To flush ir not to flush…

One is based on evidence and one is based on anecdote... the score is about 1,855,342,342 to 43, evidence to anecdote, lol. First, let's assume basic competency and not some dumpster fire of a plant with a plethora is nutrient imbalances. Flower is a sex organ. It does not store excess minerals. This is why when they test flushed and non-flushed flower, there is no difference in mineral content. The flower is made of the same stuff, regardless of flushing. Molecularly, it is not impacted by flushing, unless a deprivation is caused then you get less, because law of conservation of mass -- you can't just make mass from nothing.. the atoms have to be there. cell differentiation. Various tissues perform various tasks. flower is for sexual reproduction. Not a whole lot of photosynthesis or other things are going on there. Do your balls or ovules store fat? No, because that would be absurd to think various bits of anatomy are a jack of all trade Go ahead and do it, if you want. Nothing too wrong with it as long as the plant isn't deprived of necessary building blocks. If it can cannibalize itself sufficiently, nothing is lost. This also depends exactly how the building blocks get where they are needed -- does it cost more energy to move stuff out of 'storage' or is that already part of the pathway, regardless of from the roots or from 'storage'. This is probably a question that is already figuerd out and could look it up. If it costs more energy in any way to cannibalize itself, that would result in 'some' loss due to less efficient use of ATP and less of it being avaialble to produce tch and terpenes etc that happen to be 'uphill' reactions. The red flag is that the reasons they give as to why keep changing as they get proven wrong. It's like playing whack-a-mole. oh, it's this! nope. Oh, then it's this! nope. LOL at some point you have to recognize when top-down (inductive) reasoning leads to obvious errors.