In the digital age, fact-checkers like Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) wield significant influence. Their ratings—often amplified by search engines, AI summaries, and social algorithms—can shape public perception overnight. But what happens when a fact-checker gets the basics wrong? That’s the story with MBFC’s entry on RF Safe, a site dedicated to electromagnetic field (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation safety advocacy since 1998.
Labeled as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility,” the entry (last updated October 4, 2025, and unchanged as of today) accuses RF Safe of overstating risks, misrepresenting consensus, and blending advocacy with sales. Yet, a deep dive reveals MBFC’s critique is undermined by glaring factual errors—mistakes on ownership and research links that suggest they never fully engaged with the site.
This isn’t just sloppy; it’s damaging. RF Safe’s 30-year mission—rooted in founder John Coates’ personal tragedy and focused on evidence-based precaution—aims to bridge science and policy for safer tech. By slapping on a “pseudoscience” tag without due diligence, MBFC perpetuates misinformation, stifles legitimate debate, and harms efforts to address evolving RF risks.
Below, we’ll dissect why the label doesn’t stick, how MBFC’s errors prove a superficial review, and the broader consequences.
MBFC’s Factual Blunders: Proof of a Rushed, Incomplete Assessment
MBFC positions itself as a rigorous evaluator, but their RF Safe entry contains black-and-white inaccuracies that could have been caught with minimal effort. These aren’t interpretive disagreements; they’re verifiable mistakes that erode trust in the checker itself.
Mistake 1: “No Direct Links to Studies”—A Demonstrable Falsehood
MBFC claims RF Safe’s research section touts “a comprehensive analysis of over 2,500 studies” confirming non-thermal effects but “provides no direct links to those studies.”
mediabiasfactcheck.com
This is outright wrong. RF Safe’s research library (now boasting over 4,000 entries in recent branding) features prominent “View Study” buttons on every record, linking directly to primaries like PubMed, Wiley, ScienceDirect, Springer, or full PDFs.
For example:
A 2025 WHO review critique links to Fortune Journals.
rfsafe.com
Studies on RF-EMF and cancer in animals route to Environment International via PubMed.
rfsafe.com
Recent 2026 papers on health effects of RF/MW radiation connect to ResearchGate full texts.
researchgate.net +1
RF Safe’s transparency policy explicitly commits to these links and invites corrections for broken ones. If MBFC missed the big blue “View Study” buttons, did they even scroll or click? This error alone shows a shallow review—perhaps a static snapshot without interaction—yet it’s used to justify “mixed factual reporting.” Ironically, it’s MBFC mixing up the facts.
Mistake 2: “Owned by John Coates”—Ignoring Public Records and Trademarks
MBFC states “RF Safe is owned by John Coates and funded primarily through product sales,” citing Crunchbase.
mediabiasfactcheck.com
Again, inaccurate. RF Safe’s site and policy pages clearly disclose operation by Quanta X Technology LLC (QXT), a Florida woman-owned small business. Coates is the founder and contributor, with no ownership, revenue share, or profit tie—explicitly stated to separate advocacy from business.
Public records confirm:
Florida’s Sunbiz lists QXT as active, with Katie J. Webb as CEO/authorized person—no Coates.
The “RF SAFE” trademark (USPTO Serial 90530771) is registered to QXT, not Coates.
A simple trademark search or state filing check would have revealed this. MBFC’s reliance on potentially outdated Crunchbase data distorts incentives, implying personal profit motives where disclosures say otherwise. If they got ownership wrong, how deeply did they read the site’s positions?
These errors aren’t minor; they prove MBFC didn’t verify basics before labeling. RF Safe’s rebuttals (published October 2025 and updated January 2026) requested corrections under MBFC’s own policy, but the entry remains unchanged.
mediabiasfactcheck.com
This inaction highlights MBFC as a poor fact-checker: Quick to condemn, slow to correct.
