QuantaDose Press Releases

Fact-Checkers Aren’t Infallible: Correcting MBFC’s RF Safe Entry and Why the “Pseudoscience” Label Is Built on Basic Errors

Posted: January 5, 2026
Related: Transparency & Editorial Policy (RF Safe) – https://www.rfsafe.com/class/blog/transparency-editorial-policy-rf-safe.php RF Safe

Executive summary

Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) currently labels RF Safe as “pseudoscience,” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility.” Media Bias/Fact Check Reasonable people can debate interpretation of RF health literature. That is not what this post is about.

This post is about verifiable, black-and-white factual errors in MBFC’s RF Safe entry—errors on the simplest claims MBFC makes:

  1. Ownership (MBFC says RF Safe is owned by John Coates). Media Bias/Fact Check

  2. Research linking (MBFC says RF Safe provides “no direct links” to studies). Media Bias/Fact Check

Those errors are not “opinions.” They are mistakes that could have been avoided by checking public records and clicking a study record.

Because MBFC ratings are often reused by search engines, summaries, and AI systems, these basic inaccuracies can create a reputational “cascade.” For that reason, we are documenting the record in one place and requesting MBFC correct its entry.

What MBFC claims (verbatim)

MBFC’s RF Safe entry states, in relevant part:

  • “Overall, RF Safe is rated as a pseudoscience source…” Media Bias/Fact Check

  • “RF Safe is owned by John Coates and funded primarily through product sales…” Media Bias/Fact Check

  • RF Safe’s research section claims “a comprehensive analysis of over 2,500 studies” but “provide no direct links to those studies.” Media Bias/Fact Check

MBFC also quotes RF Safe using broad “settled” language and treats that as contradictory to mainstream agencies. Media Bias/Fact Check+1

This post addresses those statements in order: facts first, then interpretation.

1) Basic error: MBFC’s ownership statement is incorrect

MBFC states: “RF Safe is owned by John Coates…” Media Bias/Fact Check

The record shows RF Safe is operated by Quanta X Technology LLC (QXT)

RF Safe is a website and brand—not a standalone legal entity—and its governance is publicly disclosed:

  • RF Safe’s Transparency & Editorial Policy states:

    • “The RF Safe website and the RF Safe® trademark are operated and maintained by Quanta X Technology LLC (Florida),” and

    • “John Coates … is not the owner of RF Safe as a business operation under Quanta X Technology LLC.” RF Safe

  • RF Safe’s “Site Suggestion and Support” page states:

    • “RF Safe®, and QuantaCase™ are brands belonging to QXT…” and

    • “The views presented on the RF Safe website are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Quanta X Technology.” RF Safe

Public records corroborate QXT operation and control

  • Florida Division of Corporations (Sunbiz) lists QUANTA X TECHNOLOGY LLC as an active Florida LLC, with principal address in Seminole, Florida, and WEBB, KATIE J listed as registered agent and “CEO” as an authorized person. Sunbiz

  • Trademark records also tie RF SAFE to Quanta X Technology LLC (not to John Coates personally). For example, Justia’s trademark listing shows: “RF SAFE is a trademark of Quanta X Technology LLC,” with registration number 6592188. Justia Trademarks

Why this matters

If a credibility rater is going to assign motive (“funded by product sales,” “conflict of interest”), it must at least identify the correct operator and governance structure. MBFC’s “owned by John Coates” statement is not a nuance or interpretation; it is a checkable fact. Media Bias/Fact Check+2RF Safe+2

2) Basic error: MBFC’s “no direct links” claim is demonstrably false

MBFC states RF Safe’s research section claims analysis of thousands of studies but “provide no direct links to those studies.” Media Bias/Fact Check

This is refuted by routine inspection of RF Safe study records.

RF Safe’s research library serves individual study record pages (e.g., ViewStudyExpert.php) that typically include:

  • a DOI field, and

  • a direct outbound URL field to the primary source (PubMed, journal publisher, ScienceDirect, Wiley, etc.).

