Anything printed in Science or Nature, perchance?

Dear Media Watch,

I thought I'd bring to your attention this little gem of a story:

Mobile radiation shield released

It's a puff-piece for the "Qlink Mini", a $48 bit of plastic and metal that sticks to your phone and supposedly protects you from radiation.
Pure snake-oil, of course.

On twitter, the author defends the device as "scientifically proven".
Of course the only hint of science in the story is a single naturopath who claims that mobile phones "weaken" his patients.
But even this slender bit of "evidence" leads nowhere, as the naturopath doesn't mention the Qlink device at all.

In fact, the only source quoted in the piece who talks up the science behind the Qlink Mini is, funnily enough, the CEO of Qlink Australia.
Very convincing.

Of course, journalists swallowing such bunkum wholesale is not particularly noteworthy.
Sadly, it's an altogether too common occurrence.

However, there's a sting in this tale.
The author, so-called "technology writer", Stephen Fenech, has a better-known brother, Mario.
Mario Fenech, in his scientific capacity as a former Rugby League player, just so happens to be a spokesperson for Qlink products.

Qlink Australia: Sporting Testimonials

Mario's testimonial may be genuine, but I doubt it was given freely.

So, is this a case of the greatest technology story ever broken by the Tele, or a rather dodgy bit of cash-for-comment (by proxy)?

Regards,
Jacob Coughlan