Talk:John Mew/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

lots of evidence of his birth date that is comparable to other entries on wikipedia eg http://500race.org/people/john-mew/, https://outsider-environments.blogspot.com/2019/02/john-and-jo-mew-braylsham-castle.html, https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-mew-b8b45a72/?originalSubdomain=uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acirsa (talk • contribs) 17:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't sourced back then. I've added the first source. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Feel free to look for relevant sources to support the article, rather than just deleting correct information. Those too seconds to find on google and I was in the middle of adding others as you were deleting things. It would be really nice to have you support rather than feeling under attack. Acirsa (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Currently this section does not address the validity of the claims Mew makes. Would it not be approperiate to state the current lack of scientific support for the claims? Does there need to be a study done or can we simply say that there currently is no scientific support? Ywecur (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Mewing isn't just associated with incels et al. Why not use scientific literature? Reddeadfedsaid (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't personally have a strong personal opinion about Mewing, but the article must reflect the reliable sources. The reliable sources (and frankly actions of the Mews, like participating in a Sluthate Q&A) strongly indicate that it is associated with incels. "Incel" is in the title of the New York Times article.

If you can find reliable, scientific information about mewing, that should also be added to the article. DownstateElitist (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Much of the article is drawn from a reliable source titled "How Two British Orthodontists Became Celebrities to Incels". A direct URL is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/20/magazine/teeth-mewing-incels.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage. The source uses "incel" in the title and used seven times in the body.

I've seen the term "incel" changed to "manosphere," with the suggestion that it is a "meme insult." However, "incel" is not an inherently pejorative term. It's a self-defined subculture. See the wikipedia article: incel.

Regardless, the reliable source uses the term and so should we. If other reliable sources say "manosphere," I would have no objection to including that term. DownstateElitist (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course the term incel belongs on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is here to define it. What is not ok is using it as an insult in other articles. You can have a page explaining the meme, but calling people incels is the same as calling people idiots. It's pretty ridiculous to put in an article about a dentist. "Incels and the manosphere" was already on this article before it was edited to say just incels. I think it's better to keep manosphere and erase incels. The manosphere includes incels and it avoids using a subjective ad hominem. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The reliable source is saying that it is popular among the incel subculture. I don't think we should diverge from what a reliable source says because it may offend some people.

I said nothing about offense. I said subjective insults do not belong in an encyclopedia. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this deviates from the discussion about this page, but I'll also add that nobody is being "called" anything. It does not suggest that people who mew are incels or "idiots." Additionally, many people self-identify as part of the incel subculture. It's no more an insult than goth or Trekkie. DownstateElitist (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Incel is first and foremost an insult. Someone calling themselves that doesn't change its usage. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The reliable source is using it to define a subculture. Would you feel more comfortable if we said "incel subculture" instead of "incel"? Some people finding the term insulting is not a good reason to deviate from a reliable source. DownstateElitist (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Again I said nothing about "finding the term insulting." It is an insult. What makes an insult is not whether someone is insulted or not. You can say $%^#@#^%! to someone and they don't get offended, that's still objectively an insult. I don't think incels are even insulted by the term. That doesn't make it correct to use. You can finds lots and lots of insults in reliable sources, epsecially for politics. We don't go adding them to politicians' wiki pages. Manosphere seems like the correct term. It includes incel subcultures without calling anyone anything subjective. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I dispute that the term is an insult in the context of defining a subculture. I view it as analogous to the "queer subculture," which can be an insult or a neutral term, depending on the context. I think we've said all we can about this one, and I'd love others to weigh in. DownstateElitist (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, queer subculture is a good analogy - there is no reason to not include the term.

Incel is a pejorative so it can't be used to describe people here. It doesn't define anything now. Violet Feet (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Incel is a term that is used to describe a subculture. It is not a "subjective insult" that "doesn't define anything." The wikipedia page defines it pretty well: "An incel is a member of an online subculture of people who define themselves as unable to get a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one." 73.170.29.27 (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I noticed some sourced information was added to suggest that Mew's views are, in fact, mainstream. However the sources were about oral myology - a well-established technique to treat Orofacial myofunctional disorders.

