Cheers, I get it now, I was thinking it was £50 for personnel of various national services and armed forces veterans and couldn't find prices for others, making me think it was exclusive. Going to look into this , the cost over a year for a new patient not just the £50 but the oils and flower costs with any Grow Access Project or T21 discount if applicable for someone, must admit looks promising compared to some others at first glance.As you suggested, free for personnel of various national services or armed forces veterans - otherwise £50 per year. By far the cheapest clinic, with generally favourable reviews as far as we've seen.
You can use any pharmacy at CB1 Medical, though they also have a public formulary for their own pharmacy posted here:
![]()
The CB1 Formulary
docs.google.com
Great feeling having no consultation required for bout another nine months for me, difference is this person would probably need guidance with the oils and I'd imagine the need for THC/high CBD oil so may need more consultations as they find out what works for them oilwise, so would not like the outlay for an access scheme that becomes value in the second year encase the benefits of MC are not significant enough also these oils I suspect they would need tend to be really dear. With me the need for guidance isn't as essential as I've treated my mental health and kept it check myself with cannabis for years.I just needed access to the tools so to speak.The idea of less frequent appointments matters. Makes CB1 Medical attractive, if also true like Mamedica®.
difference is this person would probably need guidance with the oils and I'd imagine the need for THC/highcbd oil so may need more consultations as they find out what works for them oilwise
This is something that did occur to us and the hope is that prescriptions can be satisfied inhouse without too much of a compromise ,as I feel when signing up in this instance your sort of buying into their way . Also like the way it seems more closely aligned to the NHS , I may be wrong ,but the feedback to the NHS I would of thought that only good would come of this eventually.To be fair to them, I worry slightly about their business model, if too many prescriptions are fulfilled external to their formulary.
When clinic costs are low, squaring the circle of a sustainable business is possible when it's all dispensed in house. When it's dispensed externally instead, they don't get that revenue cut. So their business is less lubricated.
Just installed the app. Tried filling everything out it said it is missing but it's gonna take a lot of getting used too for me personally. The request system was so simple before.
trying to put my request in and it is giving me a THC limit reached when trying to add to the request more than one item above 20% THC and I'm well within this months prescriptions allowance.
I really hope I have just done something wrong or there's just a few glitches in the system they can fix soon. I cant wrap my head around it at the moment. Caught myself a lovely cough few days ago so my brain is too fuzzy to focus on dealing with the app at the moment.
View attachment 448View attachment 447
More good news thanks to MedBud and CB1 Medical for looking to improve patients choices.
This is overall a hard argument to make, clinicians are foremost receptive to considering quantifiable metrics. If they can see something on a COA or in other official info provided which could impact suitability they'll consider it, but to them things like the difference between curing/cultivars is not really tangible in their self-verifiable data as provided to them by authoritative sources.@Muiredach did you get any feeling from them they understand that flower choice is not just about THC/CBD levels and that different product's curing and strains can lead to different terpene profiles? Otherwise, there's a risk that actual follow through could be slow or not really happen.
Access to flower they don't have yet can be critical, and getting access is a key way for them to retain business and stay financially healthy.
I totally get that this will be the instinct of many clinicians. Quantifiable science is a positive counterweight to quackery.This is overall a hard argument to make, clinicians are foremost receptive to considering quantifiable metrics. If they can see something on a COA or in other official info provided which could impact suitability they'll consider it, but to them things like the difference between curing/cultivars is not really tangible in their self-verifiable data as provided to them by authoritative sources.
In short clinicians don't have much to go on beyond THC/CBD, and in some cases terpene information and irradiation method. For the latter, it's hard to even know how to interpret values based on authoritative peer-reviewed research, studies, data et cetera.
One of many examples:also a problem outside of MC.