VipRoids
Active member
Copper peptides have a genuine research history. Wound healing, skin remodeling, collagen synthesis, and almost all of it in topical application. The blue color everyone recognizes is the copper bound to the tripeptide, and that bond is the entire point. Free copper is a different animal and behaves very differently once it is loose in tissue.
Then the market took that history and quietly changed the route of administration. Injectable GHK-Cu is sold with the same confidence as the topical work, except the evidence base does not travel with it. Skin absorbs and buffers locally. Systemic circulation does not work that way, and copper homeostasis is tightly regulated in the body for reasons that are not decorative. Excess copper has a toxicity profile that nobody brings up in a vendor thread.
So the compound is legitimate. The route is the open question. And almost nobody separates the two when they are selling it.
If the research was done on skin, what justifies injecting it besides convenience and a vague belief that bypassing the surface makes it stronger.
Then the market took that history and quietly changed the route of administration. Injectable GHK-Cu is sold with the same confidence as the topical work, except the evidence base does not travel with it. Skin absorbs and buffers locally. Systemic circulation does not work that way, and copper homeostasis is tightly regulated in the body for reasons that are not decorative. Excess copper has a toxicity profile that nobody brings up in a vendor thread.
So the compound is legitimate. The route is the open question. And almost nobody separates the two when they are selling it.
If the research was done on skin, what justifies injecting it besides convenience and a vague belief that bypassing the surface makes it stronger.