MBFC correction request letter

To: Media Bias/Fact Check Editorial Team
Re: Correction Request — RF Safe Entry (Funding language, conflict framing, and null‑evidence handling)
MBFC entry: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rf-safe-bias-and-credibility/

Media Bias/Fact Check is requested to review and revise three statements in the RF Safe entry that appear unsupported, incomplete, or materially misleading as written.

This is a narrow request focused only on: (1) “funded primarily” language, (2) conflict framing, and (3) null‑evidence handling.

1) Requested revision: “funded primarily through product sales”

The entry states that RF Safe is “funded primarily through product sales.”

This phrase reads as a quantitative conclusion (“primarily”) but the entry does not provide:

• A time period examined

• A methodology

• Any documentation supporting a “primary funding source” determination

RF Safe publishes a disclosure describing operational structure and compensation/incentive boundaries. If MBFC cannot substantiate “funded primarily,” MBFC is requested to revise to a non‑quantitative statement such as “offers products” or “links to products,” while reflecting the published disclosure.

Relevant disclosure links:

• Transparency / editorial policy: https://www.rfsafe.com/class/blog/transparency-editorial-policy-rf-safe.php

• Operator/brand statement: https://www.rfsafe.com/contact-us/

2) Requested revision: conflict‑of‑interest framing tied to product sales

The entry states credibility is tempered by “a potential conflict of interest stemming from the sale of RF‑related safety products.”

MBFC is requested to (a) keep this framing narrowly factual and (b) reflect the on‑page reality that RF Safe’s product pages are built around anti‑gimmick education, including explicit rejection of “99% protection” claims and explicit warnings that distance/habits matter more than any case.

Relevant links demonstrating the educational posture:

• TruthCase overview: https://www.rfsafe.com/class/the-truth-case/

• TruthCase “red‑flags” explainer: https://www.rfsafe.com/class/redflags/

• “Zero Ads, All Education” (tools‑not‑ads approach): https://www.rfsafe.com/blog/zero-ads-all-education-a-0-marketing-strategy-built-on-product-excellence-and-tools-not-ads/

If MBFC wishes to retain a “potential conflict” note, MBFC is requested to contextualize it with RF Safe’s published disclosures and the product pages’ explicit rejection of the standard “sell fear / sell percent” marketing pattern.

3) Requested revision: “limited weight to contradictory evidence” (null‑evidence handling)

The entry asserts RF Safe “gives limited weight to contradictory evidence.”

RF Safe’s published framework explicitly anticipates and integrates null outcomes as expected boundary conditions (rather than treating nulls as ignored contradictions).

MBFC is requested to either:

• Revise the entry to reflect that null results are explicitly addressed in RF Safe’s framework; or

• Cite specific RF Safe pages where null findings are omitted or misrepresented (if MBFC maintains the claim)

Relevant links:

• S4–Mito–Spin talking points (explicit treatment of nulls):
  https://www.rfsafe.com/articles/cell-phone-radiation/s4-mito-spin-framework-talking-points.html

• Example “no significant effects” study page with a direct source link:
  https://www.rfsafe.com/research/ViewStudyExpert.php?f=studies3&pid=76

• Research viewer (primary‑source linking structure):
  https://www.rfsafe.com/research/

Minimal exhibits (links)

1. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rf-safe-bias-and-credibility/

2. https://www.rfsafe.com/class/blog/transparency-editorial-policy-rf-safe.php

3. https://www.rfsafe.com/contact-us/

4. https://www.rfsafe.com/articles/cell-phone-radiation/s4-mito-spin-framework-talking-points.html

5. https://www.rfsafe.com/class/redflags/

6. https://www.rfsafe.com/research/ViewStudyExpert.php?f=studies3&pid=76

Thank you for considering these narrow, evidence‑based revisions.

Public contact page for the operator and support:
https://www.rfsafe.com/contact-us/