This is not what mewing is. Mewing is about reshaping a jaw. As the John and Michael Mew frequently state, mewing is not supported by mainstream science. DownstateElitist (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I already provided a bunch of sources that show having proper oral posture affects the development of the face. The journalists who "disagree" with mewing claim things such as, "Proponents of mewing also believe that it isn’t the exercise that changes your face, but rather the lack of mewing that can transform your jawline for the worse." So they actually agree with it, but are using weird doublespeak. Mewing is the normal position of the mouth. So of course mewing would make you grow normally, while NOT mewing would cause the bad effects.It even says right here on Wikipedia that oral posture changes dental and facial growth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouth_breathing#Potential_effects From the source: "Mouth breathing has a major impact on the development of the maxillo-facial region, occlusion and muscle tonus." "Pathogenesis of mouth breathing ↓ Changed position of tongue, jaws and head Tongue occupying a back and lower position ↓ Mandible dropped down, ↓ Disproportion between jaws and teeth ↓ Imbalance between masticatory, mimic and tongue muscles ↓ Adenoid facies or long face syndrome" No matter where I look I can't find any science that claims your oral posture does not shape your jaw. This is fully accepted and well known. Mewing is correct oral posture. Oral posture shapes your jaw. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The Mews believe that (1) mewing can reshape fully-grown adult jaws, which is not backed by peer-reviewed evidence and (2) genetic factors are irrelevant in jaw growth, which is absolutely a fringe view. They're the first to admit that their views and methods are not accepted by the mainstream and they insist there are financial reasons for that. The Mews are not simply renaming an established method - they claim to have invented their own distinct method.

If you can find reliable sources that indicate that mewing is accepted by mainstream dentistry, then we can include it.

Right now, I would have no objection to including that the principles of mewing are similar to oral myology, but I do object to suggesting mewing is backed by mainstream science. DownstateElitist (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any proof? I provided half a dozen sources and so far I see none for your point of view. I can't find a study where oral posture only applies to children or that genetics is responsible for recessed jaws (and curiously why would humans be the only animal where that is genetic). If science says bad oral posture causes bad jaws, then we can't just assume it's genetic. If science says correct oral posture causes good jaws, we can't just assume that only applies to children without proof (the Mews say it gets very difficult after age 25). Here's the source from my last comment. It can be added to this article. https://www.journal-imab-bg.org/issues-2018/issue1/JofIMAB-2018-24-1p1878-1882.pdf Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the article you linked is about jaw growth in children. We would need mainstream scientific studies suggest that tongue posture can reshape fully-grown adult jaws, which mewing is supposed to do. The study is not about mewing, so I don't think it belong in the article. However, it could be a good addition to the myology page.

Mewing is meant for people under age 25, especially children. I can't find any evidence that says jaw shaping is impossible after 25, it's just really hard. The study is about mewing. The entire study is about oral posture (aka mewing). I think you're still thinking mewing is some different thing when it literally means proper oral posture. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Mainstream science suggests that both genetic and environmental factors cause misshapen jaws. The Mews are on the fringe because they do not believe genetic causes are relevant. The NY Times article has a great summary of this with an in-depth explanation from John Mew himself.DownstateElitist (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Genetics are not relevant to jaw shape being affected by your tongue not being on the roof of your mouth. I haven't found anything that points to this not being true. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Genetics are relevant to jaw shape. The Mews and orthotropics dispute that genetics are a major factor in jaw shape. That is one reason why they're considered "fringe" and "outside of the mainstream." They would agree with my statement here, by the way. They know their views lack support from peer-reviewed and mainstream science. They explain it themselves in the NY Times and other places. DownstateElitist (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say jaw shape? Recession of the jaw is not genetic unless it's from a syndrome that distorts the whole face. If you have a source that says a recessed jaw with the corresponding bad oral posture is genetic I'll be inclined to believe it. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean that mainstream orthodontics considers genetics to be the most significant cause of poor jaw shape. Mew suggests that tongue posture is the only cause. Per the NY Times article:

"For the past 50 years, he has championed an unorthodox cure, based on a theory about the cause and treatment of crooked teeth, which he calls “orthotropics.” If correct, Mew’s theory would upend many of the fundamental beliefs of mainstream orthodontic practice.

