Table 1.

Analysis summary of Karipidis et al. experimental study review (covering Tables 1–6 in their review publication).

Critique Category	Description
Incorrect Biological System	Karipidis specified “Bacteria and Yeast” in more than thirty experimental studies that were reviewed. This classification is not entirely appropriate because bacteria and yeast are different species and because most experiments typically expose either yeast (fungi) or bacteria, not both. A more generic description, if needed, could have been “Microbes”. However, such a level of abstraction would prevent a detailed analysis from identifying potential study replications. This is also important when it comes to potential resonance effects, as an example: DNA of yeast will have a different molecular weight compared to DNA from bacteria and so will likely respond to different but specific resonance frequencies.
Incorrect Exposure Time or Exposure Time Range	There were twenty instances where a discrepancy between the exposure duration that Karipidis indicated in their review tables and the duration specified in the reviewed papers was found.
Incorrect Frequency/ Incorrect Frequency Range/Missing Frequency	There were thirteen instances where discrepancies were identified between the exposure frequency Karipidis indicated within their tables and the exposure frequency specified in the papers they reviewed.
Incorrect Intensity/ Incorrect Intensity Range	Eighteen discrepancies were found between the exposure intensity Karipidis documented and the actual exposure intensity specified in the papers reviewed.
Misclassified/ Questionable Classification	There were seventeen instances where the inclusion of a study in a particular table in relation to biological endpoint relevance was questionable. Examples include gene expression studies being included in the genotoxicity table and vice versa.
Misstatements	There were fourteen instances where Karipidis has incorrectly stated a study finding or parameter. This is a serious issue particularly in the cases where a statistically significant finding was mis-reported as a no effect. This has direct implications for a linked study from Wood et al. [26].
Nonsensical Quality Issues	The validity of a number of quality issues raised by Karipidis can be challenged. This has direct implications to a linked study from Wood et al. [26]. Our analysis shows Karipidis has performed a quality assessment of other’s work yet their own publication suffers from serious quality deficiencies.
Findings Not Reported/ Incomplete Results	Our analysis identified forty two instances where important statistically significant biological effect findings are not disclosed by Karipidis in the results column or included in the 5G health review discussion. This has important implications for understanding biological effects that RF exposure (>6 GHz) has on biological entities and the health implications, if any, that may arise.