QuantaDose Press Releases

RF Safe Response to MBFC’s “Medium Credibility” Rationale

Counter-Brief to MBFC’s “Medium Credibility” Rationale (Jan 8, 2026)

A. MBFC basis #1: “Selective citation” / “limited weight to contradictory evidence”

What MBFC asserts

MBFC writes that RF Safe “emphasizes findings that support its advocacy goals and gives limited weight to contradictory evidence or the broader consensus view that human health effects from low-level RF exposure remain inconclusive.”

RF Safe response

  1. Null findings are not omitted or downplayed—they are explicitly predicted and integrated by the S4–Mito–Spin framework.
    Your own S4–Mito–Spin “talking points” page states the framework predicts some combinations will show effects and some won’t, and that “null results are expected in parts of the parameter space.”
    That is the opposite of “limited weight.” It treats nulls as information that maps the boundary conditions of effect.

  2. RF Safe explicitly positions S4–Mito–Spin as a mechanistic synthesis—not a claim that “RF causes everything,” and not a claim of universal disease causation.
    Your “S4–Mito–Spin theory review” makes the distinction plainly: you coined the label, but you are assembling existing peer-reviewed science and asking readers to inspect the underlying literature.
    Your “This piece does not argue RF causes any single disease” page reinforces the discipline: a mechanistic model can be useful without claiming “RF causes cancer,” and should be framed as mechanistic plausibility and pattern-organization, not universal prediction.

Practical rebuttal to MBFC’s “contradictory evidence” wording:
MBFC is treating “nulls” as “contradictory evidence,” but your framework treats nulls as expected outcomes under certain exposure parameters and tissue contexts—i.e., as confirmatory boundary conditions.
If MBFC wants to maintain its claim, it should cite specific RF Safe pages where null findings are omitted or misrepresented, because the framework itself explicitly anticipates and incorporates nulls.

B. MBFC basis #2: “One-sided interpretation” / “minimizing or dismissing major health authorities”

What MBFC asserts

MBFC claims RF Safe “frequently treats disputed or minority findings as sufficient to characterize RF exposure as an established public-health threat, while minimizing or dismissing conclusions from major health authorities,” pointing to FDA consumer guidance as an example.

RF Safe response

  1. MBFC itself acknowledges a key point that undermines its “dismissal” framing:
    MBFC states RF Safe argues it does not claim direct human causation and uses “risk,” “signals,” and “associations,” and that this “aligns with legitimate scientific discourse.”
    That is not “dismissing authorities”; that is cautious claim-framing.

  2. RF Safe publishes an explicit standard for this: separate evidence types and do not overclaim.
    Your Transparency & Editorial Policy requires authors to distinguish experimental evidence, mechanisms, and regulatory policy, and to “avoid overstating certainty or claiming outcomes beyond what cited evidence supports.”
    It also clarifies how you use the word “settled”: not “human causation,” but “evidence of non-thermal biological effects in experimental literature” versus claims of direct causation.

  3. RF Safe’s mission page makes the policy posture explicit: this is a public-health project first, accessories second.
    It states: “RF Safe is not a marketing campaign; it is a public-health project…” and “Accessories are only a bridge until law and infrastructure catch up.”
    That is not “minimizing authorities”; it is an advocacy stance about policy adequacy and safety logic.

Targeted rebuttal: MBFC is collapsing “regulatory consumer guidance” into “scientific consensus,” while your published editorial standard explicitly treats regulatory positions and scientific evidence as related but not interchangeable.

C. MBFC basis #3: “Alarmist framing”

What MBFC asserts

MBFC says your credibility is reduced by “alarmist framing,” and that “alarm-driven framing may still incentivize consumer purchases.”

RF Safe response

  1. RF Safe is advocacy and uses strong language, but it simultaneously publishes guardrails against overclaiming.
    Your editorial policy is explicit about avoiding overstatement and distinguishing evidence from policy rhetoric.
    Your “does not argue RF causes any single disease” page explicitly models how to keep writing “uncompromising” without becoming defamatory or making universal disease claims.

