INVESTIGATION -

WELLBEING INTERNATIONAL

FOUNDATION LTD

We Investigate the claims made by the company Wellbeing International Foundation LTD. No medical reports to prove any of the services offered, no registered office in the UK and NO LICENSE ?

Wellbeing International Foundation logo: white

CURRENT INVESTIGATION

If you have any past or ongoing experiences with this clinic, we invite you to share them with us via our contact page.


Both positive and negative experiences are valuable and will help us assess the accuracy of the claims being made by this unlicensed practitioner.

All information provided will be treated confidentially and reviewed carefully as part of our ongoing investigation.

Wellbeing International Foundation Ltd: Why This “Cell-Free / EV Therapy” Clinic Raises Serious Red Flags

Executive summary


Wellbeing International Foundation markets what it calls “cell-free infusions” and Extracellular Vesicle (EV) Therapy, promoted across a wide range of conditions and goals—from injury recovery and “longevity” to claims implying neurological and chronic-disease improvement. Wellbeing International+2Wellbeing International+2

A review of its public-facing materials raises multiple concerns commonly associated with the global market in unproven regenerative interventions: heavy reliance on testimonials, broad medical implication without transparent clinical evidence, and unclear regulatory positioning for products that regulators have repeatedly warned about—especially exosome/EV products, which have no FDA-approved exosome products and are frequently marketed with unsubstantiated disease claims. U.S. Food and Drug Administration+2U.S. Food and Drug Administration+2

This article sets out the main issues—not as a verdict, but as a structured case for why the clinic’s marketing and footprint stand out as high-risk for consumer harm and why vulnerable people seeking hope may be particularly exposed.


1) The brand story: “30+ years of research” and “1,000+ satisfied customers”—without the receipts


On its website, Wellbeing International Foundation presents itself as “backed by over 30 years of peer-reviewed research” and references “more than 1,000 satisfied customers,” including high-profile athletes. Wellbeing International+1

The problem isn’t that research on EVs/exosomes doesn’t exist—there is a large scientific literature. The issue is traceability: when a clinic implies clinical effectiveness for patients, the reasonable expectation is access to specifics such as:

  • named trials or published clinical studies on the clinic’s actual intervention
  • trial registration numbers
  • product identity (what exactly is administered, at what dose, and how standardized?)
  • regulatory status and oversight

In the materials we reviewed, the marketing relies heavily on general scientific themes and experience-based stories, rather than verifiable clinical evidence for the specific service being sold. Wellbeing International+1


2) Testimonials as the primary evidence: social proof is not clinical proof


Wellbeing’s public web presence leans strongly on testimonial content—both on its main site and on a dedicated testimonials domain that repeats the same brand/address. Wellbeing International+2Wellbeing International Foundation+2

Testimonials can be compelling, especially when the audience is frightened, in pain, or desperate. But testimonials are not evidence of efficacy:

  • they are not controlled
  • they are prone to placebo effects, selective reporting, and survivorship bias
  • they don’t prove what was administered, whether it was sterile/standardized, or whether outcomes were measured objectively

This matters because regenerative medicine has a long, documented history of commercial clinics selling “miracle” biologic interventions online in ways that outpace evidence and regulation. Cell+1


3) The regulatory reality: exosome/EV products are a known hot zone for misleading marketing


A central concern is that Wellbeing’s marketing uses the language of EVs/exosomes and “infusions.” Wellbeing International+1
Regulators have repeatedly warned the public about regenerative medicine products, including exosome products, being sold with unsubstantiated claims.

  • The FDA has explicitly stated: there are currently no FDA-approved exosome products and warned that clinics may deceive patients with claims to prevent, treat, or cure diseases. U.S. Food and Drug Administration+2U.S. Food and Drug Administration+2
  • The ISSCR (International Society for Stem Cell Research) cautions against unproven stem cell-based interventions marketed by clinics and condemns their administration as a business activity outside properly governed research/innovation frameworks. isscr.org+1
  • In the UK, advanced therapies (ATMPs) generally require appropriate regulation and licensing/authorization pathways when placed on the market; the relevant regulator role is outlined in UK government guidance. GOV.UK

If a clinic is offering biologic infusions while marketing benefits across conditions, the key public-interest question becomes:
What is the product, what is its legal status, and where is the clinical evidence?


4) “Bermuda address + UK-facing narrative”: jurisdictional opacity is a consumer risk signal


Wellbeing’s site lists a Bermuda address (Williams House, 20 Reid Street, Hamilton HM11, Bermuda) and references “infusions in Bermuda” in testimonials. Wellbeing International+2Wellbeing International+2
Its LinkedIn listing also indicates headquarters in Bermuda. LinkedIn

Operating cross-border is not automatically wrongdoing. But jurisdictional complexity can:

  • make it harder for patients to understand which regulator applies
  • complicate complaints, refunds, and enforcement
  • allow “medical tourism” dynamics where patients travel to access interventions that would face tighter scrutiny elsewhere

This pattern is widely recognized as part of the global “unproven intervention” ecosystem. Public Health Ontario+1


5) The “Ltd” naming confusion: corporate identity and accountability questions


Independent watchdog commentary online has raised questions about corporate naming and filings. While online commentary must be treated cautiously, it flags a real consumer issue: patients should be able to easily identify the legal entity they’re contracting with and the jurisdiction it’s registered in. yourwellbeinginternationalfoundation.blogspot.com+1

Separately, Companies House lists entities with similar naming (e.g., WELLBEING INTERNATIONAL R&D LIMITED) that exist as UK companies, but that does not automatically establish they are the same entity as a Bermuda-based clinic brand. Companies House+2Companies House+2

For patients, the practical point is simple: if you cannot clearly verify who you’re paying, where they’re registered, and what the contract says about outcomes/refunds/medical responsibility, the risk rises sharply.


