About
Editorial principles
Every guide on CannaEvidence is meant to help with a medical access decision. That obliges us to be precise about how our content is made — including where machines help and where people decide.
How a guide is made
1. Research from primary sources. Guides start with regulatory documents, statutes and register data — the Misuse of Drugs Regulations, NICE NG144, MHRA guidance, CQC and GPhC registers for the UK; the equivalent instruments for every other country. Medical statements never come from news aggregators, clinic marketing or social media.
2. AI-assisted drafting. We use AI tools to draft and structure text from the research. We say so openly because you should not have to guess. AI is a drafting tool here, not an author: no text is published unedited.
3. Editorial review, four eyes. Every text is read against its sources before publication: statements are traced back, figures re-checked, and what cannot be substantiated is removed.
4. Clinical review. A medical review board is being set up. A page names a reviewer — with name, qualification and date — only once the review has actually happened; there are no invented names here.
5. Updates. Access rules change — the UK's 2018 rescheduling, Poland's in-person rule of November 2024, Czechia's GP prescribing of April 2025. Guides carry an update date, entries a date of check.
What we never do
We take no money for entries or placements. We publish no promises of effect. We do not advertise medicines and do not coach anyone into obtaining a prescription. We do not write about a treatment without naming its regulatory status — and our guides say openly for whom a route is not suitable.
Corrections
If you find an error — clinical, factual or in an entry — write to hello@cannaevidence.com. Corrections with medical significance are prioritised.