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 It further cites Reuters reporting that FDA removed outdated webpages about cellphone safety alongside HHS launching a new study, and contends MBFC should update its rationale and links.

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.

This RF Safe commentary argues that HHS, under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was correct to remove FDA webpages that gave broad assurances that cell phone radiation is “not dangerous.” It claims blanket safety messaging is scientifically indefensible given animal toxicology findings (notably the U.S. National Toxicology Program studies), a WHO-commissioned systematic review of animal cancer studies (Mevissen et al., 2025), and references to federal court findings. The piece frames the change as a precautionary, science-based correction rather than an anti-science move.

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.

This RF Safe article reports that in mid-January 2026 HHS, led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., removed or redirected certain FDA webpages that previously conveyed strong “no-risk” conclusions about cellphone radiation. It argues the updated FDA framing emphasizes statutory duties (monitoring, testing, hazard control) and signals a shift from definitive safety messaging toward renewed inquiry, while noting that details of any planned research have not been publicly disclosed. The piece also highlights Kennedy’s past public statements alleging harms from Wi‑Fi/5G and links the policy context to the 2021 D.C. Circuit remand of FCC RF policy.

RF Safe argues that its “S4-Mito-Spin” framework should avoid debates about whether cell phones cause human disease and instead focus on mechanistic and animal evidence for non-thermal RF/EMF biological effects. The post claims the framework synthesizes established concepts (ion-channel interactions, mitochondrial/NOX-driven ROS, and radical-pair/quantum spin effects) to explain why some lab studies find effects and others do not. It also cites a WHO-commissioned systematic review and a U.S. court ruling to support calls for updating RF exposure guidelines beyond thermal-only assumptions.

RF Safe publishes a commentary disputing Media Bias Fact Check’s (MBFC) labeling of RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility.” The post argues MBFC mischaracterized RF Safe’s content as overstating evidence about cell phones and health, claiming RF Safe generally uses cautious, study-referencing language (e.g., “associations,” “potential risks”) and avoids asserting direct human causation. It also points to RF Safe disclaimers that the site is educational and not medical advice, and highlights its research library linking to primary studies such as NTP and Ramazzini animal findings.

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 paper evaluates and critiques 12 WHO-commissioned systematic reviews and meta-analyses on RF-EMF health effects across outcomes including cancer and reproductive endpoints. It argues that serious methodological flaws and limitations in the WHO reviews prevent them from providing assurance of safety for cell phones and other wireless devices. The authors highlight reported evidence in the animal cancer review (high certainty for heart schwannomas; moderate certainty for brain gliomas) and describe dose-related adverse effects on male fertility and reproductive outcomes, including at exposure levels below current ICNIRP thresholds.

This case-control study in Mexico City (2017–2022) evaluated residential ELF-MF and device-use proxies for RF exposure in relation to childhood CNS tumor risk. Elevated residential ELF-MF (≥0.4 μT) was associated with approximately doubled odds of CNST, while cell phone use showed no association. Prolonged tablet use, with or without internet connectivity, was reported to be associated with higher CNST risk.

This mouse study examined whether cell phone radiation affects T lymphocytes over 2–8 weeks of exposure. CD4 and CD8 subset percentages were similar across groups, but after more than six weeks, exposed groups showed increased T-cell apoptosis and reduced transformation rates compared with shams. The study also reports decreased IL-10 and increased IL-12 in exposed groups, suggesting time-dependent immunological changes under the tested conditions.

This cohort study of 1,666 women in Yazd City examined electromagnetic-wave exposure from commonly used devices during pregnancy and birth outcomes. Longer cell phone call duration during pregnancy was reported to be associated with higher risk of miscarriage, abnormal birth weight, and abnormal newborn height. Increased cordless phone use was also reported to be linked to abnormal birth weight, while other outcomes were assessed but not described as significantly associated in the abstract.

This National Toxicology Program technical report describes 900 MHz whole-body RFR exposures (GSM and CDMA) in male and female Sprague Dawley rats from in utero through up to 2 years. The report concludes clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in males for both modulations based on malignant schwannoma of the heart, with malignant glioma of the brain also reported as related to exposure. In females, the report concludes equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity for both modulations based on selected tumor outcomes, and genetic toxicology findings were mixed with some comet assay increases/equivocal results but negative micronucleus assays.

This review discusses the comet assay and summarizes research on non-ionizing EMF exposure and DNA/chromosomal damage. It describes both positive and negative findings across studies, noting no consistent overall pattern for radiofrequency radiation (RFR). The authors nonetheless conclude that under certain exposure conditions RFR appears genotoxic and may affect DNA damage and repair, with evidence discussed as most applicable to exposures typical of cell phone use.

This paper presents a meta-analysis of 11 peer-reviewed epidemiologic studies examining long-term (>=10 years) cell phone use with laterality analyses. It reports that long-term use is associated with an approximately doubled risk of an ipsilateral brain tumor. The abstract states statistical significance for glioma and acoustic neuroma, but not for meningioma.