WeightCare Review

What WeightCare charges

• Sermorelin: $199/mo — per month, monthly plan, stated as "NO COMMITMENTS"; the page also prints its own "$6.42 / DAY" division of this figure
• NAD+: $249 — per 30 doses; the page names a dose count rather than a billing period, and prints its own "$8.30 / DOSE" division of this figure

The states it cannot serve, named

Both product pages carry a question about service area, and the answer names ten states as exclusions rather than describing coverage in the abstract.

The answer sits in a collapsed accordion, so the question alone is what a text sweep sees, and the question alone reads like a yes.

Ten named exclusions is a more useful disclosure than a list of forty, because it is short enough to check.

The forty remaining states are what this row records; the ten are absent from it.

Two figures, and two divisions of them

The sermorelin page states a monthly figure and calls the plan a no-commitment one.

The NAD+ page states a figure against a dose count instead, which is a supply rather than a cycle.

Beside each, the seller prints its own division of that figure — one per day, one per dose.

Neither division is recorded here. They are arithmetic on a published price, and a comparison that quoted them would be publishing a rate nobody is billed.

What the published figure includes, and what it does not

The included list names the telehealth visit, the prescription and the medication, and ongoing messaging with the prescriber.

Lab work is not on that list and is not described as included anywhere on the pages read.

The prescription is said to go to an accredited pharmacy, which is a class of accreditation and not a name.

No operating company appears on the site itself; the entity on this row comes from the federal record, not from a footer.

The warning letter

The federal warning-letter table returned one record against this seller's operating company, issued in February 2026.

Its stated subject is false and misleading claims in telehealth marketing, not product quality or sterility.

The letter's own page was fetched and resolved in the same run in which a nonsense letter path on the same federal host returned a 404.

A letter discloses; it does not disqualify, and it is here because a reader spending money should be able to see it.

FDA disclosure

WeightCare received an FDA warning letter issued February 2026. A warning letter discloses; it does not, on its own, disqualify a provider — see the trade-offs above for what this one concerned.

How we verified this

• Rendered every page cited on this row in a real browser engine and read the laid-out text nodes, so nothing here rests on markup that never reaches a reader.
• Fired two nonsense-path controls at this host in the same run — one at the root and one inside the section the priced pages live in — and compared the address requested with the address actually served.
• Joined every text node before scanning for a dollar sign, so a figure split across nested elements could not read as an absence.
• Screened this seller in the live federal warning-letter record by brand and, where an operating company is published, by entity — pulling the whole table and filtering locally, because that endpoint's own search parameter is silently ignored.
• Ran a known-good positive control and a nonsense negative control against that table in the same run, and read the company column of every returned record rather than accepting a full-text match.
• Clicked the service-area answer open before recording it, because the collapsed page shows only the question and the question alone would have read as a yes.
• Recorded the ten named exclusions as a subtraction from fifty rather than transcribing a list the seller never printed.
• Set aside the per-day and per-dose numbers printed beside each figure, because both are the seller's own division of a price it also prints whole.
• Fetched the warning-letter page itself and, in the same run, a nonsense letter path on the same federal host, which returned a 404.