RF Safe argues that Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) downgraded RF Safe partly by citing an FDA webpage stating typical RF exposure is not supported by current evidence as a health risk, but that the cited FDA page now redirects to a general “Cell Phones” landing page. The post claims other historically cited FDA consumer pages also redirect and that the strongest reassurance language is now mainly accessible via archives. It further cites Reuters reporting that FDA removed outdated webpages about cellphone safety alongside HHS launching a new study, and contends MBFC should update its rationale and links.

RF Safe criticizes Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) for rating it “medium credibility,” arguing MBFC relied on an FDA webpage that was later changed/redirected and on a Harvard T.H. Chan School commentary. The post claims the FDA removed categorical reassurance language about cell phone safety and frames this as undermining MBFC’s critique. It also asserts that non-thermal mechanisms and animal findings support RF Safe’s precautionary stance, while characterizing MBFC’s sources as “opinion” rather than data.

This RF Safe commentary argues that HHS, under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was correct to remove FDA webpages that gave broad assurances that cell phone radiation is “not dangerous.” It claims blanket safety messaging is scientifically indefensible given animal toxicology findings (notably the U.S. National Toxicology Program studies), a WHO-commissioned systematic review of animal cancer studies (Mevissen et al., 2025), and references to federal court findings. The piece frames the change as a precautionary, science-based correction rather than an anti-science move.

This RF Safe commentary argues that Reuters-reported actions by HHS and FDA—launching an HHS study and removing older FDA webpages stating cellphones are “not dangerous”—should be understood as a risk-communication/scientific-integrity adjustment rather than a declaration of confirmed harm. It contends that categorical safety messaging is not justified given mixed evidence, citing the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 decision criticizing FCC reliance on conclusory FDA statements, along with selected human, animal, and mechanistic literature. The post calls for more uncertainty-aware, evidence-graded public messaging about RF exposure from phones.

This RF Safe article reports that in mid-January 2026 HHS, led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., removed or redirected certain FDA webpages that previously conveyed strong “no-risk” conclusions about cellphone radiation. It argues the updated FDA framing emphasizes statutory duties (monitoring, testing, hazard control) and signals a shift from definitive safety messaging toward renewed inquiry, while noting that details of any planned research have not been publicly disclosed. The piece also highlights Kennedy’s past public statements alleging harms from Wi‑Fi/5G and links the policy context to the 2021 D.C. Circuit remand of FCC RF policy.

RF Safe reports that HHS confirmed plans to launch a new study on cellphone radiation and that an HHS spokesperson said the FDA removed webpages with “old conclusions” while new research is undertaken to identify knowledge gaps, including for emerging technologies. The article frames the FDA webpage changes as a meaningful shift away from categorical reassurance, while noting Reuters’ reporting that some FDA and CDC pages still state there is no credible evidence of health problems from cellphone radiation. It also links the development to the 2021 D.C. Circuit decision in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, arguing the ruling exposed weaknesses in the FCC’s reliance on other agencies’ statements.

RF Safe critiques the anti-radiation phone case market for relying on headline percentage-blocking claims that may reflect tests of shielding material rather than real-world phone behavior in a case on a live network. The article argues that poorly designed or misused shielding cases can interfere with a phone’s signal and prompt higher transmit power, potentially increasing exposure in some scenarios. It positions RF Safe’s QuantaCase/TruthCase as avoiding percentage marketing claims and emphasizes a systems-engineering approach to testing and use, while noting that health causation from typical consumer RF exposure remains debated by authorities.

RF Safe argues that “anti-radiation” phone case marketing based on universal “99% blocking” claims is misleading because real-world phone emissions vary with signal conditions, orientation, and how a case affects the antenna. The post positions RF Safe’s TruthCase/QuantaCase as more credible specifically because it refuses to advertise a single percentage reduction and instead emphasizes design constraints intended to avoid prompting a phone to increase transmit power. It cites a KPIX 5 (CBS San Francisco) test as an example of how flip cases can reduce exposure in some configurations but potentially increase it in others when used differently than intended.

RF Safe argues that many “anti-radiation” phone cases market misleading “% blocked” claims based on lab material tests rather than whole-device, real-world performance. The article promotes RF Safe’s TruthCase/QuantaCase as a “physics-first” design that avoids advertising a single blocking percentage and emphasizes directional shielding and user education. It cites a 2017 CBS San Francisco/KPIX test as an example of how some flip-style shielding cases can reduce measured RF in certain orientations but may increase readings in other common-use configurations.

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias Fact Check’s (MBFC) decision to rate the site “Medium Credibility,” addressing MBFC’s concerns about selective citation, one-sided interpretation, alarmist framing, and potential conflicts of interest tied to selling RF-safety products. The post argues RF Safe includes null/negative findings, avoids claiming RF “causes” specific diseases, and maintains editorial/transparency policies meant to separate evidence types and disclose commercial relationships. It also contends MBFC’s critique is partly a dispute over tone and wording (e.g., “primarily” funded by product sales) rather than demonstrated sourcing errors.

