Since Dane Fredericksen and Forever Young Pharmacy first started showing up on the community radar early last year, I’ve been collecting information and data on him.
At the beginning, I genuinely wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. On paper he looked like someone who might simply be out of his depth but trying to do something useful, USC PharmD, years of mainstream pharmacy experience, a new independent pharmacy that seemed to be filling a niche around peptides and “functional” medicine.
I even offered him a long form interview that would have functioned, in effect, as a reputational rescue piece. I thought maybe he’s just inexperienced, maybe he doesn’t fully understand how this community reads COAs and testing claims, maybe this can be fixed with transparency.
The September 2025 inspection by the California Board of Pharmacy and the findings that followed changed that. After reading what regulators actually saw in his pharmacy, and putting it alongside what independent labs and users were seeing, it no longer made sense to frame this as inexperience or “good intentions gone slightly off track”.
And now that he’s back in the same space under a new lab name, this feels like the right time to lay it all out in one place.
Who Is Dane on Paper?
Before Forever Young imploded, Dane David Frederickson looked exactly like the kind of pharmacist you would expect to know better.
On his LinkedIn and in his own marketing, his CV is textbook:
Education
BSc in Biological Sciences; UC Irvine
PharmaD ; USC School of Pharmacy (class of 2012), active in multiple student pharmacy organisations
Early career
Pharmacy Intern; Rite Aid (April 2010 to June 2014): vaccinations, drop off/pick up, consultations, NexGen system
Intern; Consumer Health Information Corporation
Field Assistant roles helping doctors and podiatrists with patients and practice logistics
Pharmacist roles
Staff Pharmacist; CVS Caremark (2014 to 2016, Santa Barbara): dispensing, counselling, “assuring compliance with state and federal laws”
Clinical Pharmacist; UnitedHealth Group (2016 to 2021, Cypress)
Pharmacist in Charge, Prior Authorisation & Utilisation Management at MedImpact (2021 to present, San Diego)
Entrepreneur
Owner; Forever Young Pharmacy (from May 2023, Carlsbad)
Licensed real estate agent on the side (“Pharmacy Owner, Clinical Pharmacy Manager, and Realtor” is his actual headline)
His “About” section talks about wanting to provide “quality healthcare services,” specialising in pharmacy management, Medicare Part D, Medicaid, community and independent pharmacy, and utilisation management. The story is framed as: he’s frustrated with traditional care being reactive and expensive, so he steps out to build something more proactive and affordable
On that narrative, Forever Young should have been a cautious, fully compliant operation run by someone who lives and breathes pharmacy law.
What follows is what actually happened.
One Person, Four Roles: Shop, Lab, Influencer, House Brand
Forever Young Pharmacy was never “just a pharmacy”.
It ran on four parallel tracks:
1.Retail shop; selling “research peptides” and hormone adjacent compounds (GLP-1s, peptide stacks, etc.) direct to the public.
2.Testing lab; offering peptide purity testing, microbial testing and Certificates of Analysis (COAs) that vendors and group buys could use as “independent” proof of quality.
3.Online voice; Dane posting on Reddit, giving advice as a pharmacist and peptide tester, and quietly steering people towards Forever Young.
4.House brand; a white label wholesale company called WHT LBL Peptides, operating from the same address and phone number, selling vials backed by Forever Young COAs.
The conflict of interest is built in:
The same person is selling peptides, testing peptides, endorsing peptides online, and supplying a white label brand, while using his own lab reports as the main currency of trust.
Independence is supposed to be the whole point of third party testing. Here, the shop, the lab and the “independent” voice are all the same entity dressed in different logos.
WHT LBL: The House Brand Behind the Same Door
Another important piece in this story is WHT LBL Peptides.
On their site:
They describe themselves as “a peptide wholesaler located in Carlsbad, California,” offering “tested peptides” for research.
Address: 6351 Corte Del Abeto, A111, Carlsbad, CA 92011
Forever Young’s own COAs and footer list:
6351 Corte Del Abeto, Suite 111, Carlsbad, CA 92011
Same building, same suite (A111 vs “Suite 111”), same phone number.
On WHT LBL’s Melanotan II 10 mg product page the picture carousel makes the relationship clear:
A tray of yellow cap MT2 vials in plain “white label” bottles.
A Forever Young Pharmacy COA for “Melanotan II 10 mg,” signed by Dane as “Analytical Chemist,” reporting 10.69 mg at 99.8% purity.
