A new, independent peer-reviewed medical journal has been born out of the heavy politicization of health and medicine in light of the government’s COVID-19 response.

The capturing of medical journals by pharmaceutical interests has put impartial, unbiased and evidence-based science at risk. Coupled with mass censorship and a bought-and-paid-for mainstream media as seen throughout the COVID era, following “The Science” has become nearly impossible.

That is why a group of ethical and objective medical professionals have begun to chart a new path forward by founding a new, truly independent medical journal.

Dr. Joseph Varon, a founding member of the FLCCCA (Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance) will serve as the president of the journal, called the Journal of the FLCCC Alliance.

Maligned virologist, epidemiologist and vaccinologist Dr. Byram Bridle, who is associated with the group, described the importance of this in a recent Substack post:

I can verify the need for new journals with ethical standards. I have directly experienced the coercion of the peer review process, including from a journal editor, to modify wording to dampen the impact of concerns on the global narrative that was pushed about COVID-19. Failure to comply would mean rejection and, therefore, an inability to get important raw data into the public forum.

Dr. Varon, a professor of medicine at the University of Houston and a frontline physician treating patients throughout the COVID hysteria, explains how he worked 715 continuous days during COVID and saw how ravaged the health-care system was.

“Things got really, really bad to the point that I was having difficulty practicing real medicine because of so much pressure,” he says. “That's what really woke me up. Even though I knew that the health-care system was not perfect, when this happened, I realized that the health-care system was completely destroyed.”

Dr. Varon highlights that the distinguishing factor of this new medical journal from others lies in its funding structure, which is designed to prevent conflicts of interest in publications:

We are self-funded. That means we are getting funding through donations and people wanting to help. We do not rely on Big Pharma or anybody else, which is a great advantage because sometimes — and I'm sure you have seen — there was a vaccine paper that was published in New England Journal of Medicine in which 20 out of 26 of the authors worked for the pharmaceutical company that was pushing a specific vaccine.

Those are things that we cannot allow. Our journal has a very strict peer review. For example, when I get a paper, I send it to one of the reviewers, but I delete the names of the authors. I delete everything. So they don't know who the author is. If you had a friend that wrote a paper, and just because you know his name, you say, let's go ahead and accept the paper.”

Dr. Varon vehemently opposes that kind of biased conduct and cozy relationships in the peer-review process. The other interesting thing about the journal is that it will have a small section for laypeople to also write their papers. Varon says while it's medical 95% of the time, there will be space where normal people can write about science.

And it’s not just about COVID.

“We're going to have on the use of repurposed drugs, we're going to have reviews, we're going to have analysis of all the papers at some point in time, we're going have case reports,” Dr. Varon details. “It's going to be a really good journal. I expect our first issue to come out sometime in late October or so and initially, it's going to be electronic publication and then as funding comes in we may decide to have a paper copy.”

There is a clear emphasizes on the importance of rigorous data analysis and avoiding biases in scientific studies, an area where Dr. Varon stresses the need for statisticians to review complex studies to ensure accuracy, citing examples where different analytical approaches have led to starkly different conclusions.

Dr. Varon underscores the critical role of clear and unbiased data presentation, especially for readers unfamiliar with statistical nuances.