Editorial policy

Docto24 publishes patient-facing educational content about the SAHPRA Section 21 medical cannabis pathway in South Africa. Our editorial mission is to help patients understand the regulatory framework, the clinical evidence base, and the practical mechanics of accessing cannabinoid therapy lawfully — without advertising prescription medicines, without making therapeutic claims, and without using patient testimonials.

We are an HPCSA-registered medical practice; everything we publish operates inside that regulatory frame. When the evidence is strong, we say so. When the evidence is thin, we say that too. Selling cannabinoid therapy as a panacea is both a Rule 27 violation and a disservice to patients trying to make informed decisions.

Content falls into two categories with different review responsibilities:

• Clinical content — articles and condition pages discussing dosing, drug interactions, indication evidence, and patient safety. Reviewed by Docto24's medical director, an HPCSA-registered medical practitioner with cannabinoid-prescribing experience. The reviewer's name and HPCSA number appear on the page byline.
• Regulatory and process content — articles describing the Section 21 application process, SAHPRA mechanics, scheduling rules, scheme coverage, and patient rights. Reviewed by the Docto24 editorial team against the underlying gazettes and statutes.

Every published page carries a “Last reviewed” date. Pages that are factually outdated are reviewed and either updated or marked accordingly. Significant updates to a published page bump the “Last reviewed” date and a brief change-note is recorded in our internal editorial log.

Clinical claims on Docto24 link to peer-reviewed sources or official government gazettes. Our preference order:

1. Cochrane systematic reviews for treatment-effect questions, where available.
2. Major guideline bodies — NICE, EULAR, WHO, AAN, NCCN — for standard-of-care framing.
3. Randomised controlled trials in peer-reviewed journals for specific intervention claims.
4. Large prospective cohort studies where RCT data is limited (which is common for cannabinoids).
5. SA Government Gazettes for regulatory claims (Gazette 43347, scheduling instruments, the Medicines Act).

We avoid citing single anecdotal case reports as if they were generalisable evidence. Where the evidence base for a claim is weak — common in cannabinoid indications — we say so explicitly rather than overstating.

Two SA frameworks shape what we publish:

• Medicines Act §18C — prohibits direct-to-public advertising of prescription medicines. We discuss cannabinoid classes (CBD, balanced THC:CBD oils, oromucosal sprays) educationally; we do not name specific brand-name products on patient-facing pages.
• HPCSA Rule 27 — the ethical rule for medical practitioners. Prohibits therapeutic guarantees, before-after testimonials, and comparative claims against other practitioners. We do not publish patient outcome stories, do not claim that cannabis “cures” specific conditions, and do not market against other telemedicine providers.

If you see content elsewhere that names specific cannabis products in patient-facing marketing, publishes patient before-after stories for medical cannabis, or guarantees clinical outcomes — that is a regulatory red flag.

Docto24 operates an HPCSA-registered telemedicine practice. We earn revenue from doctor-consultation fees (R500) where patients book consultations. We do not receive payment from cannabis manufacturers, importers, or specific pharmacy partners for placement in articles or favourable mention.

We disclose the financial structure clearly:

• Doctor consultation fee (R500) — paid to the practice; covers the prescribing doctor's clinical time.
• SAHPRA Section 21 fee (R400 per product) — statutory, paid to SAHPRA, not to Docto24.
• Medication and delivery — paid by the patient to the dispensing pharmacy directly. Docto24 does not invoice for medication and does not mark up product.

Where an article is written about a topic that intersects with our financial model (e.g. medical-aid coverage, pricing landscape), we flag the obvious interest and try to err toward patient-protective framing rather than self-serving framing.

If a Docto24 page contains a factual error — clinical, regulatory, citation, or any other category — we correct it as a priority. Significant corrections are noted in the page's revision log and the “Last reviewed” date is bumped.

To report a factual error, write to editorial@docto24.co.za with the page URL and the specific concern. We respond within 5 working days, either with the correction made or with our reasoning if we believe the original is correct.

Docto24 does not accept paid advertising or sponsored content placement on patient-facing pages. We do not run native-advertising-style pieces for cannabis manufacturers, dispensaries, or any other commercial entity. We do not list affiliate links to third-party CBD or cannabis products.

The dispensing pharmacy partner relationships that fulfil prescriptions are operational arrangements for medication dispense and courier delivery — they are disclosed at the point of pharmacy selection in a patient's account and are not advertised on educational pages.

We do not publish patient data, anonymised or otherwise, in editorial content. The case studies in our doctor-facing clinical reference (behind authentication) are constructed clinical scenarios rather than real patients. Any patient information collected through the assessment or consultation flow is governed by our POPIA Manual and Privacy Policy, and is not surfaced in editorial content.

Questions or feedback about Docto24 editorial content:

• Editorial / fact-checking: editorial@docto24.co.za
• General: /contact
• Legal & compliance: /legal