Science Was Supposed to Debunk Placebo—But It Became One

Inside a Private Interview on the XPRIZE Submission That’s Redefining Science—Whether They’re Ready or Not

By Masati Sajady | Founder, XI Meta Science

“Alright Masati,” the interviewer began, closing her laptop with a click. “Let’s start with the obvious—how’s your XPRIZE submission going?”

We were seated across from each other in a quiet conference room—the kind with too- white lighting and chairs that make you feel like a test subject. Still, I appreciated the energy in the room. Curious. Cautious. Ready to challenge—but maybe also ready to shift.

I nodded. “We just completed our 10,000th field application. Real-world use. Measurable biological results. From degenerative disease reversals to executive performance upgrades —all sustained without pharmaceuticals or invasive interventions.”

She raised an eyebrow. “That’s a big claim. How do you know it’s not placebo?”

Then she pulled out the review packet—the official feedback from the XPRIZE judges. With a glance that bordered on provocation, she read one line aloud, slowly:

“We’d need to see a clear delineation between XI’s biological effects and placebo or sham treatments.”

She looked up with an arched brow. “So… looks like they think XI might be a sham. Snake oil. Random chance. They’re basically calling you a spiritual salesman with fancy language.”

She was trying to get a rise out of me. But I didn’t flinch.

We had over 100 case studies we submitted demonstrating reproducible, biological shifts— outside the lab, not confined by it. Validated biomarkers included telomere gains, inflammation reduction, neuromuscular strength, cognitive function, muscle increase, and extremely noticeable before-and-after pictures showing visible shifts in youth and vitality. And yet, somehow, this was still treated as if it were anecdotal—or worse, irrelevant.

I said calmly, “Most so-called experts fall into a horse-blinders rut—where their identity is fused to their field of expertise. It’s not just ego—it’s survival. Because if your entire career is built on the current model, the last thing you want is proof it’s obsolete.”

“This has happened for centuries. Brilliant minds imprisoned or ridiculed for what was called ‘sham science’—until it became tomorrow’s textbook. Giordano Bruno. Semmelweis. Tesla. We’ve seen it in outdated business paradigms too—like IBM claiming there’d be a market for maybe five personal computers.”

I looked her in the eye. “I expected this from government panels or pharma boards. But I’ll admit—I didn’t expect it in science. A field that’s supposed to be about discovery.”

“My knowledge doesn’t come from a whitepaper. It comes from near-death experiences. From seeing the future, if you will. I’ve been outside this reality. As Einstein said, you can’t solve a problem from the same level of consciousness that created it. I stepped out—to bring back solutions.”

“Sure, they’re unconventional. But the results are undeniable. We’ve spent millions refining this science. Over 100,000 research sessions with clients—across 13 years. We didn’t stumble into this. We engineered it. We optimized it. And now we’re being told it’s too effective to be real?”

She didn’t respond—at least not verbally. Her silence was listening.

“You know,” I added, “most FDA-approved drugs perform just above placebo. The difference is often statistically negligible. And yet, those treatments are considered valid because they fit the model.”

I paused. She didn’t flinch, so I went on. “In fact, one of the largest studies on antidepressants—Kirsch et al., 2008—found that up to 90% of their effectiveness was placebo. And the JAMA study on chronic back pain? Same story. Treatments perform no better than sham interventions, yet they’re prescribed as if they’re precise instruments of healing.”

“So what are you saying?” she asked. “That XI is a better placebo?” “No,” I said, “I’m saying that science is the placebo. Or at least the version we currently practice.” She narrowed her eyes, not in offense—but in attention “Placebo isn’t the enemy,” I continued. “It’s the clue. The fact that belief, expectation, and coherence can reorganize biology should be the most exciting mystery in modern science.

Instead, it’s treated like a nuisance. An anomaly to be subtracted out.” “But trials are designed to eliminate placebo,” she said. “Isn’t that the point of rigor?” “Rigor?” I repeated. “Or rehearsal?”

She blinked. “Most clinical trials are just performance theaters,” I said. “You screen out ‘imperfect’ subjects. You sterilize the variables. You test for short durations. Then you pretend the result applies to the chaos of real life.”“And XI?” she challenged. “XI is tested in real life. With messy humans, inconsistent environments, unpredictable emotions—and still, the results hold. That’s not less rigorous. That’s more.”

“Even when conventional drugs do something,” I added, “they often trade one imbalance for another. You borrow from biology’s bank account—hormonal depletion, immune suppression, microbiome disruption, nervous system burnout—just to suppress a symptom.”

“And what’s your alternative?” she asked, still writing notes but slower now. “Frequency,” I said. “But not the vague, new-age kind. XI Meta Science recalibrates the actual time-coded patterns that shape biology. We don’t suppress anything. We bring coherence back to the system.”

There was a pause. Then she asked the question I knew was coming: “But how can you prove it’s not just… suggestion? A really strong belief effect?”

I smiled. “That’s like someone in the 1800s watching electricity turn on a lightbulb and saying, ‘Well, maybe they just believed really hard.’” She laughed, but I could see her mind shifting. “We don’t eliminate the belief effect,” I said. “We explain it. XI Meta Science reveals how entrainment, resonance, and synchronization alter the frame rate of consciousness—down to the cellular level. That’s not mysticism. It’s physics. Just one layer deeper than your tools can currently detect.”

“And these results,” she said, now leaning forward, “are from actual people? Not lab studies?” “Exactly,” I replied. “Over 10,000 cases—athletes, trauma survivors, chronic illness patients, elite performers. Not in a lab. Not in a vacuum. In life.” “That’s a lot,” she said, slowly. “But the XPRIZE committee will still want traditional delineations: placebo, sham, double-blind…”

“Then they’re not looking for a breakthrough,” I said gently. “They’re looking for better packaging of yesterday’s model.”

Later, as the conversation turned to innovation, I reached into my bag and pulled out a printed quote from Peter Diamandis—the founder of XPRIZE himself.“The day before something is truly a breakthrough, it’s a crazy idea.” I placed it gently in front of her. “If that’s the founding ethos of XPRIZE, then calling XI a sham is not just disappointing—it’s hypocritical.”

“The people judging this work aren’t honoring Peter’s words. They’re betraying them. They’ve forgotten the spirit of real entrepreneurs and heroes—people who dared to challenge the status quo because they saw something others couldn’t.” “I truly hope Peter himself hasn’t lost the key that made him successful. But it sure looks like his organization has.” She sat with that for a moment. Then asked one last question: “So if your tech is real, why can’t our current science see it? “Because it’s calibrated to measure what it already understands,” I said. “Like trying to detect Wi-Fi with a stethoscope.” She laughed again, but this time didn’t take notes. She just listened. “Maybe,” I said, “it’s not that XI is hard to see. Maybe it’s that science has trained itself not to see anything outside its frame. In that case, the placebo isn’t XI—it’s the very structure of validation itself.”

I stood to leave. She was still holding the quote. “If your instruments can’t tell the difference between a sham and a breakthrough,” I said as I reached the door, “maybe it’s time to upgrade the instruments.” And then I walked out—not with a theory, but with 10,000 living proofs.

Welcome to

The XI Community

Enter your email to receive:

Welcome to

The XI Community

Enter your email to receive:

Welcome to

The XI Community

Enter your email to receive:

3rd+ NDE

2nd NDE

1st NDE