QuantaDose Press Releases

RF Safe’s Rebuttals to MBFC

RF Safe has published multiple detailed responses on their site and X, arguing that MBFC’s rating is unwarranted and based on shallow analysis. Key points from their rebuttals:

  • On Factual Errors: They highlight MBFC’s initial mistakes (e.g., ownership, lack of study links) as evidence of rushed assessment, which MBFC later fixed but didn’t fully upgrade credibility for.
  • On Selective Citation and Null Results: RF Safe emphasizes that their S4–Mito–Spin framework (a hypothesis integrating ion channel perturbations, mitochondrial ROS, and spin-dependent chemistry) explicitly incorporates null findings as “boundary conditions” (e.g., no effects in low-vulnerability tissues like skin). They claim this unifies over 4,000 studies, including nulls, rather than ignoring them—countering MBFC’s “one-sided” critique.
  • On Alarmism: RF Safe argues their calls for updating thermal-only guidelines align with high-certainty evidence (e.g., WHO 2025 review on rodent tumors) and judicial precedents like the 2021 U.S. Court remand of FCC limits as “arbitrary.” They don’t claim RF causes specific human diseases but advocate for precautionary policy (e.g., Clean Ether Act, Li-Fi mandates).
  • On Conflicts: Products like TruthCase are framed as educational tools to demonstrate physics-based mitigations (e.g., proper orientation to avoid signal interference), not core revenue. RF Safe notes they’ve exposed scams since 1998, influencing FTC warnings on ineffective “radiation shields” (e.g., via a 2000 Good Housekeeping interview).
  • Demand for Upgrade: They call for a “High Credibility” rating, accusing MBFC of relying on non-peer-reviewed sources (e.g., the Harvard article) while overlooking RF Safe’s peer-reviewed integrations.