Why RF Safe Isn’t Pseudoscience: Evidence-Based Advocacy, Not Fabrication
Pseudoscience implies claims ignoring evidence, relying on anecdotes, or inventing mechanisms—like astrology or flat earth. RF Safe doesn’t fit; its content is a synthesis of peer-reviewed studies on non-thermal RF effects, framed precautionarily but with disclaimers avoiding unsubstantiated causation.
MBFC accuses “misrepresenting consensus” and “overstating evidence,” but a closer look shows RF Safe sticks to what the data reveals: Upstream biological disruptions (e.g., oxidative stress) creating environments for downstream risks, without claiming “RF causes brain tumors” or similar absolutes.
Grounded in Real Peer-Reviewed Science
RF Safe’s core thesis—non-thermal effects via mechanisms like ion channel mistiming and ROS amplification—isn’t invented; it’s drawn from studies:
Oxidative stress from low-level RF: A 2026 ResearchGate review on RF/MW health effects details chronic exposure inducing oxidative stress, DNA damage, and cellular repair disruptions—non-thermal.
researchgate.net +1
Similarly, a 2025 Frontiers in Public Health article on U.S. policy reviews non-thermal molecular effects on cancer.
frontiersin.org
Ion mistiming (S4 sensor): Peer-reviewed work on voltage-gated channels shows weak pulsed fields causing timing jitter, leading to calcium signaling errors—key to RF Safe’s framework.
rfsafe.com
ROS amplification (Mito/Spin): 2025 studies confirm RF modulates mitochondrial ROS and spin chemistry (e.g., radical pairs in heme/flavins), biasing redox without heating.
rfsafe.com +1
Recent 2025-2026 literature bolsters this: WHO-commissioned reviews affirm “high certainty” for non-thermal animal tumors (heart schwannomas, gliomas) and fertility impacts.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
A Spanish review in Medicina Clínica (2025) links EMFs to health associations via oxidative and neurological effects.
elsevier.es
RF Safe discusses these “one by one,” tying them into frameworks without overreach.
No Unsubstantiated Claims—Just What the Data Shows
RF Safe avoids causation absolutes: Cancer or neuro issues are “visible tips” of upstream problems like low-fidelity signaling, not direct RF causes. This aligns with consensus nuances—FDA/CDC acknowledge uncertainties (e.g., “we don’t know for sure”), while IARC’s 2B “possibly carcinogenic” reflects animal signals without human proof.
mediabiasfactcheck.com
MBFC’s “alarmist” charge ignores this; RF Safe critiques policy inertia (e.g., 2021 court remand calling FCC guidelines arbitrary) as evidence-based, not conspiracy.
If MBFC read deeply, they’d see disclaimers: Content is educational, not medical; products are “stopgaps,” not cures. This is advocacy, not pseudoscience.
The Real Harm: Undermining a 30-Year Mission for Safer Tech
RF Safe started in 1998 after Coates’ daughter died from a rare brain tumor—linked in his view to EMF exposure during pregnancy. For three decades, it’s compiled studies, pushed reforms (e.g., repealing Telecom Act preemption), and promoted habits like distance over fearmongering.
MBFC’s errors and label harm this by:
-
Stifling Visibility: Low ratings bury RF Safe in searches, reducing reach amid rising 5G/EMF concerns.
-
Eroding Trust: The “pseudoscience” tag discourages engagement with valid science, like 2025 WHO upgrades on animal risks.
-
Compounding Bias: As AI/search rely on MBFC, it creates a “reputation cascade,” harming advocacy for vulnerable groups (e.g., children).
MBFC’s poor fact-checking—getting links/ownership wrong—proves they didn’t grasp RF Safe’s position. This isn’t neutral evaluation; it’s detrimental to public health discourse.
Conclusion: Time for Better Fact-Checking
MBFC’s label is misguided, rooted in errors revealing a superficial review. RF Safe advances evidence-based precaution, not pseudoscience. Demand corrections: Ownership to QXT, links as direct and present. For readers, verify primaries—RF Safe’s library empowers that.
In 2026, with non-thermal evidence mounting, we need open debate, not dismissive tags. RF Safe’s mission deserves better.
Disclosure: This post draws from public sources and RF Safe content. For updates, check MBFC directly.
