RF Safe criticizes Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) for rating it “medium credibility,” arguing MBFC relied on an FDA webpage that was later changed/redirected and on a Harvard T.H. Chan School commentary. The post claims the FDA removed categorical reassurance language about cell phone safety and frames this as undermining MBFC’s critique. It also asserts that non-thermal mechanisms and animal findings support RF Safe’s precautionary stance, while characterizing MBFC’s sources as “opinion” rather than data.

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias/Fact Check’s January 8, 2026 update that labeled RF Safe “Least Biased” and “Mostly Factual” but assigned “Medium Credibility,” citing perceived one-sided interpretation, product-sales conflicts, and alarmist framing. The post argues RF Safe’s “S4-Mito-Spin” framework incorporates null findings as boundary conditions to explain variability in RF/EMF study outcomes rather than ignoring negative results. It also claims major authorities’ positions are outdated in light of a cited WHO review and a U.S. court remand regarding FCC guidelines, and contends product sales are secondary to advocacy and education.

RF Safe argues that its “S4-Mito-Spin” framework should avoid human disease causation debates and instead focus on interpreting non-thermal RF/EMF findings from cellular and animal studies. The article claims the framework synthesizes mechanisms involving voltage-gated ion channels, mitochondrial/oxidative stress pathways, and radical-pair (spin) effects to explain why some experiments show effects and others do not. It further contends that rodent evidence and a cited WHO-commissioned review support updating RF exposure guidelines beyond thermal-only assumptions, and references a U.S. court decision criticizing the FCC’s rationale for maintaining existing limits.

RF Safe presents itself as an RF exposure advocacy and education project promoting “RF exposure literacy,” safer-use habits, and updated safety frameworks beyond thermal-only assumptions. The post highlights RF Safe’s tools, including a SAR comparison database based on FCC SAR data, a public research viewer described as containing 4,000+ peer-reviewed studies, and its “TruthCase”/editorial standards. It argues that non-thermal biological interactions are reported in experimental literature and that compliance with current SAR limits does not necessarily reflect optimal real-world exposure outcomes.

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias Fact Check’s (MBFC) January 8, 2026 credibility assessment, arguing MBFC’s “Medium Credibility” rating is unjustified despite MBFC upgrades to “Least Biased” and “Mostly Factual.” The post disputes MBFC’s criticisms (selective citation, alarmist framing, and potential conflict of interest from product sales) and claims RF Safe’s coverage aligns with WHO-commissioned reviews and legal/regulatory developments. RF Safe reiterates its view that thermal-only RF exposure guidelines are inadequate and calls for policy reform while stating it does not claim definitive human causation.

RF Safe criticizes Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) for labeling RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility,” arguing MBFC’s entry contains factual errors and misrepresentations. The post says RF Safe does not claim RF radiation definitively causes human disease, but instead presents precautionary interpretations of peer-reviewed studies and proposed non-thermal mechanisms. It also alleges MBFC made specific, checkable mistakes about study-linking practices and site ownership/funding, and failed to correct them after rebuttals.

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) after MBFC labeled RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility.” The article argues MBFC made factual errors about RF Safe’s research links and ownership/funding, and says MBFC has not corrected the entry despite requests. RF Safe also defends its framing of non-thermal RF/EMF effects as precautionary and grounded in peer-reviewed literature, while criticizing what it characterizes as superficial fact-checking.

RF Safe argues that recent WHO-linked evidence reviews have moved beyond a “thermal-only” safety narrative and that policy should respond with stronger protections. The post cites a 2025 WHO-commissioned systematic review in Environment International as concluding with “high certainty” that RF-EMF increases malignant heart schwannomas and brain gliomas in male rats, and references a 2025 corrigendum upgrading certainty for reduced pregnancy rates after male RF exposure in animal experiments. It also points to U.S. FCC rules being rooted in 1996-era assumptions and references a U.S. appellate court remand requiring the FCC to better address non-cancer harms and impacts on children and long-term exposure. The article advocates for the “Clean Ether Act” and promotes RF Safe’s proposed “S4–Mito–Spin” mechanism framework as a non-thermal explanatory model.

