RF Safe argues that Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) downgraded RF Safe partly by citing an FDA webpage stating typical RF exposure is not supported by current evidence as a health risk, but that the cited FDA page now redirects to a general “Cell Phones” landing page. The post claims other historically cited FDA consumer pages also redirect and that the strongest reassurance language is now mainly accessible via archives. It further cites Reuters reporting that FDA removed outdated webpages about cellphone safety alongside HHS launching a new study, and contends MBFC should update its rationale and links.

This RF Safe commentary argues that Reuters-reported actions by HHS and FDA—launching an HHS study and removing older FDA webpages stating cellphones are “not dangerous”—should be understood as a risk-communication/scientific-integrity adjustment rather than a declaration of confirmed harm. It contends that categorical safety messaging is not justified given mixed evidence, citing the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 decision criticizing FCC reliance on conclusory FDA statements, along with selected human, animal, and mechanistic literature. The post calls for more uncertainty-aware, evidence-graded public messaging about RF exposure from phones.

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.

This RF Safe position piece argues that long-term exposure to “non-native,” low-fidelity electromagnetic environments (including man-made RF) can degrade biological timing and coherence, contributing to downstream issues such as immune dysregulation and oxidative stress. It frames this as a systems-level claim rather than asserting RF “causes” specific diseases, and it cites proposed biophysical mechanisms (e.g., coupling into dense tissues, membrane voltage-sensing domains, mitochondrial/redox pathways). The article also references Heinrich Hertz’s historical exposure to early radio experiments and a retrospective medical analysis of his illness, while stating it is not claiming RF caused his condition.

This RF Safe article by John Coates argues that “non-native” RF/ELF electromagnetic fields may degrade biological “signal fidelity” by perturbing voltage-gated ion channel timing, with downstream effects on mitochondria, reactive oxygen species (ROS), and redox biology. It presents a conceptual “S4–Mito–Spin” framework and cites selected studies and mechanisms (e.g., ion-channel forced oscillation, radical-pair/spin chemistry) to support the plausibility of non-thermal effects. The piece frames modern wireless infrastructure as an uncontrolled long-term experiment and suggests current regulation focuses too narrowly on heating.

RF Safe presents the “Herzification / Bioelectric Fidelity Hypothesis,” arguing that modern RF/EMF exposure has rapidly altered the human electromagnetic environment and may degrade biological electrical signaling (“bioelectric fidelity”). The post frames this as an “evidence-anchored hypothesis” that could help explain a wide range of outcomes (e.g., cancer, infertility, ADHD-like traits, some autism phenotypes, emotional dysregulation), while acknowledging it is not definitive proof. It also cites Heinrich Hertz’s illness as a suggestive historical anecdote and references proposed non-thermal interaction mechanisms involving voltage-gated ion channels.

RF Safe argues that a single biological mechanism explains widespread harm to children from modern wireless signals (cell phones, Wi‑Fi, 5G, DECT), emphasizing that these signals are “pulsed and modulated.” The post claims that “animal proof” is now high-certainty and references “WHO 2025 GRADE-rated systematic reviews,” linking EMF exposure to rare cancers in young people, declining sperm counts, and childhood autoimmune/neurodevelopmental disorders. The excerpt provided does not include citations or details sufficient to verify these claims.

This cross-sectional epidemiologic study enrolled 100 employees of an electricity company to assess whether occupational low-frequency electromagnetic field exposure is associated with cataract development. Cataract frequency was higher in exposed versus non-exposed groups, and nuclear opacity grading differed significantly between groups. Within exposed workers, nuclear and posterior subcapsular cataract grades were associated with longer work experience, suggesting occupational exposure may be a risk factor, particularly for nuclear cataracts.