doctor. You went on to state that the public believed you to be a dentist not a doctor. However, this was

one of a number of examples where the Board felt that you had gone beyond your expertise as a

dentist.

In your YouTube video entitled “Preventing Children from Needing Orthodontic Treatment in the Future” you state of weaning babies – “Give them hard food…Also large lumps of hard food – at this age it is very difficult to choke- their hyoid hasn’t dropped and if she (the baby) does take something on board that causes her to choke, right now, it’s very easy to turn her upside down and give her a sharp smack on the back” and you also state “babies should go from breast or bottle to something solid” When questioned about this, you quoted two references which were readily available on the internet but neither source gave the advice you had quoted on social media nor advised that a baby should be given “a sharp smack on the back”. Your recommendation about “a sharp smack on the back” is contrary to resuscitation and choking guidelines. Additionally, your advice which was made publicly could potentially cause injury or death to a child. You said that you had taken the video down but that you stood by its content.

In a YouTube video of 6 September 2017, you suggested that the best time to treat a child was at age 5 or 6 years. When Professor Sandler asked what evidence you had for treating a child of 5 or 6 years creating an opportunity for you to provide evidence-based reasoning, you refused to answer stating “I think we need a debate on the aetiology of malocclusions first of all” and you went onto state “No sorry, you have to demonstrate that I’m wrong . That’s how it works.” The Board were concerned that you felt that you could make claims on a public website to potential patients without any scientific evidence to support these, and that when asked for such evidence you refused to provide it, stating that you needed to be proven wrong.  Again, the Board would emphasise the onus is in fact on you to provide the evidence to support your claims.

Similarly, when questioned as to why you were giving advice to people on their posture, you felt that you could do this because at the start of the videos you had made it clear that you were a dentist.

Insight

Overall, it was highly significant for the Board that at no point during the hearing did you accept that you had done anything incorrect and you did not appear to be willing to reflect on your practise. Despite evidence to the contrary, you specifically stated that you had complied with the GDC rules on advertising, that you stood by the content of your social media campaign and did not accept that you had misled the public or patients.

You did not accept that some of your statements could be misleading or offensive. You stood by your statement that ““I believe I am getting with best facial changes in adults yet achieved” and the comment : “I presented in Philadelphia and I said to people that I thought 10 per cent of people over

60 in North America and probably Western Europe are going to die 10 years earlier because of sleep

apnoea and its consequence…I could tip that scale for everyone else on the planet”. You were not willing to accept that these wide-ranging statements had gone too far.

You did not consider that your photograph of Aboriginal slaves with the comment “A shameful history without question but these guys have got great abs” was offensive, and stood by it. No doubt what you refer to “great abs” would have been obtained through hard work in slavery. These are not remarks that the general public would expect a dentist to make on a public forum.

Conclusion

For the reasons above, it is the unanimous opinion of the Board that you have behaved in a way that is contrary to the aims of the British Orthodontic Society and that your continued membership

would be incompatible with the Society’s values and aims.

We have therefore unanimously decided to expel you from the Society forthwith.

We are sorry that we have had to take this step but the protection of patients and promoting high orthodontic standards is the core of our values. We cannot standby and allow one of our members to flagrantly mislead patients, stray into other medical areas without expertise and risk patient safety.

We note that you have stated that you wish to report the outcome of the meeting on social media and we trust that you will do so accurately recording that the Society was not concerned about your views on Orthodontics, but the concern is misleading patients, advising on areas of medicine outside your expertise and potentially placing patients (to include babies) at risk through the advice you

have given, which was beyond the scope of your orthodontic training.

As a Society, we have never intended to silence you and this was not the basis of your original suspension. Therefore, we would respectively advise you to be mindful of this fact if you decide to report the outcome of the investigation on social media, before making any incorrect or misleading statements.

Kindly acknowledge safe receipt of this letter.

Your faithfully

British Orthodontic Society

Signed by Professor Jonathan Sandler for and on behalf of the Board

 

This document has been automatically transcribed by Adobe software which may have caused some minor inaccuracies.

Why Do Orthodontists Prefer Flat Faces?

Featured Video Play Icon

Research suggests that the public prefer forward growing faces with good cheek bones, but surprisingly Orthodontists appear to prefer flatter faces and retruded cheek bones. Peck and Peck (1970) studded the X-rays of good looking film stars and found that “The general public admires a fuller, more protrusive dento-facial pattern than customary standards” (of Orthodontics).

