To: Editorial Team, Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC)
Regarding: RF Safe entry – https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rf-safe-bias-and-credibility/
MBFC is requested to review and correct several statements in the RF Safe entry that materially affect the “Medium Credibility” rationale. This request is narrowly limited to three issues: (1) the unsupported “funded primarily” funding claim, (2) the conflict-of-interest framing as currently written, and (3) the assertion that RF Safe gives “limited weight” to contradictory evidence (specifically, null findings).
RF Safe is an advocacy and education platform focused on RF safety, product design flaws, and exposure-reduction principles. RF Safe’s published editorial policy emphasizes evidence separation (experimental findings vs. mechanisms vs. regulatory policy) and strict boundaries on causation claims.
1) Requested correction: “Funded primarily through product sales”
Problem: The MBFC entry states or implies that RF Safe is “funded primarily through product sales.” This is a quantitative claim (“primarily”) presented without a supporting financial basis. It also blurs the distinction between the advocacy website/brand and the operating company.
Minimum correction requested:
MBFC is requested to either (a) substantiate “funded primarily” with a clearly stated method and evidence, or (b) revise the statement to a non-quantitative, verifiable description of the structure.
Suggested replacement language (non-quantitative and verifiable):
“RF Safe is operated as a brand/site associated with Quanta X Technology LLC, which offers RF-related accessories. RF Safe publishes disclosures describing editorial practices and compensation boundaries. Readers should review disclosures and primary sources.”
Relevant disclosure and structure references:
-
RF Safe Transparency & Editorial Policy: https://www.rfsafe.com/class/blog/transparency-editorial-policy-rf-safe.php
-
RF Safe contact/brand ownership page (QXT): https://www.rfsafe.com/contact-us/
2) Requested correction: Conflict-of-interest framing (as currently written)
Problem: MBFC’s conflict framing, as written, risks implying a conventional “sell fear to sell product” model, which does not match RF Safe’s published product messaging and educational positioning. RF Safe’s product pages emphasize limitations, user behavior, and design red flags (e.g., rejecting “99% protection everywhere” claims), and repeatedly communicate that accessories are not a substitute for safer usage or policy modernization.
Minimum correction requested:
MBFC is requested to revise conflict wording to (a) reflect RF Safe’s published disclosures and (b) accurately characterize TruthCase/TruthScore content as consumer education and anti-gimmick design critique, not “percentage-claim marketing.”
Suggested replacement language (balanced and record-based):
“RF Safe publishes advocacy content and also references products offered by the operator. RF Safe publishes disclosures about ownership and compensation boundaries, and its product education pages emphasize limitations and behavioral exposure reduction. Readers should consider incentives and review sources directly.”
Educational product-positioning references:
-
TruthCase overview: https://www.rfsafe.com/class/the-truth-case/
-
Red Flags / TruthScore education: https://www.rfsafe.com/class/redflags/
-
TruthScore module entry (example): https://www.rfsafe.com/class/truthcase/1.php
3) Requested correction: “Limited weight to contradictory evidence” (null evidence handling)
Problem: MBFC asserts RF Safe gives “limited weight to contradictory evidence,” yet RF Safe’s core framework explicitly expects null outcomes and treats nulls as boundary conditions rather than contradictions. The framework is presented as an attempt to explain why outcomes vary by signal parameters and biological context, rather than asserting universal effects.
Minimum correction requested:
MBFC is requested to either (a) revise the “limited weight” claim to acknowledge RF Safe’s explicit integration of null findings, or (b) cite specific RF Safe pages where null findings are omitted or misrepresented (page-level examples), rather than using a generalized assertion.
Suggested replacement language (accurate and specific):
“RF Safe’s S4–Mito–Spin framework explicitly anticipates null outcomes in parts of the parameter space and frames null results as boundary conditions. MBFC remains concerned that the overall narrative emphasizes precautionary interpretations; readers should evaluate the full range of evidence.”
Framework and example null-study references:
-
S4–Mito–Spin talking points (“null results are expected…”): https://www.rfsafe.com/articles/cell-phone-radiation/s4-mito-spin-framework-talking-points.html
-
RF Safe research library: https://www.rfsafe.com/research/
-
Example study record (null/no-effect summary – example link): https://www.rfsafe.com/research/ViewStudyExpert.php?f=studies3&pid=178
-
Example study record (no significant association – example link): https://www.rfsafe.com/research/ViewStudyExpert.php?f=studies2&pid=465
-
Example study record (no evidence association – example link): https://www.rfsafe.com/research/ViewStudyExpert.php?f=studies3&pid=748
Requested action from MBFC
MBFC is requested to update the RF Safe entry to:
-
Remove, qualify, or substantiate the “funded primarily through product sales” statement.
-
Revise conflict-of-interest language to reflect published disclosures and the educational anti-gimmick positioning of TruthCase/TruthScore.
-
Revise or support (with page-level citations) the claim that RF Safe gives “limited weight” to contradictory evidence, given the framework’s explicit treatment of null results.
Exhibits (minimum necessary)
Exhibit A: MBFC RF Safe entry (page under review)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rf-safe-bias-and-credibility/
Exhibit B: RF Safe Transparency & Editorial Policy (ownership/compensation/editorial standards)
https://www.rfsafe.com/class/blog/transparency-editorial-policy-rf-safe.php
Exhibit C: S4–Mito–Spin framework statement on null outcomes
https://www.rfsafe.com/articles/cell-phone-radiation/s4-mito-spin-framework-talking-points.html
Exhibit D: Null/no-effect examples in RF Safe research records (representative)
https://www.rfsafe.com/research/ViewStudyExpert.php?f=studies3&pid=178
https://www.rfsafe.com/research/ViewStudyExpert.php?f=studies2&pid=465
https://www.rfsafe.com/research/ViewStudyExpert.php?f=studies3&pid=748
Exhibit E: TruthCase/TruthScore education pages (anti-percentage-claim / behavior-first framing)
https://www.rfsafe.com/class/the-truth-case/
https://www.rfsafe.com/class/redflags/
https://www.rfsafe.com/class/truthcase/1.php
Correspondence / contact point:
https://www.rfsafe.com/contact-us/
Signed:
RF Safe Editorial / Publishing Team
(operated by Quanta X Technology LLC; disclosures and editorial policy linked above)
