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

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:23 am

Hi everybody!

Can you please tell me how to use copper peptides with o.o5 tretinoin please?

Thanks Smile

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:25 am

and if I apply the CP´s super serum (very diluted) on the eyes how long do i have to wait to apply a retinol eye cream (from roc)

hugs Smile

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:43 am

Hermosa wrote:

Josee wrote:

But this study is the one I'm most interested in seeing but I can't find the full text.

I haven't looked at Pickart's list, but found this interesting tidbit:

http://aes.sagepub.com/content/24/1/83.full

That is a review (i.e. not a study) Sad

It is interesting to see what he has to say, even though it is not the hard-science we're looking for Sad

The review mentions:

a. Properties of copper peptide for wound healing and hair growth (no references provided)

b. Properties on skin based on the ONE pilot trial that I've been trying to find.

c. His own experience with copper peptides (i.e. patient's reports)
He concludes : In summary, the science supporting wound healing with copper peptide is sound but the science supporting amelioration of skin aging is still weak, lacking good double-blind comparison studies.

It is also interesting to note that he did not quote the large FDA III trials on wound healing.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:17 am

It is interesting to note that several people who use CPs on this forum have had a filling in of acne scars. Old acne pits, that have actually filled in and become smooth, healthy skin. It is also interesting to note that many people have experienced significant change in their aged skin. While a wound may not look like a wrinkle, the skin does feel sun damage and moisture loss are indeed wounds. There is a structural change in DNA when the skin is sun damaged, and the loss of the ability to regulate moisture, collagen and the like are treated by the body as a disease or wound issue - the body attempts to compensate.
While I worked in a lab and was involved in formulations, I would never consider myself capable of second guessing doctors (the SkinBio site refers to dozens, all involved in various studies) or the actual experience of those who use the products, who, I am sure have conducted their own research.
I my self have experienced impressive results and find the tone of this thread somewhat insulting.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:16 am

I always struggle with understanding this Avalange, as I was told they were suitable for antiaging for my son (who was 26).... and know that others have said they are antiaging topicals also - but on looking at the forum, I can't ever find Dr Pickart mentioning this. I know from reading a message of your's before, when SkinBio questioned him over what was happening with you, he apparently said "Why would you be using this", but I thought you heard that through a third party and not direct from Dr P himself. Did you actually get a message from Dr Pickart not to use CPs for antiaging purposes. I really would love to get to the bottom of this, as it does worry me as my son is using them after that conversation and has been for a couple of months now, but I don't want him ruining his skin or getting the kind of results you got so if I can help him avoid that - I think he'll be a happier son! If its alright with you - I might ask Dr P on the forum (if thats ok?).

avalange wrote:

cps were marketed to me as having anti-aging properties, but in my correspondence with Dr. Pickart he steadfastly denied that anyone without major damage to repair should be using his products. there's a double standard there, and i think he would do well to quell our fears and confusions by clarifying his own scientifically-informed position on how best his products should be used.

--avalange

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:02 am

The comparison of a wound and healing the same to wrinkles or sun damage brings to my mind a question. If I cut myself and use CP's to help heal that wound (and we have studies that this is a valid use from what I am reading) once that wound is healed I assume I can discontinue using CP's on that cut, not continue for life? I see many happy users and respect the right to use CP's for skin remodeling. What I have not seen is anyone who has said that my sun damage and wrinkles are gone (healed) and I no longer need to use CP's?

I also agree that for those of us that want to see the science behind the claims of the seller, these are valid concerns and questions that should be honestly addressed. JMHO Smile

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:30 am

sister sweets wrote:

Also curious if you use CP's Josee?

My story with CPs can be summarized as:

1. Bought them without giving it much thought
2. Tried it a few times
3. Grew concerned about its safety
4. Researched
5. Did not find good evidence regarding its reported properties (anti-aging, similar to RetinA, wrinkles, sunspots, etc.)
6. Continued with my usual care sans CPs

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:36 am

Dark Moon
It is my understanding that the sun damage can be healed, and you could stop using the CPs, as long as you sustained no further sun damage. As to the aging process, it is on going, and as with all skin care one must presumably attempt up keep. I do know people who reached a level of satisfaction with their skin and decided to continue on with out the CPs. CPs are thought to thicken skin, and so can help return thinned skin to a healthier state, and one that looks younger. My guess is that process only goes so far, and at that point the individual could desist and use what ever other skin care they enjoy.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:50 am

Well, Neutrogena did buy over Procyte and used the copper peptides in their products (except now they have discontinued the serum - not sure why).

