I recently compiled all the studies from the Storm/Tressoldi/Di Risio database that used normal, waking states of consciousness, with a 4-choice design, and compared their combined results to those of their 30 Ganzfeld study database. Below are those results for those interested (though Linda, please don't bother).
Gz: 29 studies (1997 - 2008), N = 1634, X = 542, X/N = 33.2% with exact binomial p = 8.63*E-14. # independently significant studies at the 5% level = 8/29 (27.6% vs. 5% expected by chance) with exact binomial p = 6.49E-5.
NGz: 15 studies (2000 - 2008), N = 1930, X = 472, X/N = 24.5% with exact binomial p = 0.30 (nonsignificant). # ind-sig studies at the 5% level = 0/15 (0%) with exact binomial p = 0.46 (nonsignificant).
Difference between 33.2% and 24.5% hit rates is hugely significant - Fisher's exact p < 0.0001 (one-tailed).
Difference between unselected participants Gz studies (15 studies, 27.3% in N = 886) and NGz studies is borderline significant - Fisher's exact p = 0.058 (one-tailed).
Difference between selected participants Gz studies (14 studies, 40.1% in N = 748) and NGz is hugely significant - Fisher's exact p < 0.0001 (one-tailed).
I used these calculators for the exact binomial p-values and Fisher's exact p: Probability calculator GraphPad QuickCalcs: Analyze a 2x2 contingency table.
On the basis of this data, there is no evidence
of ESP in 4-choice design studies which use normal, waking states of consciousness for the receivers. This confirms that we can reliably regard normal, waking state conditions as a control condition for the Ganzfeld condition, but only reliably so if we use only selected participants in the Ganzfeld condition, or mix selected participants with unselected participants in the Ganzfeld condition. In fact, 3 of the NGz studies were part of explicit comparisons to Ganzfeld studies.