MBFC’s January 8, 2026 entry downgrades RF Safe to “Medium Credibility” and offers a specific example to justify its “one-sided interpretation” claim: MBFC writes that “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration states that current scientific evidence does not support concerns about health risks from typical RF exposure,” and it links readers to an FDA page as proof.
That “proof link” is now the problem for MBFC’s rationale—because the FDA page MBFC points to no longer exists in the way MBFC uses it. The FDA URL MBFC cites (its “Scientific Evidence for Cell Phone Safety” link) now redirects away to the FDA’s broader “Cell Phones” landing page. In other words, MBFC is using an FDA webpage citation as an authority anchor—but the cited FDA page has been functionally withdrawn and replaced by a different destination.
BEFORE AND AFTER SCREENSHOTS HERE
The same issue applies to the FDA’s historically prominent consumer-facing page “Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard?” That URL now redirects to the same “Cell Phones” landing page rather than displaying the original long-form content MBFC and others have relied on for years.
What the archived FDA page said (and why it mattered)
Archived FDA versions of the “Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard?” page (content current as of June 30, 2025) contained strong reassurance language—language that has been repeatedly invoked to defend the thermal-only framing and to dismiss non-thermal concerns. For example, the archived page stated that the “weight of scientific evidence” had not linked RF exposure from cell phone use to health problems at or below FCC limits, and it included additional categorical bullets such as “no categorical proof” of adverse effects other than tissue heating and “no association” in public health data.
Today, that long-form page is not available at its original FDA URL in live form; it is effectively relegated to archives.
What the current FDA destination emphasizes instead
The FDA destination page that these URLs now resolve to (“Cell Phones”) prominently opens with FDA’s legal and regulatory role framing, including duties such as consulting with other agencies and “collecting, analyzing, and making available scientific information on the nature and extent of the hazards and control of electronic product radiation.”
That language tracks closely with the statutory “electronic product radiation control” authorities in U.S. law, which include the authority to “collect and make available… information concerning… research and studies relating to the nature and extent of the hazards and control of electronic product radiation.”
Importantly, the current landing page still contains brief reassurance lines (e.g., “weight of scientific evidence has not linked” and “does not show a danger… including children and teenagers”), but it does not present the same long-form “scientific consensus” narrative that MBFC used as a key credibility yardstick.
Reuters confirms the broader context: FDA removed old webpages while HHS launched a new study
Reuters reported that HHS is launching a study on cellphone radiation and that, concurrently, the FDA removed outdated webpages that had previously stated cellphones are not dangerous—specifically to allow for updated research into electromagnetic radiation and health.
That independent reporting matters because it places the FDA’s webpage removals and redirects into an official, contemporaneous federal action context—not a speculative interpretation.
Why this undermines MBFC’s rationale (without requiring anyone to “take RF Safe’s word for it)
MBFC is free to disagree with RF Safe’s interpretation of the literature. But MBFC cannot credibly downgrade RF Safe for “not aligning with the FDA,” while simultaneously relying on FDA consumer webpages as the evidentiary basis—when those very pages have been removed or redirected by the FDA and are no longer stable, citable anchors for MBFC’s argument.
At minimum, this requires an MBFC update because:
-
MBFC’s “example” FDA citation no longer resolves to the referenced page, making the reader unable to verify MBFC’s evidentiary claim through MBFC’s own link.
-
The strongest categorical reassurance language MBFC implicitly leaned on is now accessible primarily through archive.
-
Federal reporting indicates FDA removed old “not dangerous” webpages in parallel with a newly announced HHS study—i.e., the federal posture is not the static, settled foundation MBFC treated it as on January 8.
That is the core point you’re making, and it is factually supportable.
Correction to MBFC
Exhibit 1 — MBFC’s FDA-based claim and citation
MBFC uses the FDA as its concrete “for example” authority basis to justify the “one-sided interpretation” critique.
Exhibit 2 — MBFC’s linked FDA page now redirects (page removed/withdrawn in practice)
The FDA URL MBFC links to (“Scientific Evidence for Cell Phone Safety”) now redirects to the “Cell Phones” landing page.
Exhibit 3 — The original FDA “Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard?” page is no longer live at its URL
That URL now redirects to the same landing page.
Exhibit 4 — Archived FDA page shows the stronger categorical reassurance language MBFC’s reasoning depended on
The archived page (content current as of 06/30/2025) contains the long-form “weight of scientific evidence” assurances and other categorical bullet points.
Exhibit 5 — Independent reporting: FDA removed “cellphones aren’t dangerous” webpages as HHS announced a new study
Reuters: FDA removed outdated webpages stating cellphones are not dangerous, alongside HHS launching a study.
Exhibit 6 — Statutory alignment: FDA’s current framing tracks the legal mandate language
The current FDA landing page emphasizes “collecting… and making available” hazard-related scientific information.
U.S. Code contains a parallel authority to “collect and make available” information about hazards and control of electronic product radiation.
MBFC correction request
MBFC’s January 8, 2026 RF Safe entry cites an FDA webpage as the key example supporting the claim that RF Safe conflicts with major health authorities and presents a one-sided interpretation of evidence. However, the FDA URL MBFC links to (“Scientific Evidence for Cell Phone Safety”) now redirects to the FDA “Cell Phones” landing page, and the historically relied-upon “Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard?” page also redirects rather than displaying its prior long-form content. Reuters has reported that FDA removed outdated webpages stating cellphones are not dangerous concurrent with HHS announcing a new study.
Because MBFC’s rationale relies on a no-longer-available FDA page as an authority anchor, MBFC should update the entry’s evidence and reassess the credibility conclusion that was materially premised on “alignment” with a webpage that has since been withdrawn/redirected by the issuing agency.