This finding was later supported by others (Tedesco 1983) who found that “Lay judges seem to be more sensitive, than judges with orthodontic training, to dental-facial esthetic impairment”. This is not just a Western concept because Soh (2005) using a sample of Chinese subjects concluded that “Orthodontists considered a flatter male profile to be most attractive, but Oral Surgeons (who aim to improve the face) preferred a fuller normal Chinese profile”.

Why should Orthodontists think so differently from the rest of us? Part of the reason might be that most of them are taught that it is not possible to increase the forward growth of the face by more than 2 millimetres which hardly shows (Looi and Mills 1986). However Zettergren-Wijk et al (2006) found that if children learnt to close their mouths, their face grew forward by about 10mm, but if the mouth was left open, the jaws became flatter and less attractive.

This finding was later supported by Trotman et al in 1997, who also found the reason why Orthodontic X-rays failed to show this”. Other research (Mew 2015) showed that patients who were trained to keep their mouths closed became very much better looking than patients who had not, but this still does not explain why Orthodontists think flat faces look better. I can only assume that they learn to like the flat faces they create.

 

 

Orthodontists placed this case 12th most successful out of a series of 32 cases but members of the public placed it last.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This case was considered most successful by both the lay public and the orthodontists.

 

The hidden epidemic under our noses by Dr Mike Mew – Thursday 19th July 2019

Ancestral Health Society – 19th – 21st July 2018

Venue

Strand Union Building
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT, USA

More info here

 

Craniofacial Dystrophy – The hidden epidemic under our noses – Why are teeth crooked?

by Dr Mike Mew 

Sometimes a simple question can lead to a journey connecting a wide range of “modern” disease, which gets very personal. The suggestion is that the facial form of few, if any, modern humans fulfil their full genetic potential; due to changes in the environment; and faces which are not the right shape do not work correctly. All our ancestors from the dawn of time, and all the other 5,400 species of mammals, gained and maintained near perfectly aligned teeth, for their entire lives without any orthodontics. They never had “too many teeth” for their jaws.

Craniofacial Dystrophy (CFD) proposes that crooked teeth, sleep apnea, jaw joint disorders, many otolaryngic diseases and forward head posture, are all symptoms of the same underlying problem. There is now also evidence linking this to MS and Alzheimer’s Evolutionary medicine in its clearest for.

 

For more information, click here

Craniofacial Dystrophy – Changing Faces, Curing Malocclusion and Obstructive Sleep Apnea

  • Dr. Mike Mew

Craniofacial Dystrophy – Changing Faces, Curing Malocclusion and Obstructive Sleep Apnea

More info here:

Saturday Morning

Changing faces, and with this curing malocclusion and associated symptoms like OSA (obstructive sleep apnea), will give a better start in life for children and a better approach to treating adults and furthermore it is evidence-based and improves health.

It is more comfortable to believe that the way that your craniofacial form has developed, and the arrangement of your teeth is genetic.  However, the hard scientific evidence clearly shows that this is false. This issue is highly controversial and challenges 100 years of orthodontic theory and dogma. None of our ancestors, none of the members of the other 5,400 species of mammals and few truly indigenous peoples have malocclusion. For hundreds of thousands of years everyone attained and maintained 32 perfectly aligned teeth for their whole life.

 

Modern melting faces: there is now a considerable mismatch between the environment that we evolved to live in and the one that we do live in.

  • The effort required to masticate our food is a fraction of what it was.
  • Transient nasal obstructions are now normal forcing postural modifications which become habits.
  • Pureed foods and a lack of breast feeding interrupt the natural change from an infantile suckle to an adult swallow.

Use it or lose it, modern faces are not fulfilling their full genetic potential, and faces that are not the right shape do not function correctly. We have an endemic of malocclusion, OSA, middle ear infections, deviated nasal septums, sinusitis, forward head posture and temporomandibular disorders. No one can demonstrate the causes, pathology or cure of any of these. It is estimated that 10% of 60 year olds will die a decade earlier from OSA alone, and 40 years ago it was almost unheard of; what will this percentage raise to in a decade or two?

You will learn:

  • The aetiology, epidemiology, pathology, treatment and cure of Craniofacial Dystrophy.
  • The underlying problem of which malocclusion and obstructive sleep apnea are symptoms.