A Janoshik test report on MT2 10 mg, ~10.8 mg and 99.7 to 99.8% purity.
So the white label “wholesaler” that claims all its peptides are rigorously tested is: run out of the same address and phone as Forever Young, and using Forever Young Pharmacy COAs as its core testing evidence.
There is also suspicion in the community that at least some of WHT LBL’s stock came from SSA. On the WHT LBL MT2 page, the Janoshik report they showcase lists SSA as the client and he’s edited out the manufacturer and removed anything that could be used to verify the COA on the Janoshik website. That doesn’t prove the entire catalogue was SSA sourced, but it does support the idea that WHT LBL was, at minimum, reselling product from another vendor from China, SSA, while presenting it as its own line backed by Forever Young COAs.
Either way, WHT LBL isn’t an independent wholesaler in the background. It’s visibly another face of the same operation.
Reddit: Customer, Expert and Owner, All in One
Dane built three personas on Reddit:
1.Satisfied customer; telling people “I’ve been going to Forever Young Pharmacy… they’re the most affordable and legit option I’ve found,” emphasising that buying tirzepatide as a research chem avoids telehealth costs.
2.Helpful pharmacist / tester, introducing himself as a pharmacist who tests peptides and steroids for purity and contamination, reassuring people that compounded tirzepatide is “comparable” to branded Mounjaro/Zepbound, and offering storage and dosing advice on GLP-1s, BPC-157, PT-141 and more.
3.Demanding but neutral “potential customer” of other labs; posting a long comment to Peptidetest.com asking for sample COAs, detailed method descriptions, lab licensing info, background, photos, and challenging their pricing as high for what he suggests is the same type of report.
For months, none of this was linked to ownership. It read like peer-to-peer conversation.
That changed when someone started a “Beware shady online pharmacy Forever Young” thread. Hiding behind Elk was no longer tenable. In a long response, he finally wrote “Hi everyone, this is the owner of Forever Young Pharmacy” and tried to reframe previous behaviour:
The “Hey Peptidetest.com” interrogation had been written while pretending to be a potential customer, not a competitor, which he called “sleazy” in hindsight.
He acknowledged the Eli Lilly tirzepatide cease-and-desist.
He defended selling research only Chinese peptides without prescriptions and promised to clarify website wording and safeguards.
So the “customer” recommending Forever Young is the owner.
The “expert tester” reassuring people is the owner.
The “curious outsider” grilling other labs is also the owner.
Not illegal. But very clearly dishonest.
Cagrilintide: Control Sample Mix-Up and the “Fake Vial” Narrative
The cagrilintide saga is another good stress test.
During the zero peps era, a community member sent a vial of “Cagrilintide 5 mg” to several labs. Most reported the same thing: no active ingredient detected.
Forever Young’s first COA, however, reported about 5.4 mg Cagrilintide, as if the vial was fine.
When the mismatch became public, Forever Young published:
“Addressing a Recent Incident and Reaffirming Our Commitment to Accuracy”
https://foreveryoungpharmacy.com/addressing-a-recent-incident-and-reaffirming-our-commitment-to-accuracy/
In that initial post, the emphasis is on a “fake vial” sent by a third party to several labs “aiming to discredit testing”. Forever Young is cast as a victim of a hostile stunt, and the mis COA is described as a human error caught in the course of their own review.
The client then commented publicly, identifying herself as the person who’d sent in the sample. She pushed back on the way Forever Young described the situation. She explained that she hadn’t deliberately sent samples during a wider “zero peps” saga to discredit any lab, and that after seeing Forever Young’s result she sent additional vials for LC-MS to understand what was really in circulation. In her words, this was essentially a four lab head to head, done to get answers, not to attack anyone.
Behind the scenes, Dane’s explanation to the client was more detailed and more honest than the blog headline:
The real chromatogram for her sample (27 December 2024) shows no cagrilintide peaks. only a dead-time peak.
The positive COA she originally received was built from control sample data accidentally copied into her file.
Generic sample naming made it easy to mix up files.
They updated their naming SOPs, reissued her COA with “no active detected” and offered a free retest.
Again, the facts in the end are clear:
Her vial had no peptides.
Forever Young’s original COA said it did.
The error was only identified because a client compared labs and posted publicly.
The first public framing emphasised a “fake vial” before being softened.
It is exactly the kind of thing you want a genuinely independent lab to catch internally, not only when someone else calls them out.
