I am curious why people on this forum continue to use the term "receptor" when referring to physiological processes at the cellular. I can appreciate the fact that the literature is saturated by the metaphor, making it challenging to change the vernacular of subsequent discussions into more meaningful terms, and that Ling's work is beyond the immediate comprehension of most people (I don't understand it at the moment), but RP is exceedingly clear and consist that the metaphor is "fundamentally wrong" (Thyroid, insomnia, and the insanities) and "is still having a radically stupefying effect on biology and medicine" (Preventing and treating cancer with progesterone). So I am wondering why people here seem to use it so consistently and apparently with the intent of referring to biological processes.