Is it possible to “prove” that Irish singer Susan McKeown’s folk style is “more effective” than Miles Davis’ jazz? Taken to its extreme, “Evidence-Based Medicine” becomes almost as absurd. Photo courtesy of www.susanmckeown.com.

BOSTON—Folk music is superior to Jazz as a form of Harmonic Sequence Therapy (HST) for anxiety and stress-related disorders, and should be covered by health plans and government payors, concluded David Reilly, MD, medical director of the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital, Scotland.

Dr. Reilly’s findings, an important first step toward evidence-based music and a more standardized approach to sonically-induced psychophysiological attunement, shows clearly that various forms of music are not equivalent in their therapeutic effect. He spoke recently at a conference on complementary and integrative medicine sponsored by Harvard Medical School, and the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

The trial involved 50 patients undergoing a week-long course of Harmonic Sequence Therapy, the application of precisely-sequenced mechanico-acoustic undulations programmed to influence both conscious and unconscious neurophysiologic functions. The age and gender-matched subjects were randomized to either the Folk or the Jazz forms of HST.

Specialists who administered the therapy were blinded and also wore earplugs so as to minimize confounding interactions with the subjects.

Scores on the overall optical and oral outcome hit (OOOH) scale showed unequivocally that Folk induced a far stronger response than did Jazz, said Dr. Reilly, adding that this is in accord with previous pilot studies favoring Folk. “Folk music is best, and it should be the treatment of choice. Jazz should not be covered by the (British) National Health Service, the US Health Care Financing Administration, or any private insurance or HMO plans,” he concluded.

Advocates of other forms of HST questioned the methodology, claiming the outcomes might have been influenced by the funding source: a large folk music record label. Dr. Reilly, who has in the past been funded by Jazz labels as well, denied any bias in favor of Folk. But he admitted problems with the blinding, since, “88% of subjects were able to guess which sort of HST they were getting.”

Though Dr. Reilly believes selected patient populations—particularly younger individuals—may have stronger therapeutic responses to other forms of HST such as Hip Hop or Heavy Metal, these carry a greater risk of side-effects. For most patients, Folk is the optimal choice.

APRIL FOOLS!!!

Fortunately, no such “evidence-based music” trial has yet been undertaken. But Dr. Reilly, who is quite real, believes that when taken to its extreme, the quest for evidence-based medicine can become nearly as absurd, especially when the subjects of the research are holistic modalities.

“We as doctors are like artists who fall too in love with their tools and forget what they’re working on or what they’re working for.” Clearly, it is important to conduct solid, well-designed research on all therapeutic approaches—Dr. Reilly himself is one of the world’s leaders in blinded trials involving homeopathy. But he cautioned against over-fixation on the tools of healing, be they from “orthodox” or “alternative” toolboxes.

“There can be just as much reductionism in ‘CAM’ as there is in orthodox allopathy, and a so-called integrative clinic can be “just as much of a mill-grind as the allopathic clinic. You can easily turn the dream into the same old nightmare.”

The key difference between the art of healing and the mechanics of medicine has less to do with the tools used than with the quality of the interpersonal encounter.

“The patient’s senses are heightened. A lot of the encounter is on the instinctive level. This is a very big factor in healing work. Sometimes it is just a 30-second encounter that is going to determine how things are going to go.”

What has really been lost in modern allopathic practice is the ability to listen and sense and engage with patients. It is not just a matter of little time; it reflects an excessive focus on execution of techniques and a near-absence of attention to the interpersonal interactions. Dr. Reilly believes medicine is a lot more like music than many science-minded people are fond of admitting.

“Everyone knows the experiential difference between music in the background and music when you actually listen actively to it. Are you listening to the music of your patients? What do you offer back? How do you duet with them? Decide to listen to the music, to be present and to actually listen to your patients. Then, a whole set of material abilities become available to you.”

If all this strikes you as ephemeral and hard to pin down, stop and think a moment. “You know, quite definitely, when something moves you. There’s nothing iffy about it.” The same holds true for your patients: they know when they are being respected, cared for, listened to, and met with a healing intention. They also know when they are not.

Dr. Reilly contends that “the whole context of medicine is complex and powerful, and potentially dangerous. Yet we focus almost exclusively on the tool kit. We really need to look at the encounter aspect.”

For those who prefer gardening metaphors to musical ones, he said he views the physician’s role not so much as the force that makes a plant germinate but rather the provider of optimal growth conditions. “I don’t need to know how a seed germinates—thank God! I just need to find out what’s the sunshine and water, and how much of each a particular plant needs.”