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias Fact Check’s (MBFC) January 8, 2026 credibility assessment, arguing MBFC’s “Medium Credibility” rating is unjustified despite MBFC upgrades to “Least Biased” and “Mostly Factual.” The post disputes MBFC’s criticisms (selective citation, alarmist framing, and potential conflict of interest from product sales) and claims RF Safe’s coverage aligns with WHO-commissioned reviews and legal/regulatory developments. RF Safe reiterates its view that thermal-only RF exposure guidelines are inadequate and calls for policy reform while stating it does not claim definitive human causation.

RF Safe publishes a commentary disputing Media Bias Fact Check’s (MBFC) labeling of RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility.” The post argues MBFC mischaracterized RF Safe’s content as overstating evidence about cell phones and health, claiming RF Safe generally uses cautious, study-referencing language (e.g., “associations,” “potential risks”) and avoids asserting direct human causation. It also points to RF Safe disclaimers that the site is educational and not medical advice, and highlights its research library linking to primary studies such as NTP and Ramazzini animal findings.

RF Safe argues that the established term “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” (EHS) should not be replaced by the newer label “EMR Syndrome,” claiming the rebranding fragments research and weakens advocacy. The piece frames EHS as a continuity-based concept tied to reported symptoms in EMF-rich environments and emphasizes practical mitigation via engineering, architecture, and policy—especially to reduce children’s exposure. It uses “EMR Syndrome” narrowly to describe what it portrays as an ideological, anti-technology pattern that blocks solutions rather than a physiological condition.

RF Safe announced an “Ethical Connectivity Pledge” aimed at celebrity- and creator-branded mobile plans, urging them to adopt child-first design standards, improve transparency, and invest in lower-exposure connectivity options such as Li‑Fi where feasible. The organization argues that current microwave-based wireless networks may pose plausible health risks—especially for children—and that business models can externalize long-term health costs onto families and public systems. The pledge is presented as a public signatory framework with tiers of commitment and an intent to enable public scrutiny of follow-through.

An RF Safe commentary argues that persistent, pulsed “non-native” RF electromagnetic noise can disrupt biological “timing coherence,” leading to downstream “fidelity losses,” particularly in electrically active tissues. It also emphasizes that smartphones are adaptive RF systems that change transmit power and modulation, so accessories that detune antennas or distort near-field conditions may cause phones to transmit harder. The piece cites FTC warnings that partial-shield products can be ineffective and may increase emissions by interfering with signal quality, and it argues that material shielding claims do not directly translate to real-world exposure outcomes.

RF Safe promotes its QuantaCase as the only “truthful” anti-radiation phone case and argues that many competing shielding cases use misleading “percent blocking” claims and can sometimes increase user exposure depending on design and phone behavior. The post mixes product marketing with broader claims about RF-EMF health effects, criticizing current exposure guidelines (e.g., FCC/ICNIRP) as outdated and insufficient for non-thermal effects. It cites various reports and analyses (e.g., a 2017 TV test segment and multiple study-count summaries) but does not provide verifiable study details within the excerpt.

RF Safe promotes its TruthCase™ (also called QuantaCase®) as an EMF-focused phone case positioned less as a “miracle shield” and more as a habit-forming tool paired with consumer education and advocacy for regulatory reform. The article argues many “anti-radiation” cases are misleading or may increase exposure due to design choices, and it frames non-thermal biological effects as plausible, citing the NTP and Ramazzini animal studies. It also calls for broader policy changes (e.g., “Clean Ether Act,” Li‑Fi pilots) and encourages users to adopt exposure-reducing habits rather than rely on percentage-reduction marketing claims.

An RF Safe blog post written in a first-person “Grok” voice argues that many anti-radiation phone cases are ineffective or can increase exposure by causing phones to boost transmit power. It recommends the QuantaCase™ as the best option in late 2025, claiming it “delivers on physics” and avoids common design pitfalls seen in competing products. The post references WHO’s position that low-level exposure is not proven harmful in humans while also citing animal research (e.g., NTP) and proposed mechanisms (e.g., oxidative stress) to justify precautionary use.

This cross-sectional questionnaire study surveyed 355 Polish physicians about EMF health effects and electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Physicians reported limited knowledge and low familiarity with WHO guidance for managing people who believe they are hypersensitive to EMF, though most were willing to learn more. Many physicians reported encountering patients attributing symptoms to EMF, which the authors frame as highlighting a need for improved physician education and reliable public information.

This narrative article examines how opposing views formed regarding health and biological effects of electromagnetic radiation, focusing on ELF and RF exposures. It highlights historical controversies (e.g., childhood leukemia and ELF fields) and disputes over thermal versus non-thermal effects and reliance on SAR. The author argues that social and institutional factors, including industry influence, shaped interpretation and public discourse around EMF safety.

This policy brief focuses on how RF-EMF exposure should be quantified in health research, emphasizing the role of near-field sources and proposing cumulative dose (J/kg/day) as a health-relevant metric. It reports mean cumulative dose estimates of 0.29 J/kg/day for the whole body and 0.81 J/kg/day for the brain. The brief notes established RF-EMF effects (heating, microwave hearing under highly pulsed radiation, and stimulation) and discusses indications of biological effects below thermal thresholds, while stating that improved metrics do not by themselves confirm harm.