My Own Two-Sample Test: One Hit, One Miss
To see how the lab behaves on my samples, I ran a small A/B test:
1.A bronze-top NAD kit that Janoshik had already called “NAD not detected”.
2.A vial of cagrilintide labelled as tirzepatide.
Forever Young’s results:
On the “NAD 500 mg” vial, one vial from that kit was tested by Janoshik:
Analysis: LC-MS
Result: NAD⁺, not detected.
They repeatedly see a ~668 Da species in these “NAD” vials. Whatever that molecule is; dimer, degradant, or filler; they are 100% sure it is not NAD⁺, and it’s not the first time they’ve seen that exact profile.
Forever Young’s COA, headed “NAD⁺ 500 mg (Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide)” and signed by Dane:
Strength: 515.69 mg
Purity: 99.8%
Impurities: 0.1% single impurity, 0.2% total impurities
Two labs, two completely different stories:
Independent LC-MS: no NAD⁺ detected; recurring 668-Da unknown.
Forever Young HPLC: “99.8% NAD⁺, 515.69 mg.”
Those are not trivial discrepancies. One says “this kit is essentially fake”. The other turns the same line into “overfilled, near-perfect NAD⁺.”
In a world where COAs are the main currency of trust, that kind of divergence is exactly why having the seller also acting as the “independent” lab is a problem.
On the “tirzepatide 15 mg” vial, they reported 0.00 mg tirzepatide, 0.0% purity, and told me in an email that the chromatogram looked more like Cagrilintide 5 mg, which is exactly what it was.
So:
On the mislabelled “tirzepatide” vial, the lab did what you’d hope, they refused to validate it as tirz and flagged it as likely Cagri.
On the NAD vial, they certified what another lab treated as a fake as “99.8% NAD⁺” at full strength
This doesn’t mean every Forever Young COA is wrong. What it does show is that the same lab can do two very different things:
In one case, correctly call out a mislabelled “tirzepatide” vial as something else.
In another case, issue a clean, confident COA on a NAD kit that another lab couldn’t find any NAD⁺ in at all.
In other words, their certificates can sometimes line up with independent testing, and sometimes make a fake product look completely fine on paper.
How He Walked Away from the Interview
After the NAD and cagrilintide incidents and the chatter about his COAs, I didn’t just write him off. I approached him with an offer: a long-form Q&A about his lab, his methods and his decisions.
In April 2025, I sent him a detailed list of topics and questions. They covered:
NAD and the 668-Da species vs his 99.8% COA.
How his test panel is priced so low while promising so many parameters.
The BPC-157 COA showing >100% purity.
The cagrilintide control/sample mix up and the “fake vial” wording.
Method choices like dissolving SLU-PP-332 in methanol.
Selling peptides, testing peptides, and whether he saw that as a conflict.
Eli Lilly’s tirzepatide C&D and what he had changed since.
The Finnrick retatrutide data.
A Forever Young Retatrutide 10 mg sample tested by Finnrick on 28 March 2025 scored 2.2/10: purity was only 89.7%, the amount was off by 17.9%, and the lab gave it 0/2 for identification, meaning they couldn’t confidently confirm it was actually retatrutide.
Selling HGH, HCG and the California pharmacy code of ethics.
What equipment he actually owns and what methods he actually uses.
Initially he said it sounded interesting.
By May 2025, his tone had shifted. He said life was hectic, that he hadn’t had time to think about it, that he respected Janoshik, didn’t want to “step on anyone’s toes” and was nervous about putting himself in a competitive spotlight. I explained that the piece wouldn’t be an attack, that the community actually needed more lab options, and that there was room for a U.S. lab to step up.
His final answer was that they’d just hired a new lab tech, things were busy, and he would “put the interview on hold for now”, maybe revisiting it in the future.
Dane’s private reaction to the Finnrick Retatrutide test was to call it “BS,” arguing that because the report mentioned a “member of the public” submitting a vial, there was no way to know if it was truly his product, and suggesting personal bias and he suggested the lab involved “had a special dislike” for Forever Young.
The public data show a simpler truth: when someone else tests Forever Young labelled retatrutide, the scores are consistently poor
The interview never happened. None of the hard questions were answered.
The Final Nail: Board of Pharmacy Steps In
Everything up to this point is community testing, chatter and individual experiences. The California Board of Pharmacy’s interim suspension order is where it stops being rumour and becomes a formal regulatory case:
AC 8118; Forever Young Pharmacy Inc. (PHY 59150) & Dane David Fredricksen (RPH 67972)
On 25 September 2025, Forever Young Pharmacy was inspected by:
the California State Board of Pharmacy,
the California Department of Public Health, and
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
According to the order:
Dane was living in the pharmacy. Inspectors found evidence he was residing on site and a suitcase packed with various drugs, including controlled substances, which he said he planned to take to a festival and sell.