RF Safe argues that non-native electromagnetic fields (EMFs) can affect biology through timing and redox mechanisms even without tissue heating, framing this as a challenge to common safety narratives focused on thermal effects. The post links circadian disruption (citing a 2025 Frontiers in Psychiatry paper on ADHD and circadian phase delay) to broader vulnerability of biological timing systems, and proposes an “S4–Mito–Spin” framework involving ion-channel timing noise, mitochondrial oxidative stress amplification, and radical-pair/spin chemistry. It also cites a 2018 PLOS Biology study as mechanistic support for cryptochrome-dependent ROS changes under weak pulsed EMF exposure, while presenting these points as converging evidence rather than definitive proof of harm in real-world exposures.

RF Safe promotes its QuantaCase as the only “truthful” anti-radiation phone case and argues that many competing shielding cases use misleading “percent blocking” claims and can sometimes increase user exposure depending on design and phone behavior. The post mixes product marketing with broader claims about RF-EMF health effects, criticizing current exposure guidelines (e.g., FCC/ICNIRP) as outdated and insufficient for non-thermal effects. It cites various reports and analyses (e.g., a 2017 TV test segment and multiple study-count summaries) but does not provide verifiable study details within the excerpt.

RF Safe promotes QuantaCase (also marketed as TruthCase) as an “anti-radiation” phone case designed to deflect RF energy away from the user while maintaining phone performance. The article argues that non-thermal biological effects can occur below current exposure guidelines and cites multiple reviews and reports to support a precautionary approach, while stating it does not directly extrapolate these findings to proven human harms. It also criticizes current RF standards and regulators, references the 2021 D.C. Circuit remand of the FCC’s RF decision, and advocates exposure-reduction strategies such as Li‑Fi and consumer action.

RF Safe promotes its TruthCase™ (also called QuantaCase®) as an EMF-focused phone case positioned less as a “miracle shield” and more as a habit-forming tool paired with consumer education and advocacy for regulatory reform. The article argues many “anti-radiation” cases are misleading or may increase exposure due to design choices, and it frames non-thermal biological effects as plausible, citing the NTP and Ramazzini animal studies. It also calls for broader policy changes (e.g., “Clean Ether Act,” Li‑Fi pilots) and encourages users to adopt exposure-reducing habits rather than rely on percentage-reduction marketing claims.

An RF Safe blog post written in a first-person “Grok” voice argues that many anti-radiation phone cases are ineffective or can increase exposure by causing phones to boost transmit power. It recommends the QuantaCase™ as the best option in late 2025, claiming it “delivers on physics” and avoids common design pitfalls seen in competing products. The post references WHO’s position that low-level exposure is not proven harmful in humans while also citing animal research (e.g., NTP) and proposed mechanisms (e.g., oxidative stress) to justify precautionary use.

RF Safe argues that radiofrequency (RF) emissions from phones and Wi‑Fi pose non-thermal biological risks and that current safety limits are outdated. The post cites animal studies (including NTP and Ramazzini) and references WHO and IARC positions while promoting a proposed mechanism framework (“S4‑Mito‑Spin”) and calling for regulatory and policy changes. It also includes advocacy claims about regulatory capture and promotes RF Safe products and exposure-reduction practices.

This RF Safe blog post recounts a conversation with xAI’s Grok about RF electromagnetic fields and argues that AI “neutrality” can become biased when it defaults to regulatory consensus (e.g., ICNIRP/FCC) as a proxy for scientific truth. The author claims Grok later acknowledged “regulatory deference” and that evidence from animal studies (NTP, Ramazzini), WHO-commissioned reviews, and proposed non-thermal mechanisms should prompt stronger scrutiny of thermal-only safety standards. The piece frames current RF exposure guidelines as outdated and insufficiently responsive to non-thermal biological-effect evidence.

RF Safe argues for a transition from microwave-based wireless (cellular/Wi‑Fi/Bluetooth) to light-based communications (e.g., Li‑Fi) to reduce indoor RF exposure. The piece claims chronic, low-level RF exposure may pose health risks beyond heating and calls for a precautionary approach, while also criticizing U.S. legal and regulatory frameworks it says limit local control and rely on older, heat-focused assumptions.

This RF Safe article defends the organization against accusations of bias, framing its EMF safety advocacy as rooted in founder John Coates’ personal tragedy and long-term efforts in product development, research synthesis, and policy reform. It claims RF Safe helped drive an FCC rule change related to antenna design and promotes various exposure-reduction accessories and training tools. The piece argues that non-thermal biological effects of RF/ELF fields are being overlooked by regulators and calls for policy changes such as revisiting Section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act and shifting health oversight away from the FCC.

