Fact-Checkers Aren’t Infallible: Debunking MBFC’s “Pseudoscience” Label on RF Safe

– A Deep Dive into the Real ContentPosted on January 5, 2026In today’s information overload, many people turn to fact-checkers like Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) for quick judgments on source credibility. It’s understandable—fact-checkers promise objectivity, sifting through claims to separate truth from fiction. But what if the fact-checkers themselves don’t read the content they’re judging? That’s the case with MBFC’s rating of RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility.”

Their entry accuses RF Safe of “overstating the evidence linking cell phones to health concerns” and misrepresenting consensus, implying hype or unsubstantiated claims.But a close examination of RF Safe’s site reveals something different: No direct causation claims for human health issues. Zero. The language is consistently study-focused, precautionary, and evidence-bound—using terms like “associations,” “potential risks,” or “signals” without asserting definitive cause-and-effect. Human health is only mentioned when tied to what specific studies report, with critiques of flaws and no extrapolations beyond the data. This restraint directly counters MBFC’s implications of “overstating” or pseudoscientific hype. Fact-checkers like MBFC aren’t gods; they’re groups with opinions, and their errors (e.g., wrong ownership, false “no direct links”) prove they didn’t engage deeply. This blog dives into the proof, showing why trusting fact-checkers blindly can mislead, and why RF Safe deserves a fairer look.The Pattern: No Causation Claims – Just Study-Derived Associations and PrecautionsFrom the homepage to the research library and key blogs, RF Safe avoids phrases like “RF radiation causes brain tumors” or “cell phones lead to cancer in humans.” Instead, content emphasizes what studies reveal: Potential upstream mechanisms (e.g., oxidative stress disrupting cellular fidelity) that might create environments for downstream issues, always as “co-factors” or “signals,” not direct causes. Disclaimers reinforce this: Everything is educational, not medical advice, urging readers to consult professionals and verify primaries.This isn’t cherry-picking—it’s a site-wide commitment. Here’s the evidence from core pages:Homepage (rfsafe.com): Associative Language Tied to StudiesThe homepage discusses health effects but only through study references, using words like “link,” “clear evidence” (in animals), or “increase the risk.” No site-claimed human causation.

• Quote 1: “Studies link RF radiation to malignant brain tumors and heart tumors.” – This is associative (“link”), not causative, and points to research like NTP/Ramazzini.
• Quote 2: “Clear Evidence of Harm: NTP and Ramazzini Institute found RF radiation carcinogenic in animal studies.” – Explicitly animal-focused; no human extrapolation.
• Quote 3: “Peer-reviewed studies confirm DNA damage, oxidative stress, and disrupted cellular repair mechanisms at low exposure levels.” – “Confirm” ties to studies; oxidative stress as upstream, not claiming human diseases.
• Quote 4: “Their research consistently found a significant increase in the risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma.” – Referring to the Hardell Group studies; “increase in risk,” not “causes.”
• Quote 5: “The NTP Study… provided clear evidence of carcinogenic activity, with increased incidences of malignant schwannomas of the heart and gliomas of the brain in male rats.” – Again, animal-specific; precautionary for humans via policy calls.

Precautionary framing dominates: Advice like using speakerphone or wired tech is “prudent” based on evidence gaps, not alarmist causation.Research Library (rfsafe.com/research/): Summaries Mirror Studies, No Added CausationThe library lists thousands of studies with direct “View Study” links to originals. Summaries report findings without site-added causation—e.g., “risk of,” “impact,” or “induces” in context. Human health entries are rare and study-bound.

(Note: The page loads dynamically, but examples from visible content show the pattern.)

• Example 1: A study on “Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and risk of cancer” – Summary: “Epidemiology is not enough!” – Frames as exploring risks, not claiming causation; direct link to ScienceDirect.
• Example 2: “Modern health worries and exposure perceptions” – Summary discusses sensitivity to EMFs; no causation, just reporting perceptions; link to Frontiers.
• Example 3: “The protective effects of melatonin against electromagnetic waves of cell phones in animal models” – Summary: Melatonin mitigates effects; implies risks but from study, not site; link to Wiley.

No hype—entries critique studies (e.g., biases) and promote verification.S4–Mito–Spin Roadmap (truthcases.com/blog/…): Mechanisms and Associations, Not CausationThis key post synthesizes evidence but sticks to associations/high-certainty animal endpoints, contrasting with human observational nulls.

• Quote 1: “A WHO‑commissioned experimental animal review graded evidence as high certainty for increased malignant heart schwannomas and gliomas in male rats.” – Animal-specific; no human causation.
• Quote 2: “Evaluated mobile phones and several head/brain cancer outcomes across dozens of studies, reporting no consistent association in the observational literature.” – Acknowledges lack of human link; no overstatement.
• Quote 3: “High‑certainty endpoints are not ‘background noise.’ They are the type of evidence that should reset public‑health baselines.” – Precautionary call, not causation claim.
• Quote 4: “Graded evidence to high certainty for increased malignant heart schwannomas and gliomas in male rats under RF‑EMF exposure.” – Repeated for emphasis, but animal-only.
• Quote 5: “This combination does not justify complacency, especially for chronic exposure.” – Frames uncertainty as reason for caution, not proof of harm.

Overall framing: Non-thermal risks in vulnerable tissues (brain, heart) from mechanisms, advocating policy shifts—evidence-bound, not hype.How MBFC’s Errors Prove They Didn’t Read the ContentMBFC’s “pseudoscience” tag seems based on assumptions, not analysis. Their entry implies causation overstatements (e.g., via Interphone), but as shown, RF Safe critiques it without adding claims. Worse, factual blunders reveal sloppiness:

• “No direct links”: False—every study has them.
• “Owned by John Coates”: Wrong—public records show Quanta X Technology LLC.

If MBFC missed these, they likely didn’t scan for language patterns. Fact-checkers are opinion groups; MBFC’s methodology admits it’s “not scientific,” relying on subjective bias scores. Their unchanged entry despite RF Safe rebuttals shows bias, not rigor—harming discourse on real issues like 2025 WHO animal risks.Why It Matters: Fact-Checkers’ Opinions Can MisleadPeople believe fact-checkers for convenience, but they’re fallible. MBFC’s errors stifle RF Safe’s mission: 30 years of compiling evidence for safer tech. Verify yourself—RF Safe’s links empower that. Don’t let labels replace reading.Sources: Direct from RF Safe pages, as of January 5, 2026.