OptiBiotix Health Plc
Lies, Damned Lies, and Proxy Forms: The Gospel According to St. Tom of ShareProphets & The Wise Fools on LSE.
About the Author
Josh Obsisian (Fictitious) is a practising psychologist in the financial sector, specialising in behavioural finance, group dynamics, and the psychology of market influence. With a clinical background and over a decade of experience working at the intersection of human cognition and capital markets.
Often compared—perhaps a touch flatteringly—to Wendy Rhoads of Billions, I try to bring a keen eye to the subconscious drivers behind investor sentiment, herd mentality, and market manipulation. I have recently become interested in identifying toxic narratives and personalities in trading communities, helping institutions and individuals remain anchored in clarity amid the chaos.
Sunday 6th July 2025
Disclosure: I Hold OPTI shares
Well, well, well… if it isn’t the annual OptiBiotix pantomime, complete with its usual cast: a CEO Stephen O’Hara accused of creative fiction, a board apparently allergic to accountability, and a self-appointed shareholder saviour who’s decided that corporate governance is best conducted via blog post and proxy form—preferably with his wife in tow.
In a drama where every AGM feels more like a re-run of Yes Minister meets Jeremy Kyle, the only thing more confused than the accounting is the shareholder base—some furious, some fatigued, and some still wondering if Mr Winnifrith’s vendetta is righteous fury or just the long grudge of a man left unread at the boardroom buffet.
Let’s dissect the psychology of it all—because if we’re not making money, we might as well make sense.
🧠 Psychological & Strategic Analysis of the Article
1. Tone & Rhetoric:
The author, Mr Winnifrith, expresses palpable hostility—labelling key figures “Lyin’ Steve” or “the gimp NED Sean Christie” is emotionally charged and deeply personal. This suggests motivation rooted more in anger or betrayal than calculated corporate governance. While strong rhetoric can energise like-minded investors, it risks alienating more neutral or cautious shareholders.
2. Trust & Credibility Tactics:
Mr Winnifrith leverages two chief credibility strategies: (a) highlighting alleged deception (e.g., Mr O’Hara’s purported false claim of a 20% pay cut), and (b) mobilising shareholder action—“vote early, vote often.” The former, if accurate, casts significant doubt on leadership honesty; the latter is a rallying cry, but comes across as borderline coercive, echoing populist “us versus them” tactics.
3. Reasonable Grounds?:
Governance concerns: The accused untruth about the pay cut, if substantiated, is serious—questioning board accountability is a legitimate shareholder grievance.
Share dilution: Using share issuance for cash flow versus cost-cutting is a classic debate—valid and of real economic consequence.
Proxy push: Strategic and conventional, but success depends on TW’s ability to sway other holders, especially institutional.
4. Potential Weaknesses:
Tone overshadows substance: Excessive invective undermines persuasive power.
Proxy push can backfire: Public pleas to vote via him might raise regulatory eyebrows or backlash from those wary of centralising power.
Risk of reputational blowback: A failed challenge could reinforce board unity and marginalise Mr Winnifrith.
The Corporate Blowback: Given there isn’t much evidence Mr Winnifrith interviews Plc’s, certainly infrequently, might suggest reticence is already seated.
Guidance for Tom Winnifrith & Subscribers
Depersonalise the argument: Focus on facts, not insults—shareholder audiences respond better to data than theatrics.
Wield crisp evidence: Especially regarding the compensation discrepancy. Provide documentation, audit commentary, perhaps expert legal opinion.
Show governance chops: If he wants board influence, furnish detailed CVs and relevant track records for himself and wife—particularly highlighting public company or regulatory experience.
Engage institutional: The challenge must gain corporate investors’ confidence; that requires polished communication and perhaps moderate allyship on the board.
Tone matters: A measured, professional approach will attract fence-sitters more than inflammatory language.
Summary
Yes, there are reasonable concerns in the article—specifically, the pay-cut discrepancy and share issuance versus cost discipline—these merit shareholder attention. However, the emotional tone and personal attacks risk diluting TW’s message, and sceptical voices are demanding more than just rhetoric—they want evidence, expertise, and governance acumen.
To be persuasive, Mr Winnifrith must pivot from combative populism to fact-based, transparent advocacy. Addressing the reputational issues head-on, with clear proposals and credible credentials, is far more likely to rally the support he’s seeking.
