"Science" behind copper peptides
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Tue May 18, 2010 4:35 pm

Ah yes, the wonderful FDA which has approved so many drugs that have killed people. I don't think CPs have killed anyone or disfigured them for life.

Funny how none of the other hundreds of cosmetics on this website, created by people in their kitchen sinks, and which have absolutely no proof behind them that they work, seem to have been missed by the Skin Vigilantes. Most of them charge far more money than Skin Biology's products. I should know because I've wasted plenty of money.

As a previous poster said, if it doesn't work for you find something else. Retin A didn't work for me and in fact ruined my skin for a while but I didn't start a class action lawsuit. I just stopped using it. Many of us are happy with CPs and hope to hell no one has them banned because of their own personal agenda.

Aren't there more important things to worry about, like the oil spill, the Recession, high unemployment, the housing market, etc.? I wish all I had to worry about was how my skin looked.

free skin care · Tue May 18, 2010 5:28 pm

Softskin,

I want to add that it's the drug type claims that are made which could be dangerous to individuals who choose to use CP's to remove a mole rather than have a doctor check to assure it's not cancerous/precancerous. There is one other product that I personally have seen make these types of claims. I don't think anyone wants CP's banned, but 2 things should happen 1 drug type claims shouldn't be tolerated. 2 warnings of possible adverse reactions and appropriate age for usage should be on the site and the product.

I don't believe the majority of members are oblivious to the woes of our world and only concerned with skin care, but we are all here at this forum because it is one important aspect of a full and busy life. Smile

free skin care · Tue May 18, 2010 6:13 pm

But, as a peek at the FDA website will indicate, every cosmetic company out there appears to be making dubious and unfounded quasi-scientific claims. It's unfortunate, but it's the way of the world. Caveat emptor! Yes, you could try to use CPs to remove a melanoma...but you could also use OTC salicylic acid or benzoyl peroxide or any one of a number of substances touted as safe and effective for treating various skin problems.

Theoretically, it might be ideal to consult a derm for every skin problem, but in reality most of us have neither the time nor the incredible insurance to make frequent dr visits, nor do we want to constantly pester our friends who are derms or estheticians.

While I'm on that topic, let me go off on a tangent. I was taken to a derm when I was a teenager with acne. His office staff clumsily gouged out my zits, resulting in scars that I am still trying to eliminate. And the good doc himself x-rayed my face -- a treatment that had mostly been abandoned decades earlier -- thereby predisposing me to a much increased risk of thyroid cancer (and it didn't help my acne either). So whom can you trust?

Bottom line, this thread has raised some interesting issues, but it might have been better -- rather than to go on the attack against one particular mom & pop company -- to address the issue of science in general. With all the scams I've seen promoted on this forum, it seems unduly harsh to target a single vendor. There are plenty of hucksters around; why pick on Pickart?

free skin care · Tue May 18, 2010 11:39 pm

Buried damage is indeed a marketing ploy.

I have nothing for or against any skin care product, but have big issues against false claims.

Vote with your wallet is my advice. If you support a company, buy their products.

Myself, I have no dollars to spend on a company with such unprofessional tactics, that have indeed hurt the skin of several friends of mine.

free skin care · Wed May 19, 2010 1:44 am

SoftSkin, your post is clearly aimed at me so I'm going to address each of your points as they relate to ME.

SoftSkin wrote:

Ah yes, the wonderful FDA which has approved so many drugs that have killed people. I don't think CPs have killed anyone or disfigured them for life.

Disfigured for life... well, the damage that my skin has sustained is not going to go away on it's own and is going to cost me thousands of £ to correct. I have holes in my skin that didn't exist before, I have pores, some of which are a good millimetre in diameter that weren't visible before, my skin has taken on a *very* rough texture which isn't smoothing out. This isn't just me looking in a 5X magnifying mirror seeing this damage, it can be seen from a good 3-4 feet away and has been noticed by many people that know me and what my skin normally looks like.

SoftSkin wrote:

Funny how none of the other hundreds of cosmetics on this website, created by people in their kitchen sinks, and which have absolutely no proof behind them that they work, seem to have been missed by the Skin Vigilantes. Most of them charge far more money than Skin Biology's products. I should know because I've wasted plenty of money.