Traditional orthodontic teaching explains crooked teeth mostly through genetics: We inherit the alignment of our bite from our parents, just as we inherit almost any other trait. Mew does not believe this. Instead, he sees crooked teeth as a symptom of a sweeping, unrecognized health crisis."

Crooked teeth is most certainly a health problem. It's not genetic in any other animal. Why would it be for humans? Crooked teeth are caused by improper postures that create crooked growth. The closest thing to say would be people get oral habits from their parents. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss whether mainstream orthodontics is correct in its findings. We can only report on them based on what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say the the scientific consensus is that genetics are the primary cause. That is what the article must say to follow Wikipedia guidelines. DownstateElitist (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Different sources say differenty things. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems like what you're suggesting requires the transitive property. (1) Myology and mewing are similar; (2) Myology is based in mainstream science; (3) Mewing and orthotropics are based in mainstream science. I think you would need a reliable source (preferably a secondary source) to demonstrate and elaborate on claim 1, because they are not entirely the same. Claim 3 is in dispute with reliable sources and John Mew himself, so we'd also need figure out how to frame it (something like "Despite Mew's own claims to the contrary, his views are in fact in line with mainstream science"?) I'd also note that part of the appeal of mewing to many adherents is that it is not a mainstream practice.

Oral myology and mewing are the same. Mewing means keeping proper posture. Mainstream science agrees with this. What you will find are people who suddenly disagree with keeping your tongue on the roof of your mouth for health and facial form when you call it "mewing." If you can find any studies debunking parts of mewing, we can say something like "Most of mewing is supported by science, however..." But I haven't seen anything yet. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

No, we cannot say that. As the Mews and reliable sources about mewing affirm, mewing is not backed by mainstream science. Anyway, to repeat the part you did not respond to: in order to say that "mewing" and "myology" are the same, you need a reliable source to prove that. Unless you can find that reliable source, you are probably violating

WP:SYNTH by bringing together these ideas, which reliable sources do not connect. It's not simply something intuitive - especially when reliable sources that are specifically about mewing (and not "myology"), as well as the Mews themselves, take the opposite of your position. DownstateElitist (talk

) 06:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Mewing is defined by what the Mews say it is, because it's their own term. If they say mewing is proper oral posture, that's what it is. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've had bad experiences when you use the term "mewing" with people. As I keep saying, this article must reflect the reliable sources. The article never says that "mewing" does or does not work. Simply that it is not supported by mainstream science right now. Maybe more studies will be done to prove it one way or the other. Until then, we must reflect the reliable sources. DownstateElitist (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

As with the "incel" issue below, it might be helpful for us to get perspectives from other users. I'm afraid we're losing the plot. DownstateElitist (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I think

WP:MEDRS 73.170.29.27 (talk

) 16:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I hope some of this is helpful to people working on the article who may not be getting the most out of the lengthy and not always straight forward New York Times Magazine article. VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

A few quick points: 'proper posture' is not a concept recognized by mainstream orthodontics. It comes from the non-profit mainstream theories of John Mew, or his followers repeating those theories.

Note: he has not been proven wrong, his theories have merely not been tested to any high scientific standards.

(Sorry for the length and repetition in my last reply, perhaps you should read the last section, with all the asterisks, first.) VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

typo: 'non- mainstream' not 'non-profit mainstream' VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thjarkur Please explain why you have removed well referenced relevant information and included pejorative opinions on this page. Wikipedia states that "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text." Further more, the material I included was well referenced and factual. There was therefore no need for it to be deleted. I am concerned that you have a conflict of interest on this topic and wish to denigrate the subject. Also, you have not taken the opportunity to discuss the material with me before deleting it. I would appreciate it if you would reinstate the aspects of the page that were well referenced and give me advice on what was wrong with the other aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acirsa (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote on your talkpage, we cannot cite court documents or a society's closed member list, that is

WP:BLPPRIMARY. Instead we reflect what secondary sources have said. We should include a further discussion of his research, but we'll also have to explain the dentist society's position that his methods don't work. The reason I also removed the few sentences sourced to his own research was that many of these sentences also contained material that did not appear in the cited sources. – Thjarkur (talk)

21:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved admin; just some well intentioned advice which you can choose to disregard if you so wish)

User:Acirsa - Please take a look at this. Do you see any pattern?

It's not the best idea to suggest another editor has a conflict of interest when one's own account has some of the hallmarks of being a

single purpose account

.

I read on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard about how you want to help out here at Wikipedia as a volunteer. Let me suggest that you now take a deep breath, and walk away from this page for a while in order to broaden your understanding about Wikipedia and how we work here. We have thousands of articles which need some loving care whether it be copy-editing, adding references, adding new content, or many other tasks. I'm sure your fellow volunteers would really appreciate your efforts, and I think it would make you feel better (i.e. not under attack) if you worked on something you're perhaps not quite so passionate about. --kingboyk (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

There were problems with the page as it was being developed by Arcisa. This editor has completed their version of what they intended for Wikipedia and posted it on another site, and it would not do as a Wikipedia page.

However, I don't think all the content removal was done on legitimate grounds. And in my opinion the page gets badly unbalanced once you remove so much basic information.

Things which need to go back in, which are notable enough and well sourced:

John Mew is son of a dentist and underwent extensive treatment in his childhood.

After studying Dentistry John Mew studied and gained a qualification in Jaw Surgery.

(This training is part of what enabled him to look at traditional orthodontics from a critical perspective.)

I don't know how far a Wikipedia article should go into the debate of 'Mew vs Orthodox views', but: there is a quote in the NYTM article where a specialist describes the general understanding of jaw growth among orthodontic community as 'woefully inadequate', and the claim that a condition which didn't exist until two centuries ago can be 'genetic' and not environmental does not convince many people outside of orthodontics profession! So mainstream orthodontics have their own legitimacy problems.

I am not pushing this to be pro Mew, I am pro - balance. I would be happy with a simple phrase such as, 'Mew's theories are not popular within the profession and have not been tested in scientific trials'. But if the article goes at length into questioning the legitimacy of Mew it has to also question the legitimacy of the rest of the profession. VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

'question the legitimacy of the rest of the profession, as NYTM article and other secondary sources have'

So it would be following good secondary sources. However, this would be very ambitious for a Wikipedia page. Maybe the subject does not deserve such detailed coverage. VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

False information here, https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/mewing#history

"The General Dental Council recently took away John Mew’s dental license. They decided on this action due to Mew’s criticism of traditional orthodontic treatments, as well as his unconventional beliefs and practices."

Taken from this source.

https://www.joms.org/article/S0278-2391(19)30349-0/fulltext

"...Dr. John Mew [..] , who was recently stripped of his dental license by the General Dental Council. The dismissal was on grounds of misconduct for publicly denigrating the traditional practices of orthodontic tooth movement, in conjunction with exodontia and orthognathic surgery, as treatment for malocclusion2, 3 and boldly heralding his own etiologic concepts of malocclusion, somewhat based on Moss's functional matric hypothesis.4"

Proper discussion can be found on existing source here about him being reprimanded for publicly criticising GDC and traditional orthodontics:

https://dentistry.co.uk/2010/03/31/gdc-reprimands-81-year-old-dentist-over-whistleblowing-advert/

And proper information can be found here about him having his license revoked.

https://jfhlaw.co.uk/fitness-to-practice-gdc-naughty-and-nice-lists/

(When I click on his name it downloads a PDF of the GDC findings which clearly says he lost his license for failure to protect patient data.)

VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

for completeness I will add: in the document from the GDC committee you will read that Mew claimed that he did have permission to share patient details. However did not provide proof to the GDC Fitness To Practice hearing. Specifically, one patient in question confirmed to the GDC that they had given proof, and so John Mew was cleared of one of the two counts of failure to protect patient data. VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(He also makes claims in the NYTM article that the GDC were out to get him due to earlier controversies. To the law firm I quoted above, there didn't seem to be anything unusual about him having his license revoked for breaking rules on data security. They seem to view it as consistent with GDC practices.) VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(I still need to learn how to do editing/ need to do my editing on a different device. I would edit the page myself but can't do footnotes/ sources)

John Mew did NOT have his license removed for 'practicing on a patient without consent'! (Whatever that even means?) He had his license removed for failure to protect patient data.

Sources:

You can download and read the PDF of the GDC by clicking on John Mew's name in the following source, which summarizes the case.

https://jfhlaw.co.uk/fitness-to-practice-gdc-naughty-and-nice-lists/

As it says in the NYTM article, he disputes the finding, but I don't think his objection deserves a place in the article. (Even if I can actually believe that he did make the colossal mistake of relying on verbal consent not written consent, and that he could be telling the truth when he said all patients consented to him using their data... Either way there are other aspects of his behavior which were unprofessional, so we should just stick to the fact that he provided no written record of patient B consenting to Mew sharing their data and therefore breached professional standards.)

Further, no source 'characterizes' Mew as 'an unlicensed orthodontist' so this should clearly be removed as it is 'Original Research, Original Synthesis'.

A proper first sentence might be,

'John Mew is a British orthodontist who practiced until the GDC revoked his license was in 2017 for failure to protect patient data.'

This corrects the serious factual error and removes the Original Synthesis which comes across very negatively in my opinion. VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Direct link https://olr.gdc-uk.org/hearings?name=MEW,%20John%20Roland%20Chandley#past-hearings

I will leave it for others to decide but it might be more accurate if the article says something like, his licence was revoked 'after having been found to have failed to correct patient data'

('After' rather than 'for')

. Because page 13 lists the factors which went into the decision to apply the sanction they applied, and it mentions previous reprimands.

Note: this isn't covered accurately in Brennan's NYTM article, and this is probably where the BLP mistake I corrected came from. He reports it as 'he said, she said'.

"For the next 30 years, he treated a small but loyal group of patients at his unassuming clinic in the south London suburb of Purley — only stepping down in 2017, at age 89, when the General Dental Council took away his license.

John told me the revocation stemmed from a deliberately provocative advertisement he had published, which accused the orthodontic community of perpetrating “an illegal scam” on patients with their treatments. But he had also been accused of failing to protect a patient’s personal information and of malpractice, which I pointed out. A mother alleged, among other things, that he pursued a treatment on her daughter after she withdrew consent. John denies the allegation, blaming ineffective legal counsel for the loss of his license. Still, ever since, he has been stuck in the castle, feuding about orthotropics on Facebook."

The NYTM is a particular type of journalism for a particular type of reader. It can be sarcastic, ironic etc. It isn't always straight investigative journalism, getting to the facts. He seemingly reports an anonymous source. As well as Mews own theories. Both unsubstantiated. VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

'unsubstantiated, or at least, I have seen no evidence for them'. VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

- So in other words: as Wikipedia guidelines state, a 'reliable secondary source' may be reliable in some areas and less reliable in others. VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

(Saw.this ages ago) Nothing about Mewing in current Link 5, "Development | Mewing?" sensationsolutions.com. It is a website about website design?

Fwiw, Bing search told me a site with a name referring to trucks (?) had content on related to Mewing but when I clicked there was nothing there about Mewing or Orthotropics or teeth. So maybe this has happened before and will happen again? I don't understand. VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I should mention this, especially as I was almost telling off the previous editor:

I did an 'Theories: Orthotropics' edit removing the reference to pushing upwards with the tongue and adding what I believed was the correct explanation which I had read elsewhere (outwards with the tongue). As I stated when I edited, the main source both of us were following mentioned 'the force of the tongue' without mentioning direction, so the previous editor and I were each filling in with information from elsewhere. On reflection I don't think I should have appeared so confident or added this information without providing a direct source. I think the best solution would be to go along with the version given in the NYTM article rather than offer a more precise explanation of which way the tongue pushes, what this is meant to achieve etc. although such information can be found in sources online. I didn't mean to sound like an expert when I am not. I basically added information without sources, which wasn't so helpful.