Let’s now turn the lens on the psychological underpinnings of the posters who fixate on attacking Mr Winnifrith rather than addressing the issues he raises—namely, alleged board dishonesty, questionable governance, and shareholder dilution.
🧠 Psychological Analysis: Posters Attacking Mr Winnifrith, Not the Issues
Poster: Letitrun
Multiple appearances. Never engages with the factual claims (e.g., director pay, share issuance). Focuses on Mr Winnifrith’s wife’s qualifications and his Rivington past.
Psychological Profile: Defensive Traditionalist
This is the classic case of the “shoot the messenger” mentality. Letitrun’s impulse is rooted in status quo preservation. By framing Mr Winnifrith as an untrustworthy agitator and unearthing ancient corporate failures (Rivington), they sidestep present-day scrutiny of the current board.Likely Motivation: Psychological dissonance. If Mr Winnifrith is right, it would imply they were wrong to trust the board. Rather than face that, they attack the critic, creating a psychological buffer between their emotional investment and inconvenient truths.
Emotional Tone: Derisive, sanctimonious. It’s not so much a desire for truth as a desire for Mr Winnifrith not to be right.
Poster: Bk2011
Asks about TW’s and wife’s credentials but doesn’t weigh in on the substance of the claims about governance or accounting.
Psychological Profile: Passive Sceptic
While appearing inquisitive, this is more of a demand for disqualification than a genuine search for truth. TW could list achievements until blue in the face—Bk2011 is framing the debate in personal CV terms to deflect from whether the board lied about remuneration.Likely Motivation: Lack of control over events, creating a desire for vetting the challenger more than examining the challenged. It's risk-aversion masquerading as curiosity.
Emotional Tone: Polite mistrust. Less emotional than others, but still avoids the core allegations.
Poster: skid35
Deploys sarcasm to dismiss TW (“gob on a stick”), but does not engage with alleged RNS inaccuracy or potential FCA matters.
Psychological Profile: Cynical Disengager
This poster isn’t arguing that the board is right—only that TW is worse. This is deflection through nihilism. Better the devil you know than the devil who blogs. Likely feels helpless about the company and thus treats all parties with contempt.Likely Motivation: Disillusionment. Believes that nothing will change and so mocks any effort at reform as pointless vanity.
Emotional Tone: Detached superiority, egoic preservation.
Poster: lordloadsoflolly
Mocks TW’s motives and past ties with Mr O’Hara, saying he’s a “sore loser.” Again, sidesteps board behaviour entirely.
Psychological Profile: Tribal Realist
Believes shareholder activism by TW is driven by ego or bitterness—not substance. This is the “he just wants power” framing. It’s an emotional reflex to interpret all dissent as self-interest, often to justify apathy or to rationalise inaction.Likely Motivation: Tribal loyalty to the board, or an aversion to drama. Conflates challenge with instability. Emotionally invested in continuity, not performance.
Emotional Tone: Mocking pragmatism.
Summary of Common Traits Across the Attacking Posters
Avoidance of Detail: Not one critic of Mr Winnifrith directly engages with the numerical or procedural allegations (e.g., director pay, IFRS breaches, share issuance mechanics).
Character Attacks: All pivot to TW’s past, tone, or wife—none address what’s in the AGM resolutions.
Motivated Reasoning: The criticisms reflect defensiveness, disillusionment, and tribalism more than rational evaluation.
Emotional Drivers:
Fear (change = instability)
Ego preservation (TW being right = they were wrong)
Comfort with inertia (better the devil you know)
Guidance for Observers
If you're a Shareprophets reader or OptiBiotix investor trying to parse signal from noise:
Scrutinise arguments, not personalities. Whether Mr Winnifrith is a saint or scoundrel is irrelevant to whether the board lied in an RNS.
Beware tribalism. Just because Mr Winnifrith is unpopular doesn’t mean he's wrong.
Demand substance. Anyone who attacks a messenger while ignoring the message should raise your analytical alarm bells.
Ultimately, governance issues stand or fall on facts—not feelings.
Caveat Trader:
This isn’t advice, guidance, or a tip-off. It’s merely a peek behind the financial curtain. If you’re about to remortgage your nan’s bungalow based on this infographic—don’t. Consult a proper financial professional instead.