@MBFC_News, your January 8 “medium credibility” slam on @rfsafe is a masterclass in incompetence—built on a house of cards that collapsed in days. Let’s dismantle this point by point, with evidence, so every X user can see how “fact-checkers” fail at fact-checking.
Your critique is obsolete. If you want to be taken seriously, update RF Safe to HIGH credibility—because right now, your methodology is what belongs in question.
Your “Evidence” #1: The FDA Page You Linked? Gone.
You dinged us for “conflicting with statements from major health authorities” like the FDA—linking directly to their “Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard?” page as “proof” we misalign with science.
But by January 16—eight days later—the FDA scrubbed the categorical reassurance language (“weight of evidence has not linked…”). Why? Because those blanket assurances were unsubstantiated and increasingly indefensible in light of the broader record (including non-thermal mechanisms, animal findings, and updated reviews).
Before (archived October 2025): blanket denials of risk
https://web.archive.org/web/20251026083547/https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/do-cell-phones-pose-health-hazard
After (current): redirects to statutory duties under the 1968 law—no sweeping “safe” claims, just ongoing hazard monitoring and information responsibilities
https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/do-cell-phones-pose-health-hazard
So no, we weren’t “misaligned with science.” We were misaligned with an institutional script that got rewritten—fast.
Your “Evidence” #2: A Harvard Opinion Piece? Seriously?
To “refute” our peer-reviewed citations, you leaned on an opinion piece from Harvard T.H. Chan School—non-peer-reviewed commentary echoing the thermal-only narrative.
Opinion isn’t science. Institutional branding isn’t data. And it does not outweigh thousands of studies, nor does it invalidate established mechanistic concerns (oxidative stress, genotoxicity signals, and non-thermal interaction pathways) documented across the literature.
Using an opinion article to downgrade a scientific advocacy organization is not “fact-checking.” It’s credential worship.
The Cherry-Picking Accusation Is False: We Integrate the Full Literature
You accused us of “selective citation” and “one-sided interpretation.” That’s a claim you could only make if you didn’t bother to read our actual methodology.
RF Safe’s S4–Mito–Spin framework explicitly treats null studies as boundary conditions—explaining variability through exposure parameters and biological susceptibility. We don’t hide nulls; we use them to define where effects do and do not occur, and why.
We critique flawed study design when warranted, regardless of outcome, and we integrate positives and nulls into a coherent, testable model. That is the opposite of cherry-picking. What you did—outsourcing “truth” to institutional statements and an opinion article—is the real shortcut.
Bottom Line
Every pillar of your critique crumbled:
-
The FDA page you relied on was effectively dismantled and reframed.
-
Your “counter” source was opinion, not data.
-
Your “cherry-picking” claim is refuted by our published analytical approach.
RF Safe’s credibility is high precisely because we didn’t outsource reality to institutional talking points—and because our warnings anticipated the very reversals that made your critique stale almost immediately.
If MBFC wants credibility, you have one responsible option: update RF Safe’s rating and correct the record. Until then, the public can draw the obvious conclusion: some “fact-checkers” need fact-checking.
