Evidence shows that 2022 did see some notable activity around Yamanaka‑factor/epigenetic reprogramming and longevity, but the scale and mainstream cultural impact fell far short of what Friedberg predicted.

1. Investment & “gold rush” claim

   • Altos Labs formally launched in January 2022 with roughly $3 billion in funding to pursue “cellular rejuvenation programming” based on reprogramming biology; this was widely reported as a landmark or record biotech/longevity deal and framed as a “bet on finding the fountain of youth.” (en.wikipedia.org)
   • However, sector‑wide data show that overall longevity investment in 2022 declined versus 2021. Longevity.Technology’s 2022 investment report finds $5.2B invested in 130 deals in 2022, down from $6.2B and 190 deals in 2021, with the Altos round making up more than half the total and analysts characterizing 2022 as a “down year” once Altos is excluded. (longevity.technology)
   • Niche longevity media describe 2022 as “the year of the mega‑reprogramming startup,” highlighting Altos, Retro Biosciences, and other well‑funded partial‑reprogramming companies, but this characterization appears in specialist newsletters rather than in broad financial or general‑news coverage. (sub.longevitymarketcap.com)
   • Taken together, this looks like a few very large reprogramming‑focused bets inside an otherwise cooling funding environment, not a broad “gold rush” on the order of the recombinant‑DNA/Genentech boom that transformed all of biotech.

2. “Magazine covers,” “fountain of youth,” and mainstream hype

   • There were some prominent stories: for example, The Economist ran an article in January 2022 titled “A $3bn bet on finding the fountain of youth” about Altos Labs, and other mainstream outlets covered Altos as an unusually well‑funded longevity startup. (en.wikipedia.org)
   • Popular‑science and niche outlets in 2022 used “fountain of youth” language explicitly in connection with Yamanaka factors and cellular rejuvenation (e.g., blog pieces such as “Yamanaka factors…the key to the fountain of youth?” and coverage of skin‑cell reprogramming studies framed as a possible “fountain of youth”). (the-gist.org)
   • Nonetheless, I could not find evidence that 2022 was repeatedly treated across major mainstream magazines as the “fountain of youth” year driven by Yamanaka‑factor breakthroughs. Coverage was sporadic and usually framed as speculative early‑stage science or as one big startup, not as an industry‑wide tipping point.

3. “60 Minutes” and broad public narrative

   • Searches turn up well‑known 60 Minutes pieces on anti‑aging and longevity (e.g., older segments involving resveratrol, George Church, or David Sinclair), but these date to the late 2000s and 2010s, not to 2022, and are not specifically about Yamanaka‑factor cellular reprogramming. (stevieawards.com)
   • I find no record of a 2022 60 Minutes segment that focused on Yamanaka‑factor‑based cellular reprogramming or that declared a new “fountain of youth” based on this work.

4. “Year of Yamanaka‑based reprogramming” in the broader culture

   • Scientific and trade coverage in 2022–2023 continued to describe cellular reprogramming as a promising frontier in longevity research and noted Altos as a high‑profile entrant, but later overviews (e.g., a 2025 Washington Post explainer on cellular reprogramming) recount the field’s history and Altos’s launch without calling 2022 a unique “year of reprogramming” for the broader public. (washingtonpost.com)
   • No mainstream retrospective or timeline I can locate describes 2022 in the sweeping terms Friedberg used (e.g., comparable to the Genentech recombinant‑DNA boom or “the year of Yamanaka factor based reprogramming” in general public discourse).

Bottom line:
While 2022 did bring a few extremely well‑funded Yamanaka‑factor/epigenetic‑reprogramming companies and some "fountain of youth"‑themed headlines, the sector as a whole did not experience a broad, Genentech‑scale gold rush, there was no identifiable wave of 60 Minutes–level mainstream coverage centered specifically on Yamanaka reprogramming, and 2022 is not widely remembered or labeled as “the year of Yamanaka‑based reprogramming.” The central thrust of the prediction therefore did not come true, so the best classification is "wrong".