The reason why the study didn't get much attention was not because they were reviewed by their peers and were shown to be wrong, but rather because no one would review or print their results.
Actually the problem with that study was that it used flawed statistics. I can get you the article that explaines all this, however I think you won't understand it.

Also, Random number generators are not random, they are just based on alot of computations, you can't effect the outcome its impossible.

Do a google search on "arguments against Peer review" before you make silly claims
I know some people critise peer review, however most say its too time consuming.

Anyway, micro PK is interesting, however its hard to determine if something is happening or not. I read a good article in newscientist about this.