  2. The TruthCase marketing itself pushes the opposite of “false assurance”: it emphasizes that cases are not enough and that behavior/distance matters.
    TruthCase states: if you change the antenna environment, the phone can transmit harder, and “any fabric ‘99%’ number stops mattering.”
    It also states: “At night – distance and airplane mode matter more than any case. The hardware is a reminder, not a substitute.”
    That is caution, not “buy this and you’re safe.”

Clean correction to MBFC’s inference: If MBFC’s point is “advocacy tone is urgent,” that’s a stylistic critique. It does not automatically translate into “credibility reduction,” especially where MBFC already concedes your claim-language is association-based and sourced.

D. MBFC basis #4: “Potential conflict of interest” and “funded primarily through product sales”

What MBFC asserts

MBFC writes: “credibility is tempered by … a potential conflict of interest stemming from the sale of RF-related safety products,” and also claims RF Safe is “funded primarily through product sales.”

RF Safe response

1) “Funded primarily through product sales” is asserted as fact without financial substantiation

MBFC presents “funded primarily” as a factual claim, but it provides no accounting period, basis, or method for that quantitative conclusion.

Your published disclosure directly contests the incentive inference MBFC is pushing:

  • “RF Safe’s hosting, publishing tools, maintenance, and administrative costs are paid for by the site operator.”

  • “John Coates does not receive a revenue share, profit distributions, or compensation tied to RF Safe/QuantaCase sales…”

  • The site existed and published before later products were introduced.

At minimum, MBFC should treat “funded primarily” as unproven unless they can document it.

2) The TruthCase/QuantaCase is marketed as an educational standard that rejects the usual “sell fear / sell percent” playbook

Your TruthCase marketing is explicitly built around exposing red flags in the category:

  • It teaches “orientation training” habits and says the hardware “reinforces four simple rules” about posture and distance.

  • It defines “TruthScore” red flags including “up to 99% protection” claims without whole-device, orientation-specific tests.

  • It states the case is built to score “0/5” on those red flags and explicitly rejects “99%” fabric-only marketing.

RF Safe’s own QuantaCase explainer says the case exists “not to dominate the market but to teach consumers and manufacturers alike how to do anti-radiation design correctly,” and: “We never promise a specific ‘percentage’ of protection…”

That is a direct, public, documented effort to de-incentivize deceptive product marketing, not exploit it.

3) What MBFC should say instead (if it wants to be accurate)

If MBFC wants to flag incentives, it should do so in a way that matches the record:

  • RF Safe “offers products” (true), but also publishes a disclosure about ownership/compensation, frames accessories as stopgaps, and markets TruthCase as an anti-gimmick educational template that rejects percentage claims and teaches orientation/distance.

That is very different from implying “selling products is the driver of the messaging.”

Suggested “Ask” to MBFC (precise and evidence-based)

If you send one more correction request, keep it narrow:

  1. Challenge “funded primarily through product sales” as an unsupported factual claim unless they can document the basis, especially in light of your published disclosure that operating costs are paid by the site operator and founder compensation is not tied to sales.

  2. Challenge “limited weight to contradictory evidence” by pointing to the S4–Mito–Spin page that explicitly states null results are expected, and to your “does not argue RF causes any single disease” page showing the disciplined claim boundaries.

  3. Challenge the “product conflict” inference by citing TruthCase’s TruthScore red-flag test (rejecting percent claims) and QuantaCase’s “teaching” purpose statement.

Target: MBFC’s stated basis for “Medium Credibility” (Updated 01/08/2026)

I. Issue Presented

MBFC assigns RF Safe a Medium Credibility rating, stating credibility is “tempered by selective citation, one-sided interpretation of evidence, alarmist framing, and a potential conflict of interest stemming from the sale of RF-related safety products.”

RF Safe disputes those conclusions as stated—particularly where MBFC (a) asserts funding facts without evidentiary support, (b) characterizes balanced presentation as “one-sided” without citing concrete omissions, and (c) treats policy advocacy language as a credibility defect while simultaneously acknowledging RF Safe avoids direct human causation claims and links to primary studies.

