Posted: Feb 06, 2013 10:19 pm
by ersby
I've been following ganzfeld research for some years, so I found it on my hard drive. I doubt if this enough to cancel out the results quoted in some meta-analyses (Radin's results were, I think, 29 quintillion to one) but it makes a big dent. The biggest question, though, is why a lot of these aren't in the meta-analyses at all. The "exhaustive" meta-anlayses that claim to cover all experiments (such as Radin's or Storm's) are just based on previously successful meta-analyses and reviews, with only a little (or no) attempt at a thorough search of the literature.

Glad I could help.