Those products have NEVER caused my skin permanent damage. Copper peptides have. The worst reaction I've ever experienced from other products would be increased sensitivity, perhaps with breakouts and on occasion a rash. All of which improved, sometimes within hours but at the most days of stopping the offending product.

SoftSkin wrote:

As a previous poster said, if it doesn't work for you find something else. Retin A didn't work for me and in fact ruined my skin for a while but I didn't start a class action lawsuit. I just stopped using it. Many of us are happy with CPs and hope to hell no one has them banned because of their own personal agenda.

I don't want copper peptides banned. I want clear warnings put in place and I want the company to take responsibility or at the very least acknowledge and investigate why some people experience somewhat significant damage from their use. Instead, Skin Biology refuse to respond and put up childish responses on the internet about anyone who questions them.

The claims they make and the overall efficacy of their products set them above mere cosmetics and as such they should be regulated.

SoftSkin wrote:

Aren't there more important things to worry about, like the oil spill, the Recession, high unemployment, the housing market, etc.? I wish all I had to worry about was how my skin looked.

That's insulting.

free skin care · Fri May 21, 2010 2:01 am

Every opinion is valid, that is democracy.

And I have a difficulty with the "science" presented in this thread. For instance, the emphasis is on science but the method is anything but. The studies presented are difficult to obtain unless you know a researcher or doctor with access, and then the problem is understanding what they say.
That means those that do not have access to the studies or a researcher or doctor to explain them, must take a poster's word for the content and meaning of a study.
For instance, I asked a family friend who is a Neuropsychologist to read five of the studies posted on page ten. These studies were presented as proof of the link between excess copper and Alzheimer's. Of the five studies, one was not accessible through the Neuropsychologists's university (she spends about seventy per cent of her time researching and doing studies on Alzheimer's, the rest of her time is divided between patients with that disease and those with head trauma or other problems that affect cognition), one actually stated that Alzheimer's was due to a deficit of copper (study number four) and suggested supplementation with copper, one stated a link between high levels of copper and Alzheimer's, but the study was distrusted by the doctor and her colleagues because it was "single author, and had very few citations", and the other two did not claim excess copper was the problem, but that binding of copper to plaques in the brain occurred due to a "wonky protein". What does that mean? The Neuropsychologist, who is on the cutting edge of research on Alzheimer's, and her colleagues, were disgusted by the suggestion that this terrible disease could be caused by a skin care product. They felt so strongly about it they promised to review findings of the other papers when they had time. They also stated that they felt copper in the Alzheimer's plaques was most likely an artifact of the disease, not the cause.

I don't know any dermatologists, but it seems to me those with damage should definitely go to one. Just understanding the basic structure of the skin does not mean our understanding of this very complex situation is correct. Has anyone with damage gone to see one? What did they say?

It was also suggested earlier that those with results must only be seeing them because they are using other actives and skin rolling.
This is not true. I can't use other actives, although I would if I could. Everything breaks me out and gives me hives. I do not roll or use needles or do anything else to my skin, and I have results.
For that matter, no one has asked if those with damage were using other products, or if they used them in combination with the CPs.

I have great sympathy for those with damage to their skin - mine was permanently damaged by a doctor, and there is no hope my skin will ever be the same. I cry at least once every few weeks, because my damage is not "near permanent", it is permanent. I understand the frustration of the situation.
I elected to use CPs to help correct the problem.

I also noticed that the Skinbiology site did not say anything about CPs bringing up wrinkles or scars. It said that acne scars are often found under the surface of dead skin, and when the dead skin is removed the scars appear more pronounced. The contention was that exfoliation would reveal the scar that was under the dead skin, and CPs would help heal it. Any number of posters on this forum have seen this happen with their acne scars. It is possible I missed something, but that is what I found on the Skinbio site.

It is difficult to discuss the problem from a scientific point of view, because all of our experiences would be considered "anecdotal" and would therefore be ignored because they were not the results of a controlled study. I think my experience is worth more than that.

Sun May 23, 2010 5:59 am

Dear all,

We have moderated this thread over the weekend and removed a lot of posts that were deemed to be off topic to the science of peptides. The moderators will together review the removed posts to determine where they might belong on the forum (if at all).

If you would like to participate in this discussion further then please make sure that your post adds to the topic at hand and that you make your point without sarcasm or any personal attacks. Any posts that include those will be deleted irrespective of any useful content they may have. Posts should make their point in a civilised manner without sending somebody else's blood pressure up.

