First, I’d like to thank you for focusing your energy and expertise on such a worthy topic. We all appreciate very much you shedding more light on the tremendous value that these compounds from hemp have to offer. In response to your article on Phytocannabinoids, I would like to address the issue of full-spectrum hemp oil in comparison to isolated CBD. I would like to point out that two statements were made in the article that seem to contradict each other. On one hand, your article says that “anything from the mature stalk is exempt.” Yet overall the article is slanted in a way that seems to conclude that isolated CBD is illegal. What if the CBD was isolated from the mature stalk? According to your article, at what point does the CBD in the oil derived from the mature stalk become non-exempt? At 30% concentration? 50%? 75%? Or only at 99+%?
For the most part, I personally thought your article was well written and enjoyed reading it. However, it essentially states that only full spectrum oil delivers benefits and leads the reader to believe that CBD alone simply doesn't work unless it is combined with the other elements contained in full-spectrum oil. This conclusion is scientifically unfounded. My question is: is your opinion based on scientific research or purely on the opinions of those who are selling full-spectrum oil and stand to gain by claiming its superiority? Are you at WholeFoods Magazine aware of the undeniable evidence proving CBD's therapeutic abilities as a pure isolated compound?
Finally, I recommend the reader seek scientific data and consider the source of the information they find. That is, realize that certain companies and individuals may have an incentive to primarily serve an increase in revenues by positioning their current product offerings above other options that could, indeed, help people a great deal. It would be a shame if incorrect information stifled someone's efforts to identify and source a life-changing ingredient. Even more so, it would be counterproductive to only promote the theory that all of the constituents of the hemp plant are absolutely necessary to allow CBD to achieve results. If that were even slightly true, why is it that scientists around the globe are talking about CBD specifically? How did CBD become such a hot topic as only one cannabinoid, and what do we really know about all of these other constituents and their reaction to other medications or effect on a variety of health conditions?
As I stated, I personally believe in the power of CBD alone and also in its efficacy when combined with the other hemp constituents as well as with over-the-counter medications. I have witnessed the results on people and animals, alike. According to nearly all studies using CBD isolate, the very thing your article downplays, CBD alone is non-psychotropic, carries very little risk of toxicity, and has a proven success rate. There are many, many years ahead of us to study these compounds, how they work alone, and how they may synergistically work together, but let's not influence people with false or partial information. There are pros and cons to both full spectrum and isolate and both should be examined and discussed for the reader to make their own choice. Isolated CBD had no chance in the article, yet it has the most clinical proof of being extremely beneficial without side effects, without psychotropic effects, without overdosing, and without any other constituent of the cannabis plant. If the future CBD marketplace was influenced primarily by your article, isolated CBD derived only from the exempted part of the hemp plant would have had no chance...and that would have been a shame. The world only stands to benefit from BOTH full-spectrum AND isolated CBD; if we as influencers do our due-diligence and allow our readers the opportunity to make their own assessments.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jared Berry, CEO Isodiol