In today’s information overload, many people turn to fact-checkers like Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) for quick judgments on source credibility. It’s understandable—fact-checkers promise objectivity, sifting through claims to separate truth from fiction.
But what if the fact-checkers themselves don’t read the content they’re judging?
That’s the case with MBFC’s rating of RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility.”
MBFC’s entry accuses RF Safe of “overstating the evidence linking cell phones to health concerns” and misrepresenting consensus, implying hype or unsubstantiated claims.
But a close examination of RF Safe’s site reveals something different:
No direct causation claims for human health issues. Zero.
The language is consistently study-focused, precautionary, and evidence-bound—using terms like “associations,” “potential risks,” or “signals” without asserting definitive cause-and-effect. Human health is only mentioned when tied to what specific studies report, with critiques of flaws and no extrapolations beyond the data.
This restraint directly counters MBFC’s implications of “overstating” or pseudoscientific hype.
Fact-checkers like MBFC aren’t gods; they’re groups with opinions, and their errors (e.g., wrong ownership, false “no direct links”) strongly suggest they didn’t engage deeply. This blog dives into the proof, showing why trusting fact-checkers blindly can mislead, and why RF Safe deserves a fairer look.
The Pattern: No Causation Claims — Just Study-Derived Associations and Precautions
From the homepage to the research library and key blogs, RF Safe avoids phrases like:
-
“RF radiation causes brain tumors”
-
“Cell phones lead to cancer in humans”
Instead, content emphasizes what studies reveal: potential upstream mechanisms (e.g., oxidative stress disrupting cellular fidelity) that might create environments for downstream issues—always framed as “co-factors,” “signals,” or “associations,” not direct causes.
Disclaimers reinforce this: everything is educational, not medical advice, urging readers to consult professionals and verify primary sources.
This isn’t cherry-picking—it’s a site-wide commitment.
Below is evidence from core pages.
Homepage (rfsafe.com): Associative Language Tied to Studies
The homepage discusses health effects but only through study references, using words like “link,” “clear evidence” (in animals), or “increase the risk.” There is no site-claimed human causation.
Quotes (homepage)
-
“Studies link RF radiation to malignant brain tumors and heart tumors.”
This is associative (“link”), not causative, and points to research like NTP/Ramazzini. -
“Clear Evidence of Harm: NTP and Ramazzini Institute found RF radiation carcinogenic in animal studies.”
Explicitly animal-focused; no human extrapolation. -
“Peer-reviewed studies confirm DNA damage, oxidative stress, and disrupted cellular repair mechanisms at low exposure levels.”
“Confirm” ties to studies; oxidative stress is treated as upstream, not as a direct claim of human disease causation. -
“Their research consistently found a significant increase in the risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma.”
“Increase in risk,” not “causes.” -
“The NTP Study… provided clear evidence of carcinogenic activity, with increased incidences of malignant schwannomas of the heart and gliomas of the brain in male rats.”
Again, animal-specific; precautionary implications are presented as a policy and safety posture.
Precautionary framing dominates
Advice like using speakerphone or wired tech is presented as prudent based on evidence signals and uncertainties—not as “alarmist” claims of proven human causation.
Research Library (rfsafe.com/research/): Summaries Mirror Studies, No Added Causation
The library lists thousands of studies with direct “View Study” links to originals. Summaries report findings without adding causation claims—e.g., “risk of,” “impact,” or “induces” in context. Human health entries are rare and study-bound.
Note: The research page loads dynamically in some browsers, but examples from visible content show the same pattern.
Examples (research library)
-
“Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and risk of cancer”
Summary: “Epidemiology is not enough!”
Frames as exploring risks, not claiming causation; includes a direct link to ScienceDirect. -
“Modern health worries and exposure perceptions”
Summary discusses perceptions and sensitivity; no causation claims; includes a direct link to Frontiers. -
“The protective effects of melatonin against electromagnetic waves of cell phones in animal models”
Summary: melatonin mitigates effects; implies risk signals through the study’s framing; includes a direct link to Wiley.
No hype: entries frequently critique study limitations (e.g., bias, confounders) and encourage verification by linking to the source.
S4–Mito–Spin Roadmap (truthcases.com/blog/…): Mechanisms and Associations, Not Causation
This key post synthesizes evidence but sticks to associations and high-certainty animal endpoints, contrasting that with human observational nulls.
Quotes (S4–Mito–Spin roadmap)
-
“A WHO-commissioned experimental animal review graded evidence as high certainty for increased malignant heart schwannomas and gliomas in male rats.”
Animal-specific; no human causation claim. -
“Evaluated mobile phones and several head/brain cancer outcomes across dozens of studies, reporting no consistent association in the observational literature.”
Acknowledges lack of consistent human association; no overstatement. -
“High-certainty endpoints are not ‘background noise.’ They are the type of evidence that should reset public-health baselines.”
Precautionary call, not a causation claim. -
“Graded evidence to high certainty for increased malignant heart schwannomas and gliomas in male rats under RF-EMF exposure.”
Reiterates the same animal-only endpoint. -
“This combination does not justify complacency, especially for chronic exposure.”
Frames uncertainty as a reason for caution—not as proof of definitive human harm.
Overall framing: Non-thermal risk signals in vulnerable tissues (brain, heart) are discussed through mechanisms and study outcomes, and used to advocate for policy modernization—not hype.
How MBFC’s Errors Suggest They Didn’t Read the Content
MBFC’s “pseudoscience” tag appears driven by assumptions rather than demonstrated reading of RF Safe’s actual claims.
Their entry implies causation overstatements, but the site’s language patterns show consistent avoidance of direct human causation claims. More importantly, factual blunders reveal a lack of basic verification:
-
“No direct links”: False—study pages include direct links to the original sources.
-
“Owned by John Coates”: Wrong—public records show Quanta X Technology LLC.
If MBFC missed these, it raises a reasonable question: did they test site functionality, read disclosures, and verify governance?
MBFC’s own methodology admits it is not scientific, relying on subjective bias scoring. Their unchanged entry despite RF Safe’s rebuttals reads less like rigor and more like a locked-in narrative—especially when the errors are straightforward to correct.
Why It Matters: Fact-Checkers’ Opinions Can Mislead
People rely on fact-checkers for convenience. But fact-checkers are not authoritative institutions; they are organizations with frameworks and opinions—and they can be wrong.
MBFC’s errors harm RF Safe’s mission: decades of compiling evidence and advocating for safer technology and modernized standards. That is precisely why readers should not outsource judgment to labels.
Verify primary sources yourself. RF Safe’s library is built for that.
Don’t let ratings replace reading.
Sources
Direct from RF Safe pages and publicly available records, as of January 5, 2026.
