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 It further cites Reuters reporting that FDA removed outdated webpages about cellphone safety alongside HHS launching a new study, and contends MBFC should update its rationale and links.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.

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 January 8, 2026 update that labeled RF Safe “Least Biased” and “Mostly Factual” but assigned “Medium Credibility,” citing perceived one-sided interpretation, product-sales conflicts, and alarmist framing. The post argues RF Safe’s “S4-Mito-Spin” framework incorporates null findings as boundary conditions to explain variability in RF/EMF study outcomes rather than ignoring negative results. It also claims major authorities’ positions are outdated in light of a cited WHO review and a U.S. court remand regarding FCC guidelines, and contends product sales are secondary to advocacy and education.

RF Safe argues that “no effect” findings in some RF exposure studies should be interpreted as meaningful negative controls rather than as evidence that RF has no biological effects. The post presents RF Safe’s “S4–Mito–Spin” framework, claiming certain skin cell types (fibroblasts and keratinocytes) are predicted to be relatively resistant to non-thermal RF effects, so null results in these cells can be consistent with the model. It cites in-vitro studies at 3.5 GHz (5G-modulated) reporting no changes in ROS measures, stress responses, or UV-B DNA repair kinetics under specified SAR conditions, and frames these nulls as boundary conditions rather than a general safety conclusion.

RF Safe argues that its “S4-Mito-Spin” framework should avoid debates about whether cell phones cause human disease and instead focus on mechanistic and animal evidence for non-thermal RF/EMF biological effects. The post claims the framework synthesizes established concepts (ion-channel interactions, mitochondrial/NOX-driven ROS, and radical-pair/quantum spin effects) to explain why some lab studies find effects and others do not. It also cites a WHO-commissioned systematic review and a U.S. court ruling to support calls for updating RF exposure guidelines beyond thermal-only assumptions.

RF Safe argues that its “S4-Mito-Spin” framework should avoid human disease causation debates and instead focus on interpreting non-thermal RF/EMF findings from cellular and animal studies. The article claims the framework synthesizes mechanisms involving voltage-gated ion channels, mitochondrial/oxidative stress pathways, and radical-pair (spin) effects to explain why some experiments show effects and others do not. It further contends that rodent evidence and a cited WHO-commissioned review support updating RF exposure guidelines beyond thermal-only assumptions, and references a U.S. court decision criticizing the FCC’s rationale for maintaining existing limits.

RF Safe presents itself as an RF exposure advocacy and education project promoting “RF exposure literacy,” safer-use habits, and updated safety frameworks beyond thermal-only assumptions. The post highlights RF Safe’s tools, including a SAR comparison database based on FCC SAR data, a public research viewer described as containing 4,000+ peer-reviewed studies, and its “TruthCase”/editorial standards. It argues that non-thermal biological interactions are reported in experimental literature and that compliance with current SAR limits does not necessarily reflect optimal real-world exposure outcomes.

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 correction request addressed to Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) regarding MBFC’s credibility entry about RF Safe. The post argues that MBFC should revise or substantiate claims about RF Safe being “funded primarily” by product sales, adjust conflict-of-interest wording, and reconsider an assertion that RF Safe gives limited weight to null (no-effect) evidence. RF Safe proposes alternative language and links to its own transparency policy, product education pages, and a framework it says explicitly anticipates null results.

RF Safe argues that “no effect” (null) findings in RF research should be treated as informative constraints rather than dismissed, within its S4–Mito–Spin mechanistic framework. The post claims biological and exposure heterogeneity can produce nonlinear, tissue- and signal-dependent outcomes, making null results an expected pattern under many study conditions. It references a WHO-commissioned systematic review on RF-EMF and oxidative stress biomarkers as concluding the evidence is of “very low certainty,” citing bias, heterogeneity, and exposure/measurement limitations.

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 criticizes Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) for labeling RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility,” arguing MBFC’s entry contains factual errors and misrepresentations. The post says RF Safe does not claim RF radiation definitively causes human disease, but instead presents precautionary interpretations of peer-reviewed studies and proposed non-thermal mechanisms. It also alleges MBFC made specific, checkable mistakes about study-linking practices and site ownership/funding, and failed to correct them after rebuttals.

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) after MBFC labeled RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility.” The article argues MBFC made factual errors about RF Safe’s research links and ownership/funding, and says MBFC has not corrected the entry despite requests. RF Safe also defends its framing of non-thermal RF/EMF effects as precautionary and grounded in peer-reviewed literature, while criticizing what it characterizes as superficial fact-checking.

RF Safe promotes an “Act Now” hub intended to convert EMF safety concerns into policy and regulatory actions, emphasizing accountability and exposure reduction, especially for children. The page outlines five advocacy “levers,” including changing Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act, pressing the FCC to complete actions following a court remand, and restarting a federal electronic-product radiation program. It frames current RF oversight as outdated and insufficient for modern exposure patterns, and provides scripts to help supporters submit comments and demands into official records.

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.

RF Safe founder John Coates outlines a 2026 advocacy plan focused on increasing enforcement of U.S. federal radiation-control law, pushing consumer technology toward Li‑Fi as a safer baseline for children, and demanding accountability from companies marketing wireless products to children. The post argues that current RF safety rules rely too heavily on “thermal-only” assumptions and that cumulative exposure from smartphones is a preventable risk. It also states RF Safe intends to pursue legal action to compel HHS to fulfill duties under the Radiation Control for Health & Safety Act (Public Law 90-602).

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 argues that common marketing claims for anti-radiation phone cases (e.g., “99% shielding”) are misleading because they often rely on controlled lab fabric tests that do not reflect real-world phone use. The post claims factors like shield orientation, phone transmit-power increases under obstruction, frequency differences (including 5G bands), and user/body interactions can reduce or even reverse purported exposure reductions. It also criticizes current regulatory testing frameworks for not requiring phones to be tested with cases and promotes RF Safe’s own “TruthCase/QuantaCase” approach as a more honest alternative.

RF Safe promotes its QuantaCase™ (also called TruthCase™) as the “best anti-radiation phone case,” citing a review of 2025 market options, expert analyses, and user feedback from platforms like Reddit and Amazon. The post argues that while no case provides 100% protection, QuantaCase’s approach is more credible than “fake” anti-radiation cases and should be paired with exposure-reduction behaviors (e.g., distance and wired tech). It also references a claimed WHO 2025 position on animal cancer certainty, but provides no verifiable details in the excerpt.

RF Safe promotes an education-first, zero-paid-ad marketing approach for its EMF safety products, positioning itself against what it describes as a market full of overhyped or misleading “anti-radiation” gadgets. The article highlights RF Safe’s resources (e.g., a large study library and SAR tools) and argues its products (notably the QuantaCase) align with “physics” and avoid deceptive claims. It also repeats the founder’s personal story linking a family tragedy to prenatal EMF exposure and references various external claims (e.g., WHO animal findings, court criticism of FCC limits) without providing primary documentation in the text.