Please do not post here any responses to the moderation itself - if you have any questions then feel free to PM me.

Thank you,
Mabsy

free skin care · Sun Dec 26, 2010 10:27 am

I don't doubt the honesty of people who had a bad response to cp's. I've also seen people on this site have bad responses to retin a and and obaji. I, myself, have had fabulous results with those products. Did my skin look a lot worse before it got better? Heck yeah. Did it take time..more time than I wanted? Heck yeah, again.
If I would have quit at those signs of ugly skin ..I could have complained forever about it. But, just like with cp's..the information of the "process" was there. I think that is somewhat the case in the criticism of cp's.

It is just my view..that Skin Biology..to me. a newcomer is what it appears to be. An emerging science. I think the question as to 2nd generation cp's being formulated to be patented is a good point One that was obvious to me when I read up on cp's.

However, I think there is a high degree of transparency on Skin Biology. No false claims. I appreciate all the feedback on this thread..even with the stuff I don't agree with.

But for the $100 bucks I've invested in cp's so far..I'm willing to give a try and report back my personal results. To me..that is the best science. forget the studies.

free skin care · Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:48 am

ITA with the fear mongering about the CPs. I read every page on the lengthy thread and was terrified to try it initially. There seemed to be a group that were very pro CPs and others who warned you that your skin could turn into a permanent mess of 'uglies'. While no one product can work for everyone, I do think that the opinions on CPs have been expressed a little too strongly by some.

Foxe and SisterSweets were awesome; they were very informative. I followed their recommendations to the letter and have experienced none of the 'uglies' people spoke about. I went slowly and used it on my chest. I don't really need it on my face at this point.

I initially started using it on my eyelids to help repair them after having bleph surgery. They tightened my skin so much that I had to stop using it. Because my surgeon was a little too aggressive removing the unwanted skin on my eyelids, they weren't closing as tightly as they should. The swelling still isn't completely gone; I was warned it can take up to 6 months, so the last thing I needed was tightening on my eyelids. If you do need tightening on your lids, I'd highly recommend the Super GHK cream. It was what Foxe recommended I start with. My intention was to work up to the Night Eyes Premier cream after I finished with the Super GHK.

free skin care · Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:00 am

My perspective as someone who used copper peptides, used what was recommended by Skin Biology and used it appropriately - starting slowly etc, and as someone who experienced severe negative effects requiring a 6 month course of Accutane and daily use of acids to fix) is that copper peptides (at least from Skin Biology) are not properly tested and the effects not properly studied.

Customers are guinea pigs.

A statement was made early on when questions were being asked "Dr. Pickart skips research steps and ignores authorities in his research field."

His response (on his forum):

"Yes, I admit that I do this. Life is short and not taking risks is the biggest risk."

I can't be the only one that was shocked by that!

So, while prescription retinoids (which some have commented on) may cause some peeling, and quite often can cause sensitivity to various degrees, they are VERY well tested using proper pharmaceutical methods, following research steps and taking into account the opinions of experts in the field. The negative effects also subside very quickly upon cessation of their use and they don't leave permanent damage.

As for the statements being made about "copper peptide bashing", I feel like I'm the one on the receiving end of that. It seems that anyone who has anything negative to say is immediately jumped upon (and I'm not just talking about on EDS, though to a degree it does happen here too) and is told they either did something wrong or are just plain over-reacting. They are often belittled.

The most severe "bashing" I received was at MUA, where, on my notepad I fully documented my experiences. Within days I started receiving private messages from people who would sign up for accounts, message me with very offensive, sometimes even threatening messages, then delete the account!

I even received offensive emails at an email address that I don't publish and only use for online shopping, thus used when making my purchase from Skin Biology. Coincidence???

Then there was the infamous "trolls" page on the Skin Biology website. Accusing those of us questioning the products of being trolls and even as the one person using different names!

So please, don't play the bashing card!

I don't see this thread as going anywhere positive. Nobody here is well read enough on the science of copper peptides. It is a thread of user experiences and opinions.

free skin care · Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:22 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

Please also understand I am not bashing copper peptides and don't doubt they work beautifully for most I just like to see all aspects of the science about them!

Understood. I also wanted to add something regarding the comment about CPs disentigrating in plasma. Not sure that is a correct statement, but it is true that the GHK is more fragile than the 2nd gen CPs. I found a few statements on the SB forum that might clear that up:

Quote:

..fragililty of GHK-Cu, which failed in the last stage of wound healing on diabetic ulcers due to a biofilm bacteria.