I presume they did their due diligence on the product and would have had enough scientists and MDs to evaluate it before purchasing.

Therefore I think the 1st generation copper peptides even though more expensive are probably "safer" to use.

As someone already mentioned, just because there's no reported studies in peer-reviewed journals doesn't mean the product doesn't work. It seems to have effects as some of the forum members will attest.

I feel that Josee is right to try and do her own research and to keep us updated on it. She was also a potential user of the product. We should not rely blindly on the claims on the website. Anybody is welcome to do a PubMed/Medline search on Pickart to double check if they wish. And please do present any new findings to the rest of us.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:39 am

Hi theresa mary!

glad to be of help, the reason i'm not posting dr. p's response to my situation here is precisely because tempers run so high in relation to certain brands, etc.
i'd be happy to give you all the information in a pm.
i bought the cps from a third party, and sent her my photos (which you can find here on eds with a search) and his response to this third party was that, at age 30 and with no visible damage, there was no reason why i should be using cps.
so i felt (justifiably) misled. my skin never fully recovered from either the damage it caused--or the damage it brought to the surface. i leave it up to the individuals on this forum to draw their own conclusions.

--avalange

TheresaMary wrote:

I always struggle with understanding this Avalange, as I was told they were suitable for antiaging for my son (who was 26).... and know that others have said they are antiaging topicals also - but on looking at the forum, I can't ever find Dr Pickart mentioning this. I know from reading a message of your's before, when SkinBio questioned him over what was happening with you, he apparently said "Why would you be using this", but I thought you heard that through a third party and not direct from Dr P himself. Did you actually get a message from Dr Pickart not to use CPs for antiaging purposes. I really would love to get to the bottom of this, as it does worry me as my son is using them after that conversation and has been for a couple of months now, but I don't want him ruining his skin or getting the kind of results you got so if I can help him avoid that - I think he'll be a happier son! If its alright with you - I might ask Dr P on the forum (if thats ok?).

avalange wrote:

cps were marketed to me as having anti-aging properties, but in my correspondence with Dr. Pickart he steadfastly denied that anyone without major damage to repair should be using his products. there's a double standard there, and i think he would do well to quell our fears and confusions by clarifying his own scientifically-informed position on how best his products should be used.

--avalange

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:41 am

m1rox wrote:

Well, Neutrogena did buy over Procyte...
I presume they did their due diligence on the product and would have had enough scientists and MDs to evaluate it before purchasing.

Therefore I think the 1st generation copper peptides even though more expensive are probably "safer" to use

Yes, I think every product goes through basic toxicology and mutation testing, which does not mean that the product could not have adverse effects on the long run.

But this is for every single product out there and the reason some of today's "poisons" were yesterday's "miracle cures".

m1rox wrote:

As someone already mentioned, just because there's no reported studies in peer-reviewed journals doesn't mean the product doesn't work. It seems to have effects as some of the forum members will attest.

I absolutely agree with this. My MAIN MAJOR "beef" is about CLAIMS.

There are A LOT of small companies that sell their products in a very honest way. They present whatever little evidence they have on the subject and then rely on mouth-to-mouth and on customer's reviews. This is how I have successfully bought a lot of stuff. I took the risk... and it paid off!

However when people make grandiose claims about a product without having sound science behind, then I have a problem. And when people selectively quote papers, state things in a way that gives one impression when in reality the truth is different, and try to pass that as "science", then I have a bigger problem. And then when someone says "I'm not like big companies that give you shady science and hype" while doing just that... then it's a huuuge problem for me.

