OptiBiotix Health PLC
Is OptiBiotix Being Taken for a Ride? A Shareholder’s Perspective on the LeanBiome Labelling Discrepancy
By Elric Langton | 13 June 2025
Mike, Alex, and I are financially interested in SkinBioTherapeutics and OptiBiotix Health.
As a shareholder in OptiBiotix Health, I have taken a keen interest in the launch and promotion of LeanBiome, a supplement described in the Lean for Good press release dated 23 May 2025 as a “clinically researched gut health supplement” designed to “support natural weight loss through probiotic and prebiotic synergy.” Developed using OptiBiotix’s unique microbiome technology, LeanBiome® was promoted as the first formula of its kind to combine nine ‘lean bacteria’ species with Greenselect Phytosome®, a patented and caffeine-free green tea extract.
Compare the marketing blurbs.
A direct comparison between two products claiming association with LeanBiome reveals a striking divergence in both formulation and transparency. Myprotein shake clearly identifies LeanBiome® on its label as an ingredient, consistent with branding agreements typically required by OptiBiotix Health. It combines a high-protein base (87% whey concentrate) with prebiotics such as FOS and Glucomannan, along with a suite of vitamins and minerals, positioning it as a meal replacement for overall wellness.
Myprotein containing LeanBiome:
In contrast, LeanBiome marketed by Lean for Good under the name “LeanBiome,” includes no protein, omits any vitamin or mineral content, but delivers a high dose of probiotics (20 billion CFU) alongside botanicals such as Greenselect Phytosome®, Sphaeranthus indicus, and Garcinia mangostana. Despite the similarity in probiotic content and use of the LeanBiome name, this second product fails to explicitly state that it contains OptiBiotix’s proprietary LeanBiome® formulation, raising concerns that it may be leveraging the clinical reputation and IP of OptiBiotix without proper attribution or authorisation.
Lean for Good’s LeanBiome demonstrates that a closer examination of the product’s labelling reveals a conspicuous omission: the word "LeanBiome®" itself is entirely absent from the supplement facts panel, packaging, and marketing materials, except in the press release above. Instead, the label lists generic strains of probiotics and prebiotics—ingredients that resemble the LeanBiome formulation, but with no formal attribution to OptiBiotix or its proprietary blend.
This lack of transparency is especially concerning, given that OptiBiotix’s commercial agreements typically require all products containing SlimBiome, LeanBiome®, or OptiBiome to clearly declare this on their packaging and promotional materials. This clause not only protects OptiBiotix’s intellectual property but also ensures consumers and shareholders can trust the provenance and quality of the ingredients.
The ambiguity raises a serious issue: Is the product in question actually using LeanBiome®—or simply mimicking it? If it does include LeanBiome®, then it is violating OptiBiotix’s standard branding requirements. If it does not, then its marketing, which closely echoes the Company’s language, may be misleading consumers—a practice that could be construed as deceptive or even fraudulent?
This situation feels uncomfortably familiar. When Holland & Barrett first launched SlimBiome, it was sold under their own brand name for nearly a year before being rebranded as “SlimExpert.” At the time, I speculated whether the same strategy might be in play here. However, when I raised this possibility directly with Stephen O’Hara, CEO of OptiBiotix, he confirmed that no such arrangement exists with “Lean for Good” or any other party marketing the LeanBiome® product without attribution. In his words, no commercial agreement is in place, and he acknowledged that he had spoken to the company, but that nothing had come of it.
I approached O’Hara with my concerns a couple of weeks ago. He attempted to hypothesise that there had simply been a mix-up of the two products by the author of the press release. This seems rather odd, as the press release would have been written and checked by Lean for Good before being released to the public. This explanation provides neither comfort nor reassurance that OptiBiotix IP is being protected. This should be deeply concerning, given that OptiBiotix appears to be gaining commercial traction with SlimBiome® in the USA, and in my opinion, isn’t a good look or reassuring to its partners. It’s a risk!
That interaction now seems, in hindsight, to have been little more than a fact-finding mission on their part, perhaps with the intent to replicate the formulation while distancing themselves from formal licensing obligations.
I have also contacted Lean for Good directly to request clarification. Unsurprisingly, they have not responded. As a result, I have escalated the issue by raising it directly with O’Hara once again, urging OptiBiotix to take appropriate action.
This matter deserves urgent scrutiny. At stake is not only the integrity of the LeanBiome brand but also investor trust, consumer protection, and the defence of OptiBiotix’s IP portfolio. Therefore, I respectfully call on OptiBiotix to provide public clarification on the following points:
Is LeanBiome® being used in this product at all?
If so, why is it not disclosed on the label, as required?
If not, what steps will be taken to address the unauthorised use of LeanBiome®-related branding or marketing claims?
OptiBiotix has built a reputation on scientifically validated, premium microbiome technologies. Now more than ever, it must act decisively to protect that reputation from unauthorised use, brand dilution, and the erosion of shareholder and consumer confidence.
Opinions
We offer no advice and do not solicit the purchase of shares in any companies we discuss. However, shares fluctuate in value, making your financial situation unpredictable.
The views and opinions contained within these editorials are for research purposes and are the opinions of the author(s). We aim to be as accurate as possible, but we stress you should also perform your research and never act solely on the contents of these editorials.
Elric, I find this problematic, to put it mildly. Have proposed the following to O'Hara? You obviously understand this a major problem, because you have raised it with O'Hara. He has not acted, so you have.
The fact another company has issue a press release falsely associating itself with OptiBiotix—especially touting the use of a product like LeanBiome without a formal agreement or endorsement—several repercussions could unfold, with potentially serious implications for OptiBiotix's reputation and strategic expansion, particularly into critical markets such as the USA.
Brand Dilution & Market Confusion
By co-opting OptiBiotix’s name and science, the unauthorised company effectively blurs the lines between genuine, clinically backed innovation and opportunistic marketing. Consumers, investors, and partners may be misled into believing there's a formal relationship where none exists. This not only undermines OptiBiotix's credibility but also reduces its ability to control the narrative around its products.
Erosion of Scientific Integrity
OptiBiotix has invested in rigorous clinical studies—a cornerstone of its IP value. If another entity makes unsubstantiated or misleading claims using this data out of context, it risks tarnishing the scientific credibility not just of the product in question but of the brand more broadly. If their interpretation or application is flawed, it reflects poorly back on OPTI, regardless of disassociation.
Legal & Commercial Repercussions
Public misrepresentation could be grounds for legal action—IP infringement, false endorsement, or defamation—but pursuing such claims can be time-consuming, costly, and potentially distracting at a pivotal moment of market entry. Meanwhile, the damage may already be done, especially if stakeholders perceive OPTI as vulnerable to such misappropriation. I seriously doubt OPTI have the funds to take the fight to the infringer.
Investors and potential partners scrutinise credibility meticulously. If it appears OPTI cannot control the use of its brand and research, that may raise red flags around governance and oversight. It risks scaring off high-calibre strategic partners who are wary of reputational risk by association.
Consumer Mistrust
If the product tied to the fake release underperforms or is associated with poor outcomes, consumers might erroneously attribute this to OPTI, potentially damaging brand trust and long-term customer loyalty.
Such a misrepresentation isn't just a nuisance; it's a reputational landmine. For a science-led firm like OPTI, whose value proposition is grounded in empirical credibility, IP integrity, and market trust, false association could seriously hinder its ability to scale and thrive—particularly in a regulatory and competitive environment like the USA.
Why would a Plc allow another company risk harming its reputation its been trying to culture for so many years. It makes no sense at all.