As for my words to the effect of 'It is not recommended to try Mewing without discussing with your dental or healthcare professional', you can tag that with 'source required' maybe. I think you would find statements to this effect on Mike Mew's own YouTube channel? Also this here:

"Although Mew's theory does generate some plausible conclusions that can aid our profession in developing future surgical procedures, the public needs to be made aware that it is not based on sound scientific evidence that would make it a viable alternative treatment to orthognathic surgery. Social media is a powerful tool for informing the public in many subject areas, including Mewing, but it is not regulated by experts; unfortunately, many members of the public quickly fall prey to theories that have not been scientifically tested. Therefore, it is of vital importance that we educate our patients on the validated treatments for malocclusion and the danger of seeking non–peer-reviewed internet sources for health information in general."

(highlight: "the danger of seeking non–peer-reviewed internet sources for health information in general." These are the words of professionals).

Although, as I mentioned, the source has wrong information, it is at least published in what looks like a proper journal. https://www.joms.org/article/S0278-2391(19)30349-0/fulltext#relatedArticles

I wanted to discuss safety of Mewing, and how forums show us that some people have followed online instructions to the best of their ability and had the exact opposite effects from what they sought, producing recessed chins in just two or three days of Mewing (which I assume go back to normal over time if you stop Mewing? A couple weeks maybe?) but what I really want to do is highlight the difference between two types of websites: one written and reviewed by medical professionals where all information has a guarantee, and one written by non professionals where information has no guarantee.

I want everyone to understand this: for example, I know nothing about golf clubs, I know nothing about the multiplayer mode in the latest Halo games. But, after a morning spent reading buying guides for golf clubs or discussions of Halo, I could write my own 'expert' seeming articles, using information I just learned a couple hours ago. - Beware of 'official-seeming' sites which are written in this way: some of the information they repeat back may be from official expert sources, but next to that may be some information from social media. Information on an official seeming site may be from blogs, not from qualified experts.

More often than those sites you will see good quality (?) amateur sites, which won't fool you into thinking they are 'official'. However,

"The information contained is not intended for medical advice. You should always discuss any medical treatment with your Health Care Provider."

compare them again with an official site. For example: Look for the link to a disclaimer on this page: there is none! Because it is reliable professional advice. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/anabolic-steroid-misuse/

But at the bottom of every single page on this site you will see a link to the disclaimer which states that this is not official medical advice and that anything you do is at your own risk : https://jawlineexercises.com/disclaimer/

"The information contained is not intended for medical advice. You should always discuss any medical treatment with your Health Care Provider."

Therefore, I conclude that plenty of sources can be found for my statement in the article and I will request/ suggest that other editors add them in.

And finally, you may notice that I started making an effort to replace everything which could have been used as a 'how to' guide to mewing with general comments. Changing from 'place your tongue here, swallow in this way' to 'place your tongue in a particular position, swallow in a particular way' without saying what that position was. I think this is a responsible policy for other editors to follow? VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

'Please consult your physician for personalized medical advice. ' etc etc,

'[Website] does not recommend or endorse any specific test, physician, product, procedure, opinion or any other information provided on this website. Reliance on any information provided by [website, website’s] employees, others represented on the website by [our] invitation or other visitors to the website, is solely at your own risk.' (My earlier quote was too brief. - All this is from same disclaimer on same website I mentioned previously.) VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not trying to 'answer' does (DIY, at home) Mewing work, is it safe? Just highlight that some people apparently have negative results, since I didn't provide a source for what I said earlier based on a forum I saw months ago. So here is a mew source:

https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a32043641/does-mewing-work-youtube-review/

Once the 30 days were up, Jones took his "before" and "after" photos and set up a survey to determine whether his jawline was more noticeably attractive. However, more people responded positively to his day 1 photo than day 30, and nearly 20 percent saw no difference whatsoever.

People preferred the 'before' to the 'after'.

This doesn't 'prove' anything about Mewing VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)