Today, a tribunal heard that the dentist behind the TikTok’mewing’ trend that purports to modify the appearance of your jawline without surgery treated two youngsters with ‘invasive and hazardous’ unproven mouth-altering therapies.
Dr. Mike Mew’s license might be revoked due to ‘derogatory’ allegations that he tested the therapy on a six-year-old boy and girl in an effort to align their teeth and raise their jaws.
Even at the age of two, he recommended that the youngster be fitted with a “expansion appliance,” the hearing was informed.
Dr. Mew is credited with popularizing the’mewing’ method of face remodeling, which entails closing your mouth, pushing your tongue against your palate, and squeezing your molar teeth together.
Proponents assert that the procedure can alter facial features and elevate the jawline, relieve jaw and mouth muscle pain, and prevent snoring.
The movement, named after the doctor’s father Professor John Mew, has created an enormous social media craze, with 1.7 billion videos about it seen on TikTok alone.
Experts are concerned that patients who require surgery or orthodontic treatment will attempt to resolve their concerns on their own.
Today, a tribunal heard that Dr Mike Mew, the dentist behind the TikTok’mewing’ craze that claims to change the appearance of your jawline without surgery, treated two children with ‘invasive and hazardous’ unproven mouth-altering therapies.
Lydia Barnfather, representing the General Dental Council, briefly opened today’s hearing in central London by stating that comments made by Dr. Mew on his YouTube channel were “derogatory” toward orthodontists.
In August of 2018, it was reported at a General Dental Council hearing in Bloomsbury, London, that he equipped the youngster with arch extension devices and head gear.
In September 2016, the girl was also given arch expansion appliances.
Two months later, he also suggested that the girl undergo a tongue-tie release to allow her mouth to rest in the “meowing” position, but she was never fitted with the device.
According to court documents, Dr. Mew informed the girl’s mother, “Most orthodontists have been warned that what they do is not supported by evidence, but few actually understand what they do.”
In a 2017 YouTube video, he is also accused of claiming, “If you produce enough tongue space and youngsters use that tongue space, that can influence face growth and craniofacial structure, as well as the expansion of the brain and dental arches.”
He allegedly stated, “If a patient beyond the age of eight steps into my office, they are entering a compromise zone; it depends on how hard they work.”
If a student is five or six years old, I can nearly guarantee a complete correction.
If a younger applicant comes in, I can give them suggestions on how to correct themselves.
Lydia Barnfather, representing the General Dental Council (GDC), stated at the hearing that initial concerns surfaced in September 2017 when Dre Mew made statements about alleged mewing treatments. Concerns were brought to the attention of the British Orthodontic Council.
Concerns were raised regarding comments he made in a YouTube video concerning the health and appearance of the face, according to Ms. Barnfather.
In conclusion, he stated that he wishes to affect and alter the craniofacial structure and that the teeth will align themselves if he is successful.
She claimed that Dr. Mews feels orthodontic treatment is erroneously based on genetic etiology.
She said at the court that the doctor believes environmental causes have caused faces to undergo a “downswing,” as he calls it, and that he diagnoses craniofacial dystrophy.
In one instance, he attempted to begin treatment on a young child as early as two years old, for whom he had made the diagnosis at the age of six.
She described how the dentist attempted to treat the youngsters with “head and neck equipment.” In addition, he desired to utilize “lower and upper arch expanding appliances.”
Ms. Barnfather said that he claims to transform the vertical expansion of the face into a horizontal growth, so expanding the face and notably the mid-face.
Thus, his hypothesis, which was developed by his father, induces structural changes to the face that enlarge the underlying facial form, thereby creating space for the teeth to naturally align.
In addition, he asserts that environmental factors help treat obstructive sleep apnea (snoring).
His treatment is lengthy, expensive, unpleasant, and extremely demanding on a youngster. Given the hazards of the treatment, it is asserted that it should only be administered if sufficient evidence exists to justify it.’
Ms. Barnfather further mentioned how the GDC claims that Dr. Mew’s treatment is “unproven.”
She contended that he should not have treated the kids the manner he did and should not have made the assertions he did, given the fact that both youngsters had absolutely normal facial development for their ages.
She continued, “Dr. Mew is certainly the most vocal proponent of what was known as mewing in orthotropics.”
When he first made these statements, he was requested to present proof to back them.
He did not believe it necessary to perform the action.
In answer to our request for evidence, he produced a video in which he stated, “It is a bad system, but it is better than the alternatives. It is a negative argument, therefore don’t ask me to defend it.
The mother of the boy was once a believer in the treatment, but after it was conducted on her son, she no longer believed in its efficacy.
GDC attorneys request a one-week postponement of the hearing on the grounds that the expert testimony on which Dr. Mew’s attorneys intend to rely was submitted late.
According to them, this means they have not had the time to study it in order to successfully cross-examine witnesses.
Dr. Mew’s attorney, Stephen Vullo, stated at the hearing that his defense team had not “shopped around” for specialists to testify in his favor.
He continued, “There is data to corroborate and expand upon his argument.”
Mr. Vullo also claimed that the girl’s mother was “entirely supportive” and pleased with the treatment.
The proceedings resume.