6) Why vulnerable people are especially at risk


Regenerative medicine marketing frequently targets people who are:

  • living with chronic pain or disability
  • caring for a loved one with neurodegenerative disease
  • recovering from injury with fear of decline
  • desperate after conventional options didn’t work

In these situations, the emotional leverage of words like “regeneration,” “repair,” “healing signals,” and “cutting-edge” can be enormous—particularly when paired with testimonials describing life-changing improvements. Wellbeing International+1

The ethical danger is not just financial loss. It’s also:

  • delayed access to evidence-based care
  • psychological harm when hope is sold and then collapses
  • the erosion of trust in legitimate stem cell and EV research

This is precisely why leading scientific bodies emphasize patient protection and warn about clinics marketing unproven interventions. isscr.org+1


7) The core red flags we observed (in plain terms)


Based on the clinic’s public-facing materials and the broader regulatory context, these are the standout warning signs:

  1. Sweeping medical implications across very different conditions (sports recovery, neurodegeneration, longevity) without transparent clinical proof for the specific intervention. Wellbeing International+1
  2. Testimonials as the dominant “evidence,” including celebrity/elite-athlete credibility cues. Wellbeing International Foundation+1
  3. Exosome/EV therapy marketing exists in a regulatory hotspot where regulators warn of unapproved products and deceptive claims. U.S. Food and Drug Administration+2U.S. Food and Drug Administration+2
  4. Cross-border opacity (Bermuda address, travel/infusion narrative) that can complicate accountability and oversight. Wellbeing International+2Wellbeing International+2
  5. Unclear, patient-verifiable documentation (trial registration, product identity, manufacturing standards, regulator approvals) on the main marketing pages reviewed. Wellbeing International+1

None of these alone proves fraud. But taken together, they form a pattern consistent with high-risk, unproven-intervention marketing—the same pattern regulators and professional bodies repeatedly warn the public about. isscr.org+1


8) What patients should demand before paying (minimum due diligence checklist)

If someone is considering any EV/exosome/cell-free infusion, they should request, in writing:

  • Exact legal entity name, registration jurisdiction, and contract party
  • What exactly is administered (source, preparation method, dose, storage, sterility testing)
  • Independent evidence: published human clinical trial data relevant to their condition, not general EV literature
  • Trial registration IDs if they claim “clinical studies”
  • Regulatory status (what approvals/authorizations apply, and under which regulator)
  • Named clinician responsibility and aftercare plan
  • Refund policy and dispute resolution jurisdiction


If the clinic cannot or will not provide these, the safest assumption is that the patient is buying hope, not proven medicine.


Conclusion: why this case “stands out”


Wellbeing International Foundation’s public footprint exhibits a concentrated mix of:

  • high-impact promises implied through language and testimonials
  • cross-border branding and limited transparency
  • alignment with a category (exosome/EV interventions) that regulators explicitly flag as unapproved and frequently mis-sold

For any investigation focused on consumer protection, this combination is a compelling reason to treat the clinic as high-risk and to gather patient accounts, documentation, invoices, consent forms, and any medical correspondence—because these are typically where the truth of the operation becomes clearest.

Gloved hands filling a syringe from a vial, microscope in background, molecular structures overlay.

Regulators warn that exosome products intended to treat diseases generally require approval and the FDA states there are currently no FDA-approved exosome products. U.S. Food and Drug Administration+2U.S. Food and Drug Administration+2

Here are specific claims/promises Wellbeing International Foundation makes publicly that do not appear to be backed up on their own site with named clinical trials, published outcome data, or formal medical reports for their specific treatment (i.e., the claims are asserted, but supporting evidence isn’t provided alongside them):

  • Claims it can “fight injury and disease” by harnessing the body’s own defences. Wellbeing International
  • Claims it provides a “significant boost to the immune system” for “protection and prevention.” Wellbeing International
  • Claims it “stimulate[s] healthy longevity and anti-ageing.” Wellbeing International
  • Claims its therapies have “demonstrated the ability to accelerate recovery from sports injuries.” Wellbeing International
  • Claims it can “mitigate the degenerative effects” of conditions such as Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis. Wellbeing International
  • Claims it can enhance overall vitality by promoting tissue repair and immune resilience. Wellbeing International
  • Claims their approach is “safe, natural, and personalized…free from the risks associated with traditional stem cell procedures.” Wellbeing International+1
  • Claims their EV/exosome approach “can cross the blood-brain barrier to treat neurological conditions.”Wellbeing International
  • Claims their therapy “often improves multiple areas of damage simultaneously,” not just the primary concern. Wellbeing International
  • Claims it promotes “like-for-like healing rather than scar tissue.” Wellbeing International
  • Claims their signaling molecules “seek out areas of inflammation and damage” and “instruct your own repair systems to work more effectively.” Wellbeing International
  • Claims animal studies show their approach can “accelerate healing by up to 30%” and promote high-quality tissue repair (without linking those studies on the page). Wellbeing International
  • Via testimonials used as marketing support, the site includes claims implying improvement or impact in serious conditions (examples shown on the page):
  • MND/ALS progression “slowed” Wellbeing International
  • Stroke recovery / brain clarity Wellbeing International
  • MS “stabilized…no further relapses…not on any medication” Wellbeing International
  • ALS “marked slowing”…“miraculous” recovery after hip replacement Wellbeing International