Consumer Products, Shielding & Marketing Claims

RF Safe argues that marketing claims such as “blocks 99% of EMF” for anti-radiation phone cases are misleading because many “lab tests” are reportedly performed on shielding fabric alone rather than on a working phone. The piece frames a phone as a “dynamic radio” and suggests real-world performance may differ from simplified test setups. The extracted text also promotes RF Safe’s products and warranty, indicating a commercial/advocacy context.

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 It further cites Reuters reporting that FDA removed outdated webpages about cellphone safety alongside HHS launching a new study, and contends MBFC should update its rationale and links.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 recounts a timeline of FTC actions and consumer guidance targeting phone “radiation shield” stickers/patches that claimed large reductions in exposure, arguing these products can create a false sense of security. The post cites the FTC’s February 2002 enforcement actions and consumer alert, including references to Good Housekeeping Institute testing that reportedly found the products did not reduce exposure. RF Safe also claims it warned about such scams earlier (late 1990s), framing this as its own account rather than an FTC-attributed origin story.

RF Safe promotes its QuantaCase (also called TruthCase) as a leading “anti-radiation” phone case for 2026, emphasizing a directional shielding design intended to deflect RF energy away from the body. The article argues the product aligns with consumer-safety guidance such as keeping phones away from the body and using hands-free modes, and it claims RF Safe’s earlier advocacy influenced FTC/FCC warnings about ineffective or counterproductive shielding products. It cites comparisons, user reviews, and an “independent” 2017 TV review as support, but presents limited verifiable technical detail in the excerpt.

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 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 argues that many “anti-radiation” phone cases use misleading marketing (e.g., fabric-swatch tests, vague “FCC tested” claims) and that some designs may cause phones to increase transmit power if they interfere with antennas. The article provides a checklist of red flags (magnets/metal plates, detachable shields, unclear orientation instructions) and emphasizes behavioral steps to reduce RF exposure. It promotes RF Safe’s QuantaCase as a “directional shielding” design intended to reduce exposure on the body-facing side while avoiding signal blockage that could prompt higher power output.

RF Safe argues that recent WHO-linked evidence reviews have moved beyond a “thermal-only” safety narrative and that policy should respond with stronger protections. The post cites a 2025 WHO-commissioned systematic review in Environment International as concluding with “high certainty” that RF-EMF increases malignant heart schwannomas and brain gliomas in male rats, and references a 2025 corrigendum upgrading certainty for reduced pregnancy rates after male RF exposure in animal experiments. It also points to U.S. FCC rules being rooted in 1996-era assumptions and references a U.S. appellate court remand requiring the FCC to better address non-cancer harms and impacts on children and long-term exposure. The article advocates for the “Clean Ether Act” and promotes RF Safe’s proposed “S4–Mito–Spin” mechanism framework as a non-thermal explanatory model.

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 argues that modern radiofrequency (RF) exposures are complex (adaptive, nonlinear, geometry- and near-field–dependent) and that biological effects, if any, may be better understood as “timing/coherence” disruptions rather than direct single-cause disease claims. The piece cautions against simplistic “percent blocking” marketing for anti-radiation accessories, claiming real-world emissions can change when antenna boundary conditions are altered. It proposes an explanatory framework (“S4–Mito–Spin”) and suggests a policy/technology “exit” via indoor photonics (Li‑Fi/optical wireless) rather than continued expansion of microwave-based systems, while explicitly stating it does not claim RF causes specific human diseases or that products protect health.

This RF Safe position piece argues that long-term exposure to “non-native,” low-fidelity electromagnetic environments (including man-made RF) can degrade biological timing and coherence, contributing to downstream issues such as immune dysregulation and oxidative stress. It frames this as a systems-level claim rather than asserting RF “causes” specific diseases, and it cites proposed biophysical mechanisms (e.g., coupling into dense tissues, membrane voltage-sensing domains, mitochondrial/redox pathways). The article also references Heinrich Hertz’s historical exposure to early radio experiments and a retrospective medical analysis of his illness, while stating it is not claiming RF caused his condition.