Pasquale, Restorative, case 3.5.jpg

Before: Age 5 years 10 months, After: Age 8 years

Pasquale, Restorative, case 3.6.jpg

Before: Age 13 years 10 months, After: Age 19 years 7 months

 

0.9 The long term consequences of treatment

Featured Video Play Icon

see YouTube video here

I have already mentioned some of the consequences of orthodontic treatment such as facial damage and root resorption but there are other longer-term risks such as re-crowding and some such as gum damage which have only recently been recognised. Because patients prefer to avoid extractions Orthodontists currently go to great effort to avoid extracting teeth where possible. Some orthodontists and many general dentists use a screw appliance or an ‘ALF’ to expand the upper jaw to provide enough space for all the teeth. However this does not usually provide room for the wisdoms which they may say are unnecessary.

These are a simple way of avoiding extractions but the teeth usually re-crowd a few years later. This is avoided by many clinicians who give the patient a retaining appliance or attach fixed wires to their teeth either permanently or until they brake or are removed. Other clinicians avoid extractions for a while by pushing the side teeth back to make room for the front teeth but this tends to result in a flat looking face, it is then more likely that the wisdom teeth will become impacted and have to be extracted which can involve complex surgery.

Few if any orthodontists seem to use the Orthotropic method of lengthening the jaw as well as widening it. This makes much more room for the teeth and provided it is done by the age of 8 or 9 should always provide room for the permanent teeth including the wisdoms. This of course also takes the whole upper jaw forward improving the appearance of the cheek bones, sometimes dramatically. See the picture below.

Another long-term problem is gum damage which has more recently become recognised as a matter of concern. As we explained earlier the teeth and their supporting bone are normally supported by the tongue, lips and opposing teeth. But if the teeth are moved and held in a different position for a long time, such as with a retainer, the bone around them remains unstable and tends to resorb. The blood supply to the gums is carried through the bone and if it resorbs the gum often recedes or dies leaving what are called ‘fenestrations’ or holes which can severely shorten the life of the teeth.

0.8 TMJ Dysplasia – What is the cause and cure?

Featured Video Play Icon

see YouTube video here

Many clinicians from different disciplines offer explanations and cures for TMJ and it is widely assumed that there is no ‘One Size Fits All Treatment Guarantee’. However when part of the body goes wrong there is usually only one direct cause, although by coincidence two or possibly three causes could occur simultaneously. Most of the other factors are either, resultant, coincident, predisposing, or unrelated, but not causative. It is wise therefor to consider each one separately and then try to select the real culprit.

My research in anthropology convinced me that the jaw joints of our ancient ancestors rarely showed any signs of damage, so why does this joint cause so much trouble now? Things have changed since then and many jaw bones are now set back as much as 20 to 30mm from where they were back then. Most TMD clinicians agree that this distalization, causes pressure on the joint but there are few suggestions about how to improve it and surgery has not so far proved a reliable cure.

There are many recommended treatments but about 20% of patients continue to suffer whatever is done. Good cures usually surface quickly and the single most effective treatment appears to be a dental splint (orthotic) which separates the teeth somewhere between 1 to 8 millimetres. While the relief can be dramatic, and permanent the problems often return after a few weeks or months. This suggests to me that the splint may rest the joint in the short-term but the underlying cause remains. This explanation fits the fact that thickening the splint often provides a further period of relief but again the problem returns. Splints can also have side effects such as intruding teeth and despite what is done 20% or so of patients continue to suffer.

Other cures exist such as physiotherapy which can be almost as effective as splints, but again they seem ineffective for about 20% of patients. A number of clinicians and patients consider changes in the content and consistency of our diet is important, but ‘cures’ on this basis are rather unspecific and it not appear to have a high ratio of success.

With orthotropics we try to reverse the life-style changes because we believe that modern living has encouraged many children to leave their mouths open and also to swallow with their tongue between their teeth. Research shows that this is a major reason for both jaws failing to grow forward which in turn disrupts the way the teeth and jaws meet and effects the position and form of the TMJ. Orthotropic treatment is based on the ‘Tropic Premise’ which says “correct oral posture is with the tongue resting against the palate, the lips sealed and the teeth in light contact for about six hours a day”. Orthotropic treatment aims to train children to keep their mouths closed which increases forward growth improving the teeth and face. This seems to reduce their susceptibility to TMJ problems later but is only fully effective with growing children. However adopting the Tropic Premise can often cure TMD pain in young adults possibly reaching that last 20%. see the picture below.