Scope
Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) currently rates RF Safe Least Biased and Mostly Factual, but assigns Medium Credibility, stating credibility is “tempered by selective citation, one-sided interpretation of evidence, alarmist framing, and a potential conflict of interest stemming from the sale of RF-related safety products.”
This brief responds to those four bases using RF Safe’s published governance disclosures, framework pages, product-education pages, and SAR tools.
1) “Selective citation” and “limited weight to contradictory evidence”
MBFC’s position
MBFC alleges RF Safe “gives limited weight to contradictory evidence” and emphasizes findings that support advocacy goals.
Counter-argument
A. RF Safe’s own biology framework explicitly predicts null outcomes and treats them as boundary conditions.
RF Safe’s published S4–Mito–Spin “talking points” state that null results are expected in parts of the parameter space. That is not “limited weight”; it is an explicit modeling claim that nulls are informative and help define where effects should and should not appear.
B. RF Safe publishes an explicit claim boundary: it does not argue RF “causes” any single disease.
RF Safe has a dedicated page stating the project does not claim RF electromagnetic fields “cause” any single disease, and instead frames the work as a synthesis of mechanisms and evidence patterns.
C. RF Safe’s research library contains explicit null/negative findings.
RF Safe’s study records include “no significant association” / “no significant effects” language in summaries (examples below), directly contradicting the idea that contradictory evidence is omitted as a class:
Requested improvement (if MBFC maintains this critique):
If MBFC intends to retain “limited weight to contradictory evidence” as a credibility deduction, it should cite specific RF Safe pages where null/negative outcomes are omitted or misrepresented—because the framework page itself explicitly anticipates nulls and the library contains null outcomes.
2) “One-sided interpretation” and “minimizing or dismissing major health authorities”
MBFC’s position
MBFC claims RF Safe “minimizes or dismisses conclusions from major health authorities,” citing FDA language as a counterpoint.
Counter-argument
A. MBFC itself concedes RF Safe generally avoids direct human causation language.
MBFC explicitly states RF Safe argues it does not claim direct human causation and that much of its language emphasizes “risk,” “signals,” and “associations,” which MBFC says aligns with legitimate scientific discourse and distinguishes the site from “outright pseudoscience.”
That concession is difficult to reconcile with the claim that RF Safe “dismisses” authorities by asserting definitive causation.
B. RF Safe publishes a formal editorial standard requiring separation of evidence types.
RF Safe’s Transparency & Editorial Policy instructs authors to distinguish experimental evidence, mechanistic hypotheses, and regulatory policy—and to avoid overstating certainty or claiming outcomes beyond what cited evidence supports.
C. RF Safe’s core “settled” claim is narrower than MBFC frames it.
RF Safe’s mission statement explicitly argues that “thermal-only” safety logic is inadequate as a complete protection model and positions accessories as a “bridge” while policy and infrastructure catch up.
That stance can conflict with the tone of some consumer-facing authority pages while still remaining a policy-adequacy argument, not a universal human-causation claim.
3) “Alarmist framing” and “alarm-driven framing may incentivize purchases”
MBFC’s position
MBFC says RF Safe uses alarmist framing and that the framing may still incentivize consumer purchases.
Counter-argument
A. RF Safe’s own mission statement explicitly de-centers products.
RF Safe states: “RF Safe is not a marketing campaign; it is a public-health project…” and “Accessories are only a bridge until law and infrastructure catch up.”
That is the opposite of “product-first” positioning.
B. TruthCase is marketed as an education and behavior-training tool, not “buy this and you’re safe.”
TruthCase is described as a “training tool” and a physics-first product that refuses gimmicks and teaches correct orientation and habits.
RF Safe also maintains “TruthScore”/red-flag education pages that explicitly warn against common “99%” style marketing and hardware designs that can provoke higher transmit power.
C. The credibility question should not collapse into a tone dispute.
MBFC already credits RF Safe for association-based phrasing and linking studies; treating advocacy tone alone as a credibility defect is an evaluative choice, not a demonstrated error in sourcing.
4) “Conflict of interest” and “funded primarily through product sales”
MBFC’s position
MBFC states RF Safe is “funded primarily through product sales” and treats commerce adjacency as a credibility concern.
