Know the dangers of 'orthotropics' | Letter

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Concerns Raised Over Orthotropics and Its Lack of Scientific Support"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 7.0
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The article discusses the concerns surrounding 'orthotropics,' a practice popularized by Dr. Mike Mew, which has been criticized for lacking scientific validity. The British Orthodontic Society has stated that there is no concrete evidence supporting the claims made by Dr. Mew, such as the ability to alter facial shape, enhance intelligence, or prolong life through changes in mouth posture. The article emphasizes that concepts like 'craniofacial dystrophy' are unfounded, and that issues like malocclusion arise from a complex mix of genetic factors, bone growth, and muscle development rather than simplistic remedies proposed by orthotropics. It highlights the importance of relying on scientifically-backed orthodontic treatments provided by trained professionals, as these are the safest methods for addressing misaligned teeth and facial asymmetries.

Furthermore, the piece questions Dr. Mew's credibility as he has faced professional repercussions, including being struck off by the General Dental Council. This raises concerns about his disdain for the established orthodontic community and the potential misrepresentation of his qualifications. The article points out that many of the devices used in orthotropics were originally developed within the framework of conventional orthodontics, suggesting that labeling Dr. Mew as an orthodontist may lend undue legitimacy to his controversial practices. Overall, the letter serves as a caution against the adoption of unproven methods in dental care and advocates for treatment by qualified professionals who adhere to established scientific standards.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article presents a critical perspective on the practice of orthotropics, particularly as promoted by Dr. Mike Mew. It highlights the lack of scientific evidence supporting the claims made by Mew and categorizes orthotropics as a form of quackery. The author emphasizes the importance of conventional orthodontic treatments and qualified dental professionals, suggesting that orthotropics may mislead patients seeking effective solutions for dental and facial issues.

Criticism of Orthotropics

The piece strongly denounces the validity of orthotropics, pointing out that claims regarding facial shape alteration, intelligence enhancement, or life extension through mouth posture are unsupported by scientific research. This assertion aligns with the British Orthodontic Society's stance, reinforcing the credibility of traditional orthodontic practices. The mention of Dr. Mew's controversial status, including being struck off by the General Dental Council, serves to delegitimize his authority in the field.

Promotion of Conventional Treatments

The article advocates for conventional orthodontic treatments as the safest and most effective methods for addressing dental misalignments and related issues. By emphasizing the training and regulation of dental professionals, it aims to reassure readers about the standards of care they should expect. This promotion of traditional methods suggests an intent to safeguard public health by discouraging reliance on unproven alternatives.

Public Perception and Potential Manipulation

The author appears to aim for a heightened awareness of the risks associated with orthotropics, potentially steering public opinion against it. This could be seen as an attempt to protect the reputation of the orthodontic community, but it also raises questions about whether the article selectively presents information to discredit alternative methods.

Implications for the Dental Community

The article may impact the public's trust in orthodontic practices and influence their treatment choices. If widely accepted, this perspective could bolster the authority of conventional dental practices while marginalizing alternative approaches. The portrayal of Dr. Mew as a pseudo-expert could create a divide among patients, leading to a preference for traditional orthodontics over newer methodologies.

Connection to Broader Patterns in Healthcare Reporting

In the context of healthcare reporting, this article reflects a trend towards emphasizing evidence-based practices while critiquing those lacking scientific validation. This aligns with ongoing discussions about the importance of rigorous testing and regulation in medical fields, particularly in dentistry.

Trustworthiness and Reliability of the Article

The article's reliance on authoritative sources, such as the British Orthodontic Society, lends it credibility. However, the language used may suggest a bias against orthotropics, potentially impacting its objectivity. While it presents valid concerns, the narrative may be perceived as overly dismissive of alternative practices without acknowledging any nuances.

In conclusion, the article aims to inform the public about the potential dangers of orthotropics, promoting conventional orthodontic treatments as the reliable option. Its effectiveness in shaping public perception and influencing treatment choices will depend on the broader discourse within the healthcare community.

Unanalyzed Article Content

I would like to thank the Guardian for highlighting the dangers of “orthotropics” in its interview with Mike Mew (‘There’s no excuse for ugly people’: controversial dentist Mike Mew on how ‘mewing’ can make you more attractive, 17 May). Orthotropics is a form of modern‑day quackery, with the many claims made by Dr Mike Mew having no basis whatsoever in rigorously tested scientific fact, as the British Orthodontic Society states in the article.

There is simply no evidence to suggest patients can change the shape of their face, improve their intelligence or lengthen their life by altering their mouth posture, or that misaligned jaws cause sleep apnoea. There is no such thing as “craniofacial dystrophy”, and malocclusion derives from a complex interplay of genetics, bone growth and muscle development.

The safest and best treatment for misaligned teeth, bite problems and facial disharmony is conventional orthodontic treatment, conducted by trained and regulated dental professionals. Similarly, facial disharmony that cannot be addressed by orthodontic treatment alone is best carried out by a qualified oral and maxillofacial surgeon. In all cases, patients can be reassured that those providing their care have been rigorously trained to the highest possible standard.

As someone who has been struck off by the General Dental Council and has subsequently appealed, Dr Mew has a general contempt for the orthodontic establishment and it is unfortunate that this term has been used to describe him. Indeed, many of the appliances used within orthotropics were primarily devised within conventional orthodontics, so we believe describing Dr Mew as an orthodontist may be misleading and unwittingly give credibility to his pseudoscience.Prof Grant McIntyreDean, Faculty of Dental Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons of  Edinburgh

Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Pleaseemailus your letter and it will be considered for publication in ourletterssection.

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian