RF Safe reports that HHS confirmed plans to launch a new study on cellphone radiation and that an HHS spokesperson said the FDA removed webpages with “old conclusions” while new research is undertaken to identify knowledge gaps, including for emerging technologies. The article frames the FDA webpage changes as a meaningful shift away from categorical reassurance, while noting Reuters’ reporting that some FDA and CDC pages still state there is no credible evidence of health problems from cellphone radiation. It also links the development to the 2021 D.C. Circuit decision in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, arguing the ruling exposed weaknesses in the FCC’s reliance on other agencies’ statements.

RF Safe reports that the U.S. FDA substantially revised its cellphone radiation webpages around January 15, 2026, removing or reducing prior language that broadly reassured the public about safety. The article argues the new framing more closely reflects the FDA’s statutory responsibilities under the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-602), emphasizing research, monitoring, and public information rather than definitive safety conclusions. It also links the change to a reported HHS announcement of a new study and portrays the update as a shift toward greater transparency, while noting some safety language may remain on the page.

RF Safe recounts a timeline of FTC actions and consumer guidance targeting phone “radiation shield” stickers/patches that claimed large reductions in exposure, arguing these products can create a false sense of security. The post cites the FTC’s February 2002 enforcement actions and consumer alert, including references to Good Housekeeping Institute testing that reportedly found the products did not reduce exposure. RF Safe also claims it warned about such scams earlier (late 1990s), framing this as its own account rather than an FTC-attributed origin story.

RF Safe promotes its QuantaCase (also called TruthCase) as a leading “anti-radiation” phone case for 2026, emphasizing a directional shielding design intended to deflect RF energy away from the body. The article argues the product aligns with consumer-safety guidance such as keeping phones away from the body and using hands-free modes, and it claims RF Safe’s earlier advocacy influenced FTC/FCC warnings about ineffective or counterproductive shielding products. It cites comparisons, user reviews, and an “independent” 2017 TV review as support, but presents limited verifiable technical detail in the excerpt.

RF Safe critiques the anti-radiation phone case market for relying on headline percentage-blocking claims that may reflect tests of shielding material rather than real-world phone behavior in a case on a live network. The article argues that poorly designed or misused shielding cases can interfere with a phone’s signal and prompt higher transmit power, potentially increasing exposure in some scenarios. It positions RF Safe’s QuantaCase/TruthCase as avoiding percentage marketing claims and emphasizes a systems-engineering approach to testing and use, while noting that health causation from typical consumer RF exposure remains debated by authorities.

RF Safe argues that “anti-radiation” phone case marketing based on universal “99% blocking” claims is misleading because real-world phone emissions vary with signal conditions, orientation, and how a case affects the antenna. The post positions RF Safe’s TruthCase/QuantaCase as more credible specifically because it refuses to advertise a single percentage reduction and instead emphasizes design constraints intended to avoid prompting a phone to increase transmit power. It cites a KPIX 5 (CBS San Francisco) test as an example of how flip cases can reduce exposure in some configurations but potentially increase it in others when used differently than intended.

RF Safe argues that many “anti-radiation” phone cases market misleading “% blocked” claims based on lab material tests rather than whole-device, real-world performance. The article promotes RF Safe’s TruthCase/QuantaCase as a “physics-first” design that avoids advertising a single blocking percentage and emphasizes directional shielding and user education. It cites a 2017 CBS San Francisco/KPIX test as an example of how some flip-style shielding cases can reduce measured RF in certain orientations but may increase readings in other common-use configurations.

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 “no effect” findings in some RF exposure studies should be interpreted as meaningful negative controls rather than as evidence that RF has no biological effects. The post presents RF Safe’s “S4–Mito–Spin” framework, claiming certain skin cell types (fibroblasts and keratinocytes) are predicted to be relatively resistant to non-thermal RF effects, so null results in these cells can be consistent with the model. It cites in-vitro studies at 3.5 GHz (5G-modulated) reporting no changes in ROS measures, stress responses, or UV-B DNA repair kinetics under specified SAR conditions, and frames these nulls as boundary conditions rather than a general safety conclusion.

This RF Safe commentary frames readers as part of a “resistance” movement seeking changes to U.S. wireless policy and RF exposure governance. It argues that current FCC RF exposure rules and related laws constrain local decision-making and rely on a “thermal-only” safety framework that the author says is outdated. The post cites a WHO-commissioned 2025 systematic review on RF-EMF and cancer in experimental animals as part of a broader WHO review effort, and advocates shifting indoor connectivity toward light-based technologies.

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 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) decision to rate the site “Medium Credibility,” addressing MBFC’s concerns about selective citation, one-sided interpretation, alarmist framing, and potential conflicts of interest tied to selling RF-safety products. The post argues RF Safe includes null/negative findings, avoids claiming RF “causes” specific diseases, and maintains editorial/transparency policies meant to separate evidence types and disclose commercial relationships. It also contends MBFC’s critique is partly a dispute over tone and wording (e.g., “primarily” funded by product sales) rather than demonstrated sourcing errors.

RF Safe publishes a correction request addressed to Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) regarding MBFC’s credibility entry about RF Safe. The post argues that MBFC should revise or substantiate claims about RF Safe being “funded primarily” by product sales, adjust conflict-of-interest wording, and reconsider an assertion that RF Safe gives limited weight to null (no-effect) evidence. RF Safe proposes alternative language and links to its own transparency policy, product education pages, and a framework it says explicitly anticipates null results.

RF Safe argues that “no effect” (null) findings in RF research should be treated as informative constraints rather than dismissed, within its S4–Mito–Spin mechanistic framework. The post claims biological and exposure heterogeneity can produce nonlinear, tissue- and signal-dependent outcomes, making null results an expected pattern under many study conditions. It references a WHO-commissioned systematic review on RF-EMF and oxidative stress biomarkers as concluding the evidence is of “very low certainty,” citing bias, heterogeneity, and exposure/measurement limitations.

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.