And for me the obvious problems with this are:

a. I think it's not honest and it's misleading.

b. People have only limited money and time to dedicate to their skin care. So they need to make choices. And by reading misleading information they might spend their money in one place when it would have been more useful to spend it in another.
For e.g. one of the obvious choices for anti-aging is tretinoin cream (Retin A, Renova). It's the one that has the most science behind it, and today it would be considered the "gold standard" kind of thing. Now if someone makes a claim that product XYZ is BETTER than Retin A and without the side effects, then... that's a pretty serious claim, don't you think? I for sure would jump ship, esp. given the irritation that RetinA sometimes give me. However, if there's nothing really substantive behind that claim.... then... it's pretty annoying because people might not buy RetinA to buy XYZ.
Now if people realize that really there's not much behind XYZ but they still want to give it a try, then it's a good , informed choice. And if in the end it turns out that XYZ works better for them than RetinA... then even better!!!

But I think that WE, people who work hard to make our money, deserve nothing but total transparency and honesty with no "sweet talk" about products. Sadly total transparency and honesty are the exception and not the rule in every industry Sad

Thus it is usually up to us, and consumer groups, to try to do some research on our own to reach our own conclusions.

All the best,
Josee

PS: BTW, this doesn't only happen with companies. When I was doing my MSc a looong time ago we were randomizing rats to 2 diets. The diets were supposed to be equal in everything except for calcium content. Well... it turns out that once the lab messed up and the diet low in calcium was also low in protein. This posed a huge problem because protein content also had been shown to alter what we were studying. So I said that the whole thing should be discarded and we should start over. My supervisor at the time said no and he went ahead and published the paper without saying a word about the problem with the protein. I obviously withdrew my name from the paper and ran away from him as fast as possible! Still he continued publishing until some years later he was kicked out for an unrelated reasons (used grant money for personal reasons)

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:57 am

avalange wrote:

i bought the cps from a third party, and sent her my photos (which you can find here on eds with a search) and his response to this third party was that, at age 30 and with no visible damage, there was no reason why i should be using cps.
so i felt (justifiably) misled.

Avalange, can you share why you were recommended CP's? Meaning what where your skin concerns or what were you looking for help with regarding your skin?

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:49 am

To call CPs today's "poison" and make a correlation between botched experiments you personally have been a part of and the product you obviously hope to discredit is ludicrous. While I am a fan of discussion, I will point out that the opinions expressed here are often stated as fact, and have in places been grossly misleading.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:02 am

http://www.dermadoctor.com/article_Copper-Peptides_103.html

Just one doctor's opinion on copper peptides. She is a detmatologist. There are many others. If you would like the links, you can PM me.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:10 am

alexes wrote:

To call CPs today's "poison" and make a correlation between botched experiments you personally have been a part of and the product you obviously hope to discredit is ludicrous. While I am a fan of discussion, I will point out that the opinions expressed here are often stated as fact, and have in places been grossly misleading.

WHAT?!?!?! I have in no way at all whatsoever called CP today's poison!!

There is absolutely no indication at all whatsoever that CP might be toxic.

Please re-read my post again.

What I was pointing at was that the concept of "safety" is not as clear cut as it seems. Just because a company buys XYZ product or sells XYZ product it does not mean it's absolutely safe.

And to be honest, the example I had in mind was conjugated equine HRT. In the past it was this "amazing" thing that everyone used, it was approved by FDA, big companies were buying them and using them and in the end... it turned out they were not that great after all and were implicated in the incidence of certain cancers.

That is all I wanted to say, that the concept of safety is not absolute or fixed through time.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:11 am

alexes wrote:

http://www.dermadoctor.com/article_Copper-Peptides_103.html

Just one doctor's opinion on copper peptides. She is a detmatologist. There are many others. If you would like the links, you can PM me.

Yes and that dermatologist is quoting the only seemingly independent, peer-reviewed, clinical PILOT study done on copper peptides. I have been trying to find the full text and I have not been able to find it. It is from a defunct journal that was in print for less than 2 years.

The followed patients for only a month.

And while I am sure that there can be lots of dermatologists that can recommend or have good opinions about CPs, the issue is whether there is hard-science behind it or not. At least that's the issue for me.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:16 am

alexes wrote:

To call CPs today's "poison" and make a correlation between botched experiments you personally have been a part of and the product you obviously hope to discredit is ludicrous. While I am a fan of discussion, I will point out that the opinions expressed here are often stated as fact, and have in places been grossly misleading.

