Good point indeed.

Not much, no. Generally speaking. There advice is around study and analytic design, and to sense-check inferences.

Thats not how that works at all.

You know they were on the advisory committee right, and didnt actually conduct the study ?!

...would have been useful had US NTP actually published their results in the peer-reviewed literature, rather than leave it at a report only reviewed internally.

Not much exciting I suspect. I dont know why the results werent combined, but you can easily do that yourself. Even powered as initially intended (140 male rats per group) there is absolutely nothing there.
It will be interesting to see what conspiracies will be brought forward.

...in shocking news.
"A number of letters to the editor of the journal are being prepared, Microwave News has been told."

Activism is a hard job when the results don't go your way 🤷‍♂️

2/2 ...nobody would accept this if a trial showing an effect of EMF were converted to no-effect by replacing trial controls with some group of controls from other experiments.

So all-in-all, in addition to impolite I believe at points their response is questionable (other points; diff of opinion)

There seem be large differences in opinion on how one judges and compares evidence. Personally, I (as do many others) have a big problem with converting a null trial into an 'effect trial' by ignoring the actual controls use, but instead compare to some 'historical controls'. Highly questionable.1/2

Quite an impolite response. I also note not all of the original authors wanted to be involved; presumably because they didnt agree with the content of the response.