And, Dr. Pickarts comments on the same topic:

Quote:

GHK-Cu produced spectacular results in a 1992 study in a high quality, specialty, wound treatment center. In the controlled study of 120 patients, the GHK-Cu increased the closure of ulcers from 60.8% using standard treatments to 98.5% using GHK-Cu. More importantly, the use of GHK-Cu reduced the incidence of infected ulcers (which produce amputations) from 34% to 7%.

However, a later FDA 3rd phase trial on 550 patients in 22 medical centers did not meet treatment goals. This negative result also occurred with other types of growth factors being tested for wound healing. The reason for these failures appears to be due to the action of powerful enzymes produced by "biofilms" of bacteria in the wound which can break down peptides and protein growth factors in minutes.

So, it was a biofilm, not 'plasma' that broke down the GHK, but it broke down all the other products being tested as well.

Quote:

Will I use them YES, Will I risk any on the breasts NO that's not worth it to me personally, then again I have no desire to enlarge mine! Bad Grin

Lucky you, not needing that. Wink

free skin care · Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:05 pm

foxe wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

Anybody with information one way or another, Another possible concern.......

What are we to make of this information???

http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?p=538908&highlight=copper+peptodes+estrogenic+effects#538908

Actually, it is NOT known whether copper peptides have an estrogenic effect or not.

What it IS known is that copper peptides disintegrate very quickly in plasma (please see the articles cited in the "Science..." thread) separating the copper.

Secondly many copper peptide creams have added copper chloride which would readily provide copper.

And then it IS known that copper has estrogenic effects.

So... it is more than sensible to think that putting a copper containing cream on your breast will provide free copper to the tissues which in turn can cause estrogenic stimulation.

DM - read down in the link you provided to find your answer. Josie's post (provided by DM in blue) was disproven by IrishBeauty.

I do agree with the statement made that CPs disintegrate quickly in plasma, but that is not true for the 2nd generation CPs, it is referring to the 1st gen ones instead - the GHK CPs. The GHK failed in the FDA trials because of this and this is the reason Dr Pickart developed the 2nd generation CPs. 2nd gen CPs are not as fragile as the GHK, and Dr Pickart has always said they behave just like the GHK but 'better'.

Actually, I don't think Irish Beauty answered or disproved Josee's comments. The study she quoted about colorectal cancer stated that GHK suppressed cancer metastasis genes ... NOT GHK-Cu, and definitely NOT 2nd generation copper peptides. Colorectal cancer is not breast cancer, nor is colorectal cancer estrogen dependent. Josee was trying to isolate copper in her argument and stated that "copper has estrogenic effects." Also remember that estrogenic effects does not necessary mean cancer.

There are many studies that indicate copper (and other heavy metals) have estrogenic effects. Josee quoted 2 studies in her post, but there are many others. For example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15986119
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19490851
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20197112
etc.

Another point brought up Josee and (overlooked by every discussion I have seen on 2nd generation copper peptides) is the inclusion of copper chloride as a separate ingredient in many products. Why is it included? Does anyone know?

free skin care · Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:37 pm

foxe wrote:

Yeh - gee, thanks Keliu. Only those don't have the title "Science of..." in them. Little less going on there, too, I believe. But, you did prove me wrong....I knew there were some - rhetorical question, remember??

Well, they might not have the words "Science of..." in the title - but the science behind the products is definitely discussed in those threads. And your rhetorical question wasn't to do with that anyway. You suggested starting threads on those topics, and I'm merely pointing out that they are already there.

But why does everyone get so emotive over all of this? I am a CP user, have been for years - but I'm still interested in the science (or lack of) behind the products. Same goes for everything I use - I think it's interesting.

free skin care · Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:00 am

How is the general consumer supposed to figure out what is safe for the skin when even the supposed "experts" can't agree? HA is prevalent in many skin care lines these days and is touted as one of the "big guns" in anti-aging but, of course, Dr Pickart claims that it is a no-no. But then Dr Pickart includes DMAE in his serums, a product that seems to have many detractors. I find all of this very frustrating - you're either damned if you do or damned if you don't.