Examples (primary-source links visible on the record)

Here are multiple examples pulled directly from the RF Safe research library that show DOI + an outbound primary source URL:

  • PubMed link shown explicitly as “URL” (DOI present): RF Safe

  • Wiley publisher link shown explicitly as “URL” (DOI present): RF Safe

  • ScienceDirect link shown explicitly as “URL” (DOI present): RF Safe

  • PubMed/NLM link shown explicitly as “URL” (DOI present): RF Safe

  • Wiley link shown explicitly as “URL” (DOI present): RF Safe

Even one such example disproves MBFC’s blanket “no direct links” statement; multiple examples make it unmistakable. Media Bias/Fact Check+2RF Safe+2

RF Safe’s own policy confirms linking is the design intent

RF Safe’s Transparency & Editorial Policy states: “Where we list studies, we aim to include a direct link to the original paper (publisher page, DOI, PubMed, or equivalent primary-source record).” RF Safe

So the accurate critique—if MBFC had one—would require specifics (“these particular entries lack links”). A categorical claim that the research section provides “no direct links” is not supportable. Media Bias/Fact Check+1

3) On the “settled” language: what MBFC quotes is real, but MBFC’s framing is incomplete

MBFC quotes RF Safe asserting “the debate over cell phone radiation hazards is settled.” Media Bias/Fact Check+1
That phrase does appear on RF Safe pages, including the “Cell Phone Radiation Policy” page. RF Safe

Why MBFC uses this line

MBFC uses that language to claim RF Safe is “overstating” and contradicting mainstream agencies. Media Bias/Fact Check

It is true that major agencies often communicate uncertainty or reassurance for typical exposures:

  • CDC: “We don’t know for sure if RF radiation from cell phones can cause health problems years later,” while noting IARC’s classification of RF as a “possible human carcinogen.” CDC

  • FDA: “The scientific evidence does not show a danger to users of cell phones from radio frequency exposure…” U.S. Food and Drug Administration

What RF Safe means by “settled” (and how we publish it)

RF Safe’s Transparency & Editorial Policy explicitly addresses this exact problem and states: when we use terms like “settled,” we aim to specify what is meant—for example, evidence that non-thermal biological effects exist in experimental literature versus claims of direct human causation. RF Safe

That distinction matters because the scientific landscape is not “one sentence”:

  • NTP’s Technical Report summary states “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity of CDMA-modulated cell phone RFR in male rats based on malignant schwannoma of the heart, and notes malignant glioma of the brain was also related to exposure. National Toxicology Program

  • IARC classifies RF electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). IARC

So, a fair debate is not “does this topic exist?”—it is how to interpret animal data, mechanisms, human observational data, and policy response. RF Safe argues the thermal-only framing is inadequate and that non-thermal biological effects reported in the literature justify precaution and policy modernization. MBFC is free to disagree with that policy stance, but it is not entitled to do so on the back of basic factual mistakes about ownership and citations. Media Bias/Fact Check+2RF Safe+2

4) Why these “basic errors” matter more than MBFC admits

MBFC’s entry does not merely critique rhetoric; it frames RF Safe as “pseudoscience,” “misrepresenting consensus,” and “overstating evidence.” Media Bias/Fact Check Those are broad credibility judgments. When those judgments are coupled with factual errors on the simplest checkable items—ownership and links—it raises a serious concern:

Did MBFC validate the basics before issuing a label that downstream systems treat as authoritative?

MBFC itself maintains a corrections process:

  • “If you find any factual errors or context that needs correcting, please send those to the editor for review and correction.” Media Bias/Fact Check

  • MBFC also maintains a “Changes/Corrections” log and states it will correct anything when evidence is provided. Media Bias/Fact Check

This post provides that evidence.

5) Requested corrections to MBFC (narrow, factual, evidence-backed)

Correction 1: Ownership

MBFC currently: “RF Safe is owned by John Coates…” Media Bias/Fact Check
Requested correction: Replace with wording consistent with public records and RF Safe’s disclosures (QXT operation; founder contributor role). RF Safe+2Sunbiz+2

Correction 2: Study links

MBFC currently: the research section provides “no direct links.” Media Bias/Fact Check
Requested correction: Remove or revise, because RF Safe study records show DOI + outbound URLs to primary sources. RF Safe+2RF Safe+2

6) How readers can verify everything here in minutes

Verify governance/ownership

  • RF Safe Transparency & Editorial Policy: RF Safe

  • Sunbiz listing for Quanta X Technology LLC: Sunbiz

  • RF SAFE trademark listing showing Quanta X Technology LLC as owner: Justia Trademarks

  • RF Safe contact/support disclosure: RF Safe

Verify study links

Open any of these study record pages and find the “URL” field (it links to the primary source):

Closing

RF Safe welcomes criticism and disagreement. Debate over interpretation is legitimate. But a “credibility” label should not be built on false claims about who owns the platform and whether the library links to primary studies. Those are fundamentals. Media Bias/Fact Check+2RF Safe+2

If MBFC wants to critique RF Safe’s conclusions or rhetoric, it should do so after correcting the factual record—and while accurately reflecting what RF Safe discloses about governance, incentives, and citations.