I just want to see an actual study. 16 pages in and I'm still waiting for a link. At least something more than a non-existent whitepaper and the same talking points on websites for a bunch of labs offering testing.
Most likely it will be awhile before you see many peer reviewed studies about Cannabis (not hemp) in the US thanks to the feds. All University research is driven mostly by grants from the government and Cannabis grants are frowned upon unless they are set up to demonize Cannabis. It's pretty political.
So a back door is to partner with industry via small grants. I'm guessing UC Davis was the pass through for the grants. Some of the actual research I did, although not frowned upon by the government wasn't sponsored by them either. So we partnered with industry at times. That's one of the caveats about vetting your primary sources. It's also why separate replication of studies is so important.
I've seen the phenomenon and searched for a solution. None of which worked and each clone to flower cycle it worsened and I wasn't exactly a novice grower at the time. I also did not have access to a lab facility but I have a high index of suspicion based on meta-analysis of extant literature. Does it rise to the hysteria DH is allegedly saying? I don't know. All I can say is anecdotally I experienced this and it bears watching, caution and eventual actual research.
you DH shill you 
