This rebuttal directly addresses Media Bias Fact Check’s (MBFC) January 8, 2026, assessment of RF Safe, which maintains a “Medium Credibility” rating despite upgrades to “Least Biased” and “Mostly Factual.”
MBFC’s downgrades are based on alleged “selective citation,” “one-sided interpretation of evidence,” “alarmist framing,” and “potential conflict of interest” from product sales. These characterizations misrepresent RF Safe’s evidence-based approach, which integrates null findings equally, aligns with 2025 World Health Organization (WHO)-commissioned high-certainty evidence on non-thermal effects, and advocates for policy reform without claiming definitive human causation. RF Safe’s position—that thermal-only guidelines are inadequate for protecting biology—is substantiated by judicial rulings and recent consensus shifts, rendering MBFC’s critiques unsubstantiated and warranting a “High Credibility” reassessment.
1. Rebuttal to “Selective Citation” and “One-Sided Interpretation”: RF Safe Provides Balanced Synthesis Aligned with High-Certainty ConsensusMBFC claims RF Safe “treats disputed or minority findings as sufficient to characterize RF exposure as an established public-health threat, while minimizing or dismissing conclusions from major health authorities” and “gives limited weight to contradictory evidence.”
This ignores RF Safe’s comprehensive integration of null findings and direct support from 2025 WHO reviews.
- Equal Integration of Null Findings: RF Safe’s 30-year-developed S4-Mito-Spin framework treats null results (no observed effects) as equally vital as positive ones, predicting nonlinear, “density-gated” effects based on signal parameters (S4: ion channel disruptions), mitochondrial amplification (Mito: oxidative stress via ROS), and quantum spin mechanisms (Spin: radical pair influences). Nulls confirm model boundaries (e.g., no effects in low-density tissues), resolving literature inconsistencies without minimization. For example, in oxidative stress analyses (Yakymenko et al., 2016: 93/100 positive; Panagopoulos, 2025: 124/131 positive), nulls are attributed to design limitations (e.g., exposure misclassification) and used to refine predictions, ensuring balanced, non-alarmist precautions like device distancing.
- Alignment with 2025 WHO High-Certainty Evidence: RF Safe’s emphasis on non-thermal interactions reflects “high certainty” endpoints from WHO-aligned reviews, not minority views. Mevissen et al. (2025, Environment International) concludes “high certainty” for RF-EMF increasing gliomas and malignant heart schwannomas in rats, with “high certainty” meaning the true effect is “highly likely” reflected in observations. The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) Spotlight (2025) reports “high certainty” for reduced pregnancy rates in animals, a fertility endpoint, acknowledging high-exposure caveats but underscoring non-thermal policy implications.
Judicial and Regulatory Corroboration: The 2021 Environmental Health Trust v. FCC ruling found FCC’s 1996 limits “arbitrary and capricious” for failing to address non-thermal harms, long-term exposures, pulsation/modulation, and post-1996 evidence.
National Toxicology Program (NTP) findings (“clear evidence” of heart schwannomas, “some evidence” of gliomas) remain unaddressed amid a research gap (no further NTP studies on modern technologies). RF Safe critiques regulatory inertia (e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) preemption, Public Law 90-602 obligations) as the court did, not as one-sided bias. The 4,000+ study database links to PubMed/ResearchGate, including consensus sources, for transparent verification.
With “high certainty” across multiple WHO reviews, RF Safe credibly asserts thermal-only guidelines are insufficient— a position mirroring regulatory agencies, not conflicting with them.
2. Rebuttal to “Alarmist Framing”: RF Safe’s Precautionary Language Is Measured and Evidence-Driven
MBFC criticizes “alarm-driven framing” that portrays RF as a “settled and urgent public-health threat,” potentially incentivizing purchases.
RF Safe uses precise terms (“risk,” “associations,” “signals”) with disclaimers, emphasizing precautions over fear, aligned with IARC Group 2B and 2025 WHO elevations. Urgency stems from policy traps (regulatory inertia, preemption, research gaps), as highlighted in the 2021 court remand and NTP’s stalled work—not exaggeration, but calls for compliance with federal obligations like Public Law 90-602’s “shall” language for ongoing review.
3. Rebuttal to “Potential Conflict of Interest” from Product Sales: Educational Tools, Not Funding DriverMBFC asserts a “potential conflict” from “blending of advocacy… and commerce,” with funding “primarily through product sales.”
This is factually inaccurate and ignores products’ educational intent.
- Not Primary Funding: RF Safe operated without sales from 2020-2022, relying solely on advocacy. Current products (e.g., QuantaCase/TruthCase) are sold via external platforms (Amazon, Walmart), not as site revenue drivers.
- Educational Design: Products exemplify “physics-first” principles absent in market cases, explicitly stating shielding alone is insufficient—users must adhere to safe usage (e.g., distancing, orientation to avoid emission spikes up to 70%). Named “TruthCase” to highlight truths about limitations, they serve as templates critiquing flawed anti-radiation products, reinforcing advocacy for biology-based standards without sales hype. Mission statements acknowledge them as “stopgaps,” with null findings supporting design (e.g., no universal effects, hence precaution-focused).
No evidence links content to commercial incentives such as affiliate programs, RF Safe does not by google ads; products are sold to educate on guidelines and market solution inadequacies of anti-radiation cases, enhancing credibility
Conclusion: MBFC’s Medium Rating Is Unwarranted; High Credibility Is Appropriate
MBFC’s assessment, while acknowledging January 2026 updates (e.g., removing pseudoscience, confirming links/ownership), perpetuates errors by overlooking RF Safe’s balance and alignment with high-certainty evidence by the WHO.
RF Safe echoes regulatory agencies: “high certainty” non-thermal effects invalidate thermal-only frameworks, justifying reform without human causation claims. This evidence-driven advocacy merits High Credibility; MBFC should reassess accordingly.
