I'm a little confused. This was established weeks after Omicron was detected. What they call "imprinting" has been known as an immunological phenomenon for over a decade (original antigenic sin) and one of the reasons many vaccines require several serotypes to be included in the primary series.

First, the benefits of cannabis in a clinical setting are scientifically established so no issue here. This is due to THC, not CBD, as pure THC achieves the same results.

The post is about CBD

1. a blanket statement against pharmaceutical companies as in the post I am replying to is a red flag because it is a blanket statement about an industry which - while it has issues - does conduct incredible amounts of scientific research and produces compounds with demonstrated clinical use

2. I'm not saying plant derived drugs aren't a thing, they obviously are

3. concerning CBD, there are some clinically proven applications, you have provided one, but once again I am replying to a post which makes blanket statements on its benefits. Such claims of a panacea are suspicious, which is my I am asking for specific sources which support this on a scientific basis.

Ok first of all "terpenes" are a massive class of molecules (anything with a poly-isoprene backbone). The properties vary so wildly you might as well be saying "you haven't researched acids" or "you haven't researched metals".

I'm going to venture you are not a researcher either.

Finally I have asked for sources, which is the basics of providing scientific evidence. "Do your own research" is ok for pseudoscientific Facebook groups, not this sub.

Please provide evidence for any of what you're saying. The last line in particular is a red flag.

Caffeine is a stimulant

I like that the article acknowledges the big limitations of cohort studies, which most nutrition articles dismiss entirely.

It's also interesting that soy seems to be particularly important diet wise, and wonder if it may be related to its phytoestrogen content.

Look harder

Because life is actually pretty great and you sure are on the wrong sub

Looking at percent increases month on month for something as seasonal as agricultural exports makes no sense. Furthermore increasing import prices may also cause production to be redirected to the interior market. This also does not take domestic demand into account. Also this absolutely does not prove anything about fertilizers. At the very least look at agricultural output per hectare, search for confounding factors such as weather and ... Look at fertilizer imports, reserves and shortages maybe ? What is this, russian propaganda?

Yes but it's a bit harder to build mountains ;)

The lucky thing here is that water usually is an issue in regions which also have a huge solar power potential, which has itself become dirt cheap to produce.