II. MBFC Assertion #1: “Selective citation” / “limited weight to contradictory evidence”

MBFC’s claim

MBFC states RF Safe “emphasizes findings that support its advocacy goals and gives limited weight to contradictory evidence.”

RF Safe response

This characterization is contradicted by RF Safe’s own research-library record. RF Safe’s library includes numerous null/negative findings (not only positive findings), including meta-analyses and observational studies explicitly reporting no significant association or no significant effect.

Representative examples from RF Safe’s own study records:

  • Meta-analysis: “No significant association found between mobile phone use and salivary gland tumors…”

  • Epidemiology: “No significant association… lymphoma risk and proximity to mobile phone base stations…”

  • In vitro: “2.45 GHz RF-EMF did not show significant biological effects… under the tested exposure conditions.”

  • Systematic review (mixed outcomes): “20 studies found no significant effects… 21 studies noted impairments… 4 studies suggested beneficial effects.”

  • Occupational exposure: “Generally, no significant association… glioma or meningioma…” (with limited exceptions noted).

These are not “downplayed” outcomes; they appear plainly in the “Findings/Conclusion” fields on the same platform MBFC now acknowledges links to primary sources.

Requested clarification from MBFC (if MBFC maintains this claim)

If MBFC contends RF Safe “gives limited weight” to contradictory evidence, MBFC should identify specific RF Safe pages where null/negative findings are omitted, minimized, or misrepresented—rather than making a generalized assertion that is contradicted by the library’s content.

III. MBFC Assertion #2: “One-sided interpretation” / “minimizing major health authorities”

MBFC’s claim

MBFC asserts RF Safe “frequently treats disputed or minority findings as sufficient to characterize RF exposure as an established public-health threat, while minimizing or dismissing conclusions from major health authorities,” citing the FDA as an example.

RF Safe response

  1. MBFC itself acknowledges RF Safe avoids direct human causation claims and uses “risk,” “signals,” and “associations” language, which MBFC says “aligns with legitimate scientific discourse” and “distinguishes RF Safe from outright pseudoscience.”
    That acknowledgment directly undercuts the premise that RF Safe is “minimizing” mainstream views by asserting definitive human causation.

  2. RF Safe’s published editorial standards explicitly require authors to distinguish:

    • experimental evidence,

    • mechanistic hypotheses, and

    • regulatory policy—
      and to “avoid overstating certainty or claiming outcomes beyond what cited evidence supports.”

  3. RF Safe also explicitly addresses the “settled” terminology concern:
    when “settled” is used, RF Safe states the intent is to specify what is meant—e.g., evidence of biological interaction in experimental literature versus direct human causation.

Bottom line: MBFC’s “one-sided interpretation” critique does not engage the actual editorial rule RF Safe has published: “do not claim outcomes beyond the cited evidence,” and “separate experimental evidence from regulatory posture.”

The core dispute MBFC does not squarely address

RF Safe’s position is that thermal-only safety logic is incomplete as a public-health framework and that policy should account for biological interactions reported in experimental and mechanistic literature. MBFC’s citation to FDA consumer guidance may reflect a different policy emphasis, but disagreement with FDA’s current public messaging is not, by itself, a credibility defect—especially after courts have required the FCC to supply a reasoned explanation regarding non-cancer harms and modern evidence (see Section VI).

IV. MBFC Assertion #3: “Alarmist framing”

MBFC’s claim

MBFC characterizes RF Safe’s messaging as “alarmist framing.”

RF Safe response

RF Safe is an advocacy site and does use urgent language (e.g., “public health threat” appears on site interfaces).
However, MBFC simultaneously acknowledges that RF Safe’s substantive claims are framed in terms of “risk,” “signals,” and “associations,” not definitive human causation—precisely the line between advocacy and medical certainty.

RF Safe’s editorial policy further limits how claims should be communicated, including the explicit instruction to avoid claims beyond cited evidence and to provide primary-source links.

