I'm not sure why the relevant portion of the monograph isn't appropriate simply because of the target audience. "Alters sodium transport in nerve and muscle cel

I'm not sure why the relevant portion of the monograph isn't appropriate simply because of the target audience. "Alters sodium transport in nerve and muscle cells and effects a shift toward intraneuronal metabolism of catecholamines, but the specific biochemical mechanism of lithium action in mania is unknown" is the general consensus on lithium whether you're reading it as you, me, or Donald Duck. Here is where we can both agree: we know a few things about the mechanism, which allow us to make some useful judgments in a few limited cases. We can also both agree that we know so little that, if a new, similar drug were proposed, with only a small change to its chemical structure, neither of us would dare make any confident statements about its action. We also cannot accurately predict what would happen if given to a patient with a well-studied but different disorder. In other words: most of the useful judgments about lithium - those that would be economically or socially interesting, for example - cannot be made from the model, because our understanding of the mechanism of action is too crude. All of that is also, however, true about my hypothetical Corolla from my first example: we can say a few things, but most of the useful judgments that could be made from a full understanding cannot be made. It would be obvious to anyone that we do not understand the Corolla. So why, then, would we claim to understand lithium?