Counter-argument
This issue should be analyzed correctly at three levels: entity structure, disclosures, and product messaging discipline.
A. RF Safe’s own contact/support page identifies Quanta X Technology LLC (QXT) as the operating company, and frames founder support as volunteer.
RF Safe’s support page states: “RF Safe®, and QuantaCase™ are brands belonging to QXT,” identifies QXT as the company, and lists “TEXT VOLUNTEER SUPPORT: Reach RF Safe’s founder,” while also stating the views on RF Safe are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect Quanta X Technology.
This directly supports RF Safe’s core structural claim: RF Safe functions as an advocacy/publishing platform hosted/operated under a separate company structure.
B. RF Safe’s Transparency Policy discloses operating responsibility and founder compensation boundaries.
RF Safe’s Transparency & Editorial Policy describes who operates the site and includes compensation-related disclosure language regarding the founder’s relationship to product sales.
C. RF Safe also publishes language that purchases help fund education and reform work—so the accurate criticism is about wording (“primarily”), not the existence of any revenue stream.
RF Safe has published at least one post stating that purchases help fund “product design and education” and “legal and infrastructure reform.”
Given that, MBFC can fairly say product purchases contribute to the broader program. What MBFC has not established is the quantitative claim “funded primarily,” because MBFC provides no accounting period, method, or data for “primarily.”
D. The product messaging is unusually constrained compared with typical “sell fear / sell percent” incentives.
TruthCase pages and RF Safe’s red-flags material explicitly reject “99% shielding everywhere” marketing and emphasize orientation and duty cycle, warning that poor designs can cause transmit-power increases.
That is not consistent with a typical “product as cure” pitch that would justify MBFC’s strongest conflict inference.
E. Proper framing for readers
A defensible, accurate reader warning would be:
-
RF Safe publishes advocacy content and also offers products (through its operator/brand structure); readers should review disclosures and evaluate whether claims are appropriately bounded and sourced.
What is not supported on the face of MBFC’s write-up is the stronger factual claim “funded primarily through product sales,” absent any substantiation.
5) What MBFC ignores: RF Safe’s “tools-first” credibility signals (SAR database and comparison tools)
MBFC does not meaningfully engage with RF Safe’s extensive SAR comparison database and tools, which are core to RF Safe’s credibility posture because they provide a structured way to compare regulatory test outputs across models:
-
RF Safe maintains a large SAR comparison database with per-model SAR values and comparative ranking outputs.
-
RF Safe also provides dedicated tooling for “SAR Exposure Awareness for Kids vs Adults” and side-by-side specs and color-coded SAR comparisons.
-
RF Safe publishes a “Smartphone SAR Comparisons List” with a long archive of phone-vs-phone comparison charts.
Whether or not it is the “world’s largest” is not something this brief asserts. The relevant point is that the SAR toolset is extensive and unusually structured for consumer use, which materially supports “Mostly Factual” style sourcing and transparency.
6) Motivation and mission: “funded by grief” is not an evidentiary claim, but it is relevant context for incentive analysis
RF Safe’s founder bio page frames the project as originating in personal loss and a long-term public-health mission.
MBFC itself acknowledges RF Safe was founded following the death of the founder’s firstborn daughter, which MBFC reports was attributed by the founder to electromagnetic exposure.
This does not, by itself, prove any scientific claim. It does matter for MBFC’s incentive narrative: the site’s public record emphasizes mission-driven advocacy and long-term standards reform rather than a “sell product to justify alarm” pattern.
7) Requested MBFC revisions (narrow, evidence-based)
If MBFC wants a stronger, more defensible entry:
-
Replace “funded primarily through product sales” with a non-quantitative statement unless MBFC can document what “primarily” means (time window, method, and data).
-
If MBFC maintains “limited weight to contradictory evidence,” cite specific RF Safe pages that allegedly omit or minimize null findings, given the framework explicitly anticipates null outcomes and the library contains null results.
-
Characterize TruthCase/TruthScore correctly as an educational anti-gimmick rubric rejecting percentage-claim marketing and emphasizing orientation/duty cycle and behavioral exposure reduction.