If MBFC’s critique is primarily stylistic (tone), MBFC should label it as such; “credibility” should not be reduced solely to rhetoric when the underlying sourcing and claim framing are acknowledged as legitimate.

V. MBFC Assertion #4: “Conflict of interest” / “Funded primarily through product sales”

MBFC’s claim

MBFC states: “RF Safe is funded primarily through product sales…” and treats the “close integration” of advocacy with product sales as a “significant credibility concern.”

RF Safe response (factual and evidentiary)

  1. RF Safe’s transparency policy states the operator pays site operating costs and that the founder does not receive revenue share/profit distributions/comp tied to QuantaCase sales.

  2. RF Safe’s policy also states the site continued to operate and publish before later products were introduced, and that accessories are not the “solution” but a bridge/stopgap.

  3. RF Safe content explicitly frames accessories as stopgap measures rather than “the answer,” and emphasizes systemic reform.

  4. RF Safe also directs purchase through external retailers (e.g., Amazon/Walmart) in multiple posts/pages, undercutting the claim that the website’s primary purpose is direct product monetization through the site itself.

The specific problem with “funded primarily”

“Funded primarily through product sales” is a quantitative claim (it asserts a dominant funding source), but MBFC provides no financial breakdown or methodology for that statement.

If MBFC wishes to retain that statement as a factual claim, it should specify:

  • what period it is measuring,

  • what revenue streams it counted, and

  • how it determined “primarily.”

Absent that, the more defensible phrasing would be:
“The site promotes and sells RF-related products; this creates a potential conflict-of-interest risk.”
That would be an opinion about incentives—not an unsupported numeric funding assertion.

Your additional timeline point (recommended “Exhibits”)

You stated that from 2020–2022 the site operated without selling products on-site and that products are distributed broadly (Amazon, Walmart, etc.). I cannot verify your internal sales timeline from public pages alone, but it is easy to document if you attach:

  • archived site snapshots (Wayback),

  • first product-page publish dates,

  • order history start dates (Shopify/Woo), or

  • a short operator letter summarizing the timeline.

Include those as Exhibit A–D and MBFC’s “funded primarily” line becomes much harder to sustain.

VI. The “Thermal-only is sufficient” premise is no longer a safe default (what changed)

MBFC frames RF Safe’s “public-health threat” posture as inconsistent with major authorities.
RF Safe’s position is that the policy environment has materially shifted and that “thermal-only” cannot be treated as a complete safety logic:

  1. D.C. Circuit (2021): The court remanded and held the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation that its guidelines adequately protect against harms unrelated to cancer.

  2. WHO-commissioned animal cancer systematic review (2025): Mevissen et al. (Environment International) concludes high certainty evidence for increased malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats and discusses certainty evaluation for animal cancer endpoints.

  3. WHO-aligned male fertility synthesis (2025): A BfS “Spotlight” summary states “high certainty” evidence that RF-EMF exposure decreases pregnancy rate, while noting the signal was driven by very high exposure (≥5 W/kg) and temperature-related questions remain.

  4. NTP (U.S.) cell phone RFR: NTP summarizes clear evidence of malignant schwannomas in male rats and some evidence of malignant gliomas.

None of these sources, standing alone, proves universal human causation at typical use. That is not RF Safe’s claim. The policy claim is narrower: thermal-only logic is not a complete public-health safety standard when high-certainty experimental endpoints and court-mandated regulatory scrutiny exist.

VII. Requested MBFC Improvements (precise and evidence-based)

To maintain methodological credibility, MBFC should:

  1. Replace “funded primarily through product sales” with a non-quantitative, evidence-based statement unless MBFC can document the basis for “primarily.”

  2. Cite concrete examples for “minimizing/dismissing major authorities” and “selective citation” by linking to specific RF Safe pages—especially given MBFC acknowledges RF Safe uses association-based language and links to studies.

  3. Distinguish tone critiques (“alarmist framing”) from factual/reporting critiques, rather than collapsing stylistic disagreement into “credibility.”