We need to challenge the current Parkinson’s disease models

Many ancient civilizations believed that the Earth was flat. This worldview was tethered to the simple, familiar image of a flat plane with edges you could fall off.

Of course, the Earth was never flat, but thousands of years ago, it may have seemed that way. That was the trap.

Today, when I look at Parkinson’s research and the medical ecosystem around it, I can’t help but feel we’re making the same mistake. We’re clinging to an outdated model of the world — not because it’s accurate, but because it’s familiar, institutionally accepted, and easier to measure.

Recommended Reading

April 30, 2025 Columns by Doc Irish

In my quest for therapeutics, necessity is the mother of invention

The flat map of Parkinson’s

Look at most Parkinson’s research over the past two decades and you’ll see an obsessive focus on mechanism-of-action drug discovery, gene targets, receptor interactions, alpha-synuclein clumps, and intricate molecular pathways.

These are important, yes — but also incomplete. It’s like studying the wind by analyzing individual blades of grass. You may understand how the grass moves but miss the wind entirely.

This hyperfocus has trapped us in an overly reductionist mindset: one disease, one drug, one mechanism. Meanwhile, Parkinson’s continues to behave more like a systemic pattern-disruption disorder — one that affects movement, cognition, mood, sleep, gut function, sensory processing, and more.

It’s not a single dot on a map. It’s the map itself that’s warped.

Breakthroughs come from perspective shifts

History tells us that breakthroughs happen when we challenge the model, not just tweak it.

• Copernicus disrupted astronomy by placing the sun at the center of the universe, not the Earth.
• Darwin disrupted biology by redefining change as gradual evolution, not static design.
• Einstein disrupted physics by showing that space and time bend.
• Semmelweis saved lives by hypothesizing that contaminants on medical students’ hands (not bad air) caused infection.

None of these were merely technical tweaks. They were conceptual upgrades.

In Parkinson’s, we’re still waiting for that kind of breakthrough — a reframe that shows us we’ve been looking at the condition sideways, or upside down.

And I think we’re overdue.

What are we missing?

Let me ask a dangerous question: What if the model is wrong?

What if Parkinson’s is not primarily a dopamine disease, but a sensory integration disorder that starts decades before motor symptoms appear?

What if it’s less about neurons dying and more about networks misfiring — as if the brain’s timing and feedback loops start to desynchronize like a jazz band losing the beat?

What if we stopped looking at Parkinson’s through a microscope and started looking through a systems lens, where perception, movement, emotion, and attention are all part of the same dynamic pattern?

What if we already have most of the raw ingredients for a breakthrough — wearable sensors, haptic feedback, immersive visual tech, patient engagement platforms — but we’re not combining them because we’re still stuck thinking the world is flat?

Beyond the molecule: The human feedback loop

I’m not saying we should abandon pharmaceutical research and development. We need drugs. But we also need to expand our model of action — from molecules to mechanisms, yes, but also to dynamics, behaviors, and sensory experiences.

Therapy doesn’t have to mean pills.

What if we created adaptive stimulation systems that retrain the nervous system using light, sound, touch, rhythm, and feedback? What if we could nudge the brain into new patterns the same way we rehabilitate a muscle or recalibrate a thermostat?

This isn’t sci-fi. It’s already happening in adjacent fields: neurofeedback, virtual reality rehab, sensory processing interventions for autism, coordinated reset stimulation for tinnitus.

But Parkinson’s is still stuck in the old models: drug-or-nothing, symptom management over systems training, data from clinics instead of real lives.

We don’t just need a new therapy. We need a new worldview.

Turning the telescope around

Here’s the irony: Many of history’s biggest mistakes weren’t due to a lack of intelligence but rather a lack of imagination. Everyone had access to the same evidence, but not everyone knew how to see it.

We must turn the telescope around, looking not just deeper into the brain, but wider across experience.

That means empowering patients to cocreate and cotest new tools. It means treating perception, rhythm, coordination, and feedback as first-class citizens in our models of disease. It means building dynamic therapies, not static prescriptions.

Most of all, it means seeing Parkinson’s not as a linear problem with a linear cure, but as a multidimensional challenge that requires a multisensory, multiperspective solution.

Time to redraw the map

For centuries, maps depicted sea monsters at the edges — places where the known world ended. That’s how I feel about Parkinson’s innovation today. We’re afraid to move beyond the edges of the known, because we’ve mistaken the map for the territory.

But real progress doesn’t happen within the lines. It happens when we realize the Earth was never flat — and neither is the brain.

So, let’s stop waiting for a single miracle molecule and start reimagining the shape of the problem.

Because sometimes, to find the breakthrough, you first have to change how you see the world.

Note: Parkinson’s News Today is strictly a news and information website about the disease. It does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. This content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or another qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website. The opinions expressed in this column are not those of Parkinson’s News Today or its parent company, Bionews, and are intended to spark discussion about issues pertaining to Parkinson’s disease.