And what was with Dr Pickart's reply to the poster who claimed her relatives had great skin in their 80s and 90s even though they only used cold-cream. Dr P replied, "Maybe your relatives had beautiful skin late in life but I have never seen a woman in her 80s or 90s that had the beautiful skin of a 17 year old".
Seems like a ridiculous thing to say, what point is he trying to make? Who expects to look 17 when you're 80? Surely, not even CPs can achieve that.

free skin care · Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:29 am

I use cp's and read on the SB site all the time.

Dr. Pickart responds to many posts, which is nice that he is so hands on. But some of his responses can be a bit short and sometimes odd.

I just tell myself that he is a scientist, with perhaps a quirky personality. Could be too much time in the lab -- and his ability to communicate in this type of medium is not the best.

But I can relate to you point; it can shake one's confidence if you get to know any doctor too well and realize they're flawed human beings. I think we all want a dr. oz!

When it comes to HA? I want to see other supporting opinions and I won't take his at face value. I think Pickart knows cp's inside and out..that is his expertise. I think for any of us to believe one single scientist or doctor would be foolish.

I also say go with your gut..I think sometimes our instincts can tell us when some product or thing is just not right. (not very scientific..but all we have sometimes).

Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:47 pm

Clearly diseased minds

Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:46 pm

I inherently don't trust anyone who, upon being questioned or disagreed with, counters with " they" are trolls, ignorant, etc..
Yes, Josse is a practicing M.D.

free skin care · Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:41 am

gretchen wrote:

I could not live in the dry climate I live in without copper peptides- my skin would be a mess.
I kind of hate this thread actually.

The thing is nobody is trying to dispute that many, many people have awesome results from copper peptides, the goal was only to discuss the science or lack of that exists.

I think whoever posted the page on the skinbiology sight really overreacted and it is a very childish page.

free skin care · Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:27 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

I think whoever posted the page on the skinbiology sight really overreacted and it is a very childish page.

The page is a disgrace and should be removed. I'm a fence-sitter when it comes to CPs - I use them on and off. Can't make up my mind whether they're beneficial or not, but don't really want to miss out if they are!

I'll say this though - the attack on Jodie did absolutely nothing to improve my confidence in CPs - if anything, it made me doubt the integrity of SkinBiology.

free skin care · Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:28 pm

There will always be differences of opinion within the scientific community - it's the reason science continues to evolve.

Josie was merely stating her informed, scientific opinion (which she has a perfect right to do). To respond with disrespect and name-calling is NOT the right thing to do.

Anyone should be able to listen to all sides of any argument and form their own opinion, without the need for childish name-calling.

free skin care · Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:29 am

Hi DarkMoon, I'm still uncertain about 2nd generation CPs. I've been using them for a year now. I also use the GHK-Cu, which I completely trust. I started out alternating the two because of my doubts. I keep thinking about stopping the 2nd generation CPs, since I don't have any serious skin issues. But, every time I get a cut and apply my CP serum, it heals so quickly. Then I think, this must prove that CPs really do something worthwhile for my skin. I will have to read back through this thread and make a decision. Thanks.

free skin care · Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:47 am

gretchen wrote:

Who knows and who cares what happened to Josee the MD.

I think there are quite a few of us that appreciated her posts and the questions she brought up. I am not sure why things related to skin care have to be taken so personally. Some members seem to feel the need to heavily defend the product/makers of what they are using when ingredients are being talked and questioned. I guess I just don't understand that.

free skin care · Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:59 am

Absolutely. Browsing through the forum I read many of her posts, and her input is really worth diamonds!
It's always OK to disagree with someone, but the valuable arguments and information, even if you don't agree, can only help to make an informed decision and help you do your own research.

free skin care · Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:29 am

DarkMoon wrote:

packratmack wrote:

According to the SkinBio thread link, Dr. Pickart states that there is no copper chloride in his CPs. But, they are listed as an ingredient in the CPs on the website. He says the copper ions become tightly bound to the peptides. Does this mean the copper chloride is rendered harmless when this happens?

I won't flood the thread with information that has already been posted, however if you read back on here you will find many scientists who disagree with Dr. Pickart about just how tightly bound that peptide is. Free cooper is not necessarily harmless. Read and decide for yourself. Smile

Can you list those "many scientists"?

free skin care · Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:04 pm

DM I was really hoping you could post those names as I have re-read the thread and see no one as a scientist that "disagree with Dr Pickart about how tightly bound the peptides are" - specifically.

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.