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 It further cites Reuters reporting that FDA removed outdated webpages about cellphone safety alongside HHS launching a new study, and contends MBFC should update its rationale and links.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 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 It also claims major authorities’ positions are outdated in light of a cited WHO review and a U.S. court remand regarding FCC guidelines, and contends product sales are secondary to advocacy and education.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 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.

This RF Safe blog post recounts a conversation with xAI’s Grok about RF electromagnetic fields and argues that AI “neutrality” can become biased when it defaults to regulatory consensus (e.g., ICNIRP/FCC) as a proxy for scientific truth. The author claims Grok later acknowledged “regulatory deference” and that evidence from animal studies (NTP, Ramazzini), WHO-commissioned reviews, and proposed non-thermal mechanisms should prompt stronger scrutiny of thermal-only safety standards. The piece frames current RF exposure guidelines as outdated and insufficiently responsive to non-thermal biological-effect evidence.

This RF Safe article argues that the organization’s EMF safety advocacy should not be dismissed as “biased” or “commercially motivated,” framing its work as rooted in its founder’s personal experience and long-term activism. It recounts founder John Coates’ claim that prenatal RF exposure contributed to his infant daughter’s neural tube defect, and presents RF Safe as combining advocacy, scientific synthesis, and product development. The piece also claims RF Safe’s antenna work helped prompt a 2003 FCC rule change recognizing directional antenna approaches to reduce energy toward users while maintaining performance.

This RF Safe article defends the organization against accusations of bias, framing its EMF safety advocacy as rooted in founder John Coates’ personal tragedy and long-term efforts in product development, research synthesis, and policy reform. It claims RF Safe helped drive an FCC rule change related to antenna design and promotes various exposure-reduction accessories and training tools. The piece argues that non-thermal biological effects of RF/ELF fields are being overlooked by regulators and calls for policy changes such as revisiting Section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act and shifting health oversight away from the FCC.

This PRISMA-adherent systematic review searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for studies (2017–2024) on physiological or behavioral responses to EMF exposure, emphasizing studies reporting harmful or concerning effects. Across 24 included studies (human non-randomized, in vitro, and animal), the review reports negative biological effects including oxidative stress, inflammation, genotoxicity, cardiovascular and fertility-related outcomes, neuronal activity changes, and plant photosynthesis impacts. The authors report that most studies had moderate to high risk of bias and therefore the overall certainty of evidence was lower, and they highlight major gaps in long-term human evidence and exposure standardization.