It sounds like there are several open questions here and I do not know the answers.
1) What parts of the article posted about are biased and inaccurate?
I am not sure, I believe the gentleman above was saying its extremely biased.. I was just hoping to find out to what extent this criticism of the PEAR research was accurate. From my layman's point of view the only 'bias' is that the author doesnt seem to think that PEAR's statistical findings are valid because of the size of the sample (millions of RNG trials).
2) What is the full extent of the data from the PEAR research versus what the article discussed?
It appears that the website simply quotes the PEAR data as-is. The core of the rebuttal on PEAR's research is that the change is very small, and only discernible due to the uniquely large sampling rate. Some would say 'thats good science' - a large sampling rate. Others like the author of this article would say 'stretching the trials out to such number so that a tiny variation becomes more apparent, when under normal size sampling groups wed see no difference', believe its bad science. I think this is the core issue.
3) What specific data was Tom referring to when he quoted the PEAR research?
Thats the thing, he was simply referring if I remember correctly to a fringe department at Princeton (which is now in fact shut down it seems), having success with Geiger counters and robots falling off tables etc. Id have to back track through the lectures (all 5-6 hours) to find the bit but basically at this point Im just asking... IF the PEAR research is statistically insignificant:
1) does Tom know something about the research that contradicts this that this author is missing?
2) if other scientists/critics find this tiny variation that normally wouldnt exist inconclusive, why does Tom refer to it at all?
Basically I was under the impression that the experiments conducted by PEAR were rock-solid and able to stand toe-to-toe (no pun intended) with say the double slit experiment, but while the double slit experiment seems like a no-brainer this PEAR stuff seems to be called into doubt for good reason. Again, according to the background they performed their science under the strictest possible conditions and did their best to use good equipment so it behooves us at this point to start hiding behind the 'get your own data' thing; this is for all intents and purposes supposed to be the 'reliable data' from professionals, and i dont think we could define it as small picture science either.