He had no prescriptions for those controlled substances and admitted diverting testosterone from pharmacy stock for his own use.
Inspectors described him as unsteady and dishevelled, with bruises and redness on his arms and trembling hands. He told them he had recently attempted suicide and had been on a 5150 psychiatric hold nine days earlier.
They found thousands of injectable vials that were adulterated, misbranded or unlabelled, including vials from other pharmacies, vials obtained from consumers, and evidence of improper compounding of sterile products.
He admitted that Forever Young was conducting analytical testing of peptide and drug products, even though the pharmacy is not licensed as a laboratory. Inspectors saw extensive lab equipment and peptides labelled “for research use only” that are not approved by the FDA for human use.
He also admitted selling those research only injectables to consumers for personal use, including over the internet.
During the visit, DEA removed the controlled substances from the premises; the Board embargoed the remaining injectables so they could not be dispensed, moved or destroyed.
As the inspection continued, his condition worsened to the point that emergency services were called. He was assessed, deemed a danger to himself, and placed on another 5150 hold directly from the pharmacy. His attorney later notified the Board that he had entered a 30-day inpatient treatment programme.
On that record, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that:
Dane and Forever Young had engaged in acts that violate Pharmacy Law, including unprofessional conduct under Business & Professions Code § 4301; and
Allowing the pharmacy to continue operating and allowing Dane to continue practising under unrestricted licences would “endanger the public health, safety, and welfare.”
Under BPC § 494, the judge granted an Interim Suspension Order, immediately suspending both:
Pharmacy licence PHY 59150, and
Pharmacist licence RPH 67972,
pending the outcome of a full Accusation and hearing.
Dane and Forever Young stipulated to this order and even waived the usual deadlines. They did not fight to remain open while the case played out.
The Spin Off Lab: Forever Young Analytics
The last piece of the story is where he is now.
On 18 August 2025; about five weeks before the multi-agency inspection, a new entity, Forever Young Analytics LLC, was registered in California, with Dane listed as manager and a Carlsbad address at 2712 Loker Ave West, #1156.
The website, fyanalytics.com, presents as a stand-alone verification lab:
It offers peptide testing, bacterial/fungal/endotoxin testing and COA verification for research samples.
The footer reads “Copyright © 2025 Forever Young Analytics, LLC.”
The language is almost identical to the testing side of the old Forever Young site minus the retail vials on the front page.
It’s hard to ignore the sequence:
18 Aug 2025; Forever Young Analytics LLC is formed.
25 Sep 2025; Forever Young Pharmacy is inspected by the Board, CDPH and DEA.
6 Nov 2025; Interim suspension order is granted on both the pharmacy and the pharmacist licence.
We can’t see inside any closed door discussions, but on paper it looks less like someone gearing up to fight and more like someone quietly setting up a fallback plan in the background. He stipulated to the interim suspension order instead of contesting it and already had a new analytics company set up to keep offering testing in the same grey market ecosystem.
Whether that reflects active cooperation with regulators or pure self preservation is impossible to say from the outside. What is clear is that:
The pharmacist whose pharmacy has been deemed a danger to the public is now back under a new name, selling the one thing that continues to buy trust in this world: COAs with a lab’s logo on them.
Where This Leaves Things
It isn’t possible from the outside to say that every Forever Young result is wrong. But their COAs are no longer the kind of document that can reasonably stand alone as proof.
The pattern that emerges is:
A licensed pharmacist selling into a grey market while also certifying it.
COAs that can turn empty or mislabelled products into “99%+ pure” on paper.
A test panel advertised as doing more, faster and cheaper than is realistically plausible with the methods described.
A mixture of partial admissions and deflection when independent labs or clients highlight contradictions.
A formal Board of Pharmacy decision that his pharmacy and his practice posed enough risk to suspend both on an emergency basis.
A new lab, Forever Young Analytics, registered just before the inspection and now offering testing in the same ecosystem.
In that context, a Forever Young branded COA, whether issued by the old pharmacy or the new analytics company, shouldn’t be treated as a green light on its own. At most, it’s one piece of information among many. In practice, it’s a sign that a second, independent test is wise before letting those numbers determine what goes into a syringe.
Comments