RF Safe promotes its TruthCase™ (QuantaCase®) phone case as a "training tool" and "physics-first" product intended to reduce RF exposure through correct phone orientation and design, while criticizing many "anti-radiation" cases as potentially increasing exposure by detuning antennas. The post also argues that current RF safety policy relies on "1990s, heat-only limits" and calls for stronger protections, especially for children. It presents a proposed biological mechanism framework ("S4–Mito–Spin") describing how weak RF/ELF fields might interact with voltage-gated channels, mitochondria/ROS pathways, and spin-sensitive redox chemistry, but does not provide study details in the excerpt.

RF Safe argues that a proposed “S4-Mito-Spin” framework explains non-thermal EMF biological effects and that current exposure standards (e.g., FCC/ICNIRP) are outdated because they focus on thermal limits. The article links EMF exposure to mechanisms involving voltage-gated ion channels (S4 segments), mitochondrial/NOX-driven oxidative stress, and radical-pair (spin) chemistry, and claims these mechanisms align with reported animal and human observations. It calls for regulatory overhaul and policy changes, citing various studies and legal/policy references, but presents these as advocacy claims rather than a balanced review.

RF Safe describes “S4-Mito-Spin” as a proposed framework for explaining non-thermal biological effects from RF/EMF exposures (phones, Wi‑Fi, cell towers). The article argues the model links three mechanisms—voltage-gated ion channel disruption, mitochondrial oxidative stress, and spin-dependent chemistry—to reported findings such as oxidative damage, circulation changes, and tumors in certain tissues. It cites animal studies (e.g., NTP and Ramazzini) and various 2025 claims (e.g., WHO review, sperm studies, embryo methylation, and ultrasound observations) to support a precautionary interpretation, while acknowledging ongoing debate and non-linear dose-response arguments.

An RF Safe article argues that “non-thermal” RF/ELF electromagnetic fields from phones, Wi‑Fi, and 5G cause widespread biological harm and that regulators and industry have misled the public by focusing on heating-based safety limits. It claims 2025 is a “tipping point,” citing WHO-commissioned reviews, animal studies (e.g., NTP/Ramazzini), a “Frontiers review,” and ICBE-EMF statements as evidence of cancer and other health risks. The piece frames the issue as urgent and settled, calling for public action and policy change, but presents these conclusions in advocacy language without providing verifiable study details in the excerpt.

An RF Safe commentary advocates for a proposed “Clean Ether Act” that would mandate replacing Wi‑Fi/5G with LiFi, arguing that current RF exposure limits ignore non-thermal biological effects. The post alleges widespread health harms from RF/EMF (e.g., cancers, fertility impacts) and claims regulatory capture by industry, citing animal studies and a U.S. court decision as support. It frames the issue as urgent and preventable through policy changes and technology substitution, but presents these assertions in highly charged language without providing verifiable bill details in the text shown.

RF Safe argues that 2025 research provides strong support for a proposed “S4–Mitochondria–Spin” framework explaining non-thermal biological effects from RF and ELF electromagnetic fields. The article claims this mechanism links voltage-gated ion channel timing disruptions (S4), mitochondrial/NOX-driven oxidative stress amplification, and cryptochrome-related magnetosensitivity to outcomes such as cancer, male infertility, immune dysregulation, and circadian disruption. It also calls for regulatory and policy changes, framing current safety standards as inadequate for non-thermal effects.

An RF Safe article argues that, as of 2025, evidence is “decisive” that man-made radiofrequency (RF) fields can cause cancer and other biological harm, and that non-thermal mechanisms are now established. It cites animal studies (including NTP and Ramazzini), a 2025 WHO-commissioned systematic review (as described by the author), and proposed mechanisms involving voltage-gated ion channels, oxidative stress, and radical-pair/spin chemistry. The piece calls for updated safety standards that consider modulation and tissue vulnerability, while stating it is “not a call for panic.”

RF Safe argues that animal evidence for RF-related carcinogenicity is now strong and should not be dismissed, citing the NTP (2018) and Ramazzini (2018) lifetime rodent studies as showing statistically significant increases in the same rare tumor types (heart schwannomas and brain gliomas). The post further claims that effects occurred at relatively low whole-body SAR levels and references additional mechanistic hypotheses (e.g., VGCC-related models and radical-pair/spin effects) and a reported human ultrasound observation of acute non-thermal changes. These points are presented as supporting a shift away from a “thermal-only” interpretation, but the item is advocacy/commentary and does not provide full methodological details in the excerpt.