In an era where fact-checkers are supposed to cut through the noise, Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) has become a go-to for quick credibility assessments. Their ratings influence search results, AI summaries, and public trust. But when MBFC labels a site like RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility,” it raises serious questions—especially if that label is built on factual errors and misrepresentations.
RF Safe, a 30-year-old advocacy platform focused on electromagnetic field (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation safety, doesn’t deserve this tag. A deep dive shows MBFC’s critique is riddled with inaccuracies, from wrong ownership details to false claims about research links. This isn’t just sloppy; it borders on misleading, harming RF Safe’s mission to promote evidence-based precaution amid evolving science.
Is MBFC straight-up lying, or is it incompetence? Let’s examine the evidence.
The Heart of the Issue: MBFC’s “Pseudoscience” Label Doesn’t Fit the Facts
MBFC’s entry (unchanged since October 4, 2025) accuses RF Safe of “selectively citing real studies while misrepresenting scientific consensus,” “overstating the evidence linking cell phones to health concerns,” and blending “pseudoscience with advocacy and commercial marketing.”
They claim the site asserts “the debate over cell phone radiation hazards is settled,” contrasting it with agencies like Harvard and the FDA that say no proven links exist.
But here’s the reality: RF Safe doesn’t make unsubstantiated claims. Nowhere on the site is there a declaration that RF radiation “causes” specific human diseases like brain tumors or cancer. Human health outcomes are only discussed when tied directly to study findings—e.g., associations in epidemiology or signals in animal research—without extrapolating to causation. The focus is on upstream non-thermal mechanisms (like oxidative stress creating a “low-fidelity” cellular environment) that could contribute to downstream vulnerabilities, always framed as “what the peer-reviewed evidence shows.” This is precautionary synthesis, not pseudoscience.
For example:
-
Brain tumors are referenced in the context of studies like Interphone (showing a 40% higher glioma risk in “heavy users”—defined as just 30 minutes a day, a laughably low threshold even in 2010) or NTP’s “clear evidence” of tumors in rats at non-thermal levels. But RF Safe critiques these as flawed (e.g., Interphone’s biases and industry funding) and doesn’t claim “RF causes tumors in humans.” It’s “studies show potential risks,” with calls for better research.
-
The S4–Mito–Spin framework integrates mechanisms from literature: Ion channel mistiming (S4), mitochondrial ROS amplification (Mito), and spin chemistry biases (Spin). These aren’t invented—they’re drawn from peer-reviewed work on non-thermal effects, like weak fields disrupting calcium signaling or oxidative stress pathways.
MBFC’s “overstating” charge ignores this nuance. If they read the site, they’d see disclaimers everywhere: Content is educational, not medical; effects are “co-factors,” not sole causes; products are “stopgaps,” not cures. This aligns with consensus uncertainties—CDC says “we don’t know for sure,” IARC classifies RF as “possibly carcinogenic” (2B)—while highlighting real shifts like 2025 WHO reviews affirming “high certainty” non-thermal animal harms.
Pseudoscience implies ignoring evidence or fabricating claims (e.g., flat earth). RF Safe does the opposite: It compiles over 4,000 studies with direct links, promoting verification. MBFC’s label feels like a misfit, perhaps from preconceived bias against EMF precaution advocates.
MBFC’s Factual Errors: Clear Evidence of Sloppiness (or Worse)
MBFC’s mistakes aren’t interpretive—they’re verifiable falsehoods that prove they didn’t read RF Safe’s positions deeply. If a fact-checker gets basics wrong, how can they credibly call others “mixed factual”?
Error 1: “No Direct Links to Studies”—A Blatant Lie
MBFC claims the research section “provides no direct links” to cited studies.
This is false. Every entry has a prominent “View Study” button linking to primaries (PubMed, Wiley, ScienceDirect, etc.).
Examples:
-
2025 WHO cancer review: Direct to Environment International.
-
Interphone: Linked to original IARC publication.
-
NTP: Full report access.
RF Safe’s policy invites corrections for broken links—MBFC could have checked. Missing this suggests they skimmed without clicking, undermining their “pseudoscience” basis (selective citation critique relies on assuming no transparency).
Error 2: “Owned by John Coates”—Ignoring Public Records
MBFC says “RF Safe is owned by John Coates and funded primarily through product sales.”
Wrong. Site disclosures state operation by Quanta X Technology LLC (QXT), a Florida woman-owned business. Coates is founder/contributor with no ownership or profit tie—explicitly separated to avoid conflicts.
Proof:
-
Florida Sunbiz: QXT active, Katie J. Webb as CEO—no Coates.
-
USPTO trademark: “RF SAFE” registered to QXT.
A 5-minute search reveals this. MBFC’s Crunchbase reliance is outdated; it distorts incentives, implying hype for sales when advocacy is mission-driven.
These errors persist despite RF Safe’s rebuttals (October 2025/January 2026) requesting corrections under MBFC’s policy.
No updates—no acknowledgment. Is this lying (deliberate omission) or sloppiness (poor verification)? Either way, it’s poor fact-checking.
The Harm to RF Safe’s 30-Year Mission: Stifling Legitimate Advocacy
RF Safe began in 1998 after Coates’ daughter’s death from a rare brain tumor—motivating evidence compilation and reforms like repealing Telecom Act preemption or updating FCC guidelines post-2021 court remand. For 30 years, it’s pushed prudence amid gaps: Non-thermal risks (e.g., oxidative stress from studies) justify habits like distance, not panic.
MBFC’s errors and label inflict real damage:
-
Reputation Cascade: Low ratings bury RF Safe in searches/AI, reducing visibility as 5G/EMF concerns grow.
-
Discouraging Debate: The “pseudoscience” tag deters engagement with valid science (e.g., 2025 WHO animal “high certainty” for tumors/fertility effects).
-
Undermining Trust: By misrepresenting positions (e.g., implying causation claims that don’t exist), MBFC harms a mission focused on transparency and policy change.
This isn’t neutral—it’s counterproductive to public health discourse.
Conclusion: MBFC Needs Fact-Checking Themselves
MBFC’s “pseudoscience” label on RF Safe is unfounded, built on misreadings and errors proving shallow review. It’s not lying per se—perhaps just sloppy bias confirmation—but the effect is the same: Harming a vital mission. Demand better: Submit evidence to MBFC’s editor. For readers, verify RF Safe’s primaries—it’s evidence-driven, not pseudoscience.