Yes, I think every product goes through basic toxicology and mutation testing, which does not mean that the product could not have adverse effects on the long run.

But this is for every single product out there and the reason some of today's "poisons" were yesterday's "miracle cures".

The above statement by Josee doesn't read to me that CP's are being called today's poisons, it seems a generalization we find in many ingredients/products. What is at one point thought of as great, later turns out to be bad and the reverse is true. We see conflicting scientific studies on almost everything out there we may purchase as consumers.

I also see the example given of the experiment being published with incomplete information as just that an example, all the mote reason we may choose to seek as many sources as possible prior to making our own informed and personal decisions.
Just how I read that information from the post.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:32 am

well, as you just said the doctor is talking about the only study you would accept, try this link
http://www.aquasante.net/pages/release45body.htm

unless these studies also do not meet with your approval

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:47 am

alexes wrote:

well, as you just said the doctor is talking about the only study you would accept, try this link
http://www.aquasante.net/pages/release45body.htm

unless these studies also do not meet with your approval

I have been claiming since my first post something that Dr. Pickart himself has also deemed as important: the need for good quality, independent, double-blind clinical placebo-controlled RCTs published in reputable peer-reviewed journals.
Heck I'd be even a little happy if there were some kind of decent quality independent controlled clinical study on a peer-reviewed journal on skin aging and CPs. However I have not found a single one yet.

I already spoke about those studies that are quoted on the link you gave on this thread.
Those are the studies carried out by Neutrogena. Those studies:

a. Are NOT independent (Neutrogena paid for them)
b. Were NOT published in any peer-reviewed journal (it doesn't cost anything to publish btw)

So it's not that they don't meet my approval. They also don't meet Dr. Pickart's approval as per his own standards published on his website.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:00 pm

Josee wrote:

Yes and that dermatologist is quoting the only seemingly independent, peer-reviewed, clinical PILOT study done on copper peptides.

I'm not sure why you draw that conclusion. I read that piece and it says:

"Results from recent studies [plural!] have made me take a second more serious look at the use of Copper Peptides in skin rejuvenation...I have been pleased with newly published information."

Josee, you say:

"My MAIN MAJOR "beef" is about CLAIMS."

and I think therein lies the problem.

When I look at the skinbio website, the impression I get is not that it's a Clinique that's trying to snow me with extravagant "science-backed" promises, but rather that it's a pretty amateurish effort -- like a lot of websites, not that easy to navigate, with info not always presented in the most coherent way.

You could probably post some pages and say "see, he's making a claim here" but I'd say you're taking bits of the website out of context. My impression again is that Pickart (never met him or communicated with him) leans more toward the art side of the science spectrum. He'll throw in snippets of info that fascinate him, but he doesn't have the inclination to do it in an organized fashion, or in a manner that would pass rigid scientific scrutiny. For the same reason, he's not the type that publishes his findings/present at conferences.

I don't think he is a snake oil salesperson (as are so many we see in this industry) but that is my unscientific gut impression.

There is so much we don't know--I am willing to take a leap of faith here and see if the products work. As an anecdotal aside, I am pretty sure that aspirin never underwent any clinical trials. It worked; there was a market. The rest is history.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:08 pm

Hermosa wrote:

I'm not sure why you draw that conclusion. I read that piece and it says:

"Results from recent studies [plural!] have made me take a second more serious look at the use of Copper Peptides in skin rejuvenation...I have been pleased with newly published information."

This is exactly my contention. The claim is misleading. There are no independent, controlled studies published in peer-reviewed journals regarding CP and skin rejuvenation (wrinkles, sagginess, hyperpigmentation,etc.)

Why am I asking for them? Because Dr. Pickart himself says on his website that these are the studies that are neeeded and that knowledge comes from universities, independent bodies and pharmaceutical companies.

However, I don't find them. So after reading every single reference on his website and his book, I believe that the statement "Results from recent studies [plural!] have made me take a second more serious look at the use of Copper Peptides in skin rejuvenation...I have been pleased with newly published information." is misleading.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:12 pm

hi rileygirl,

i think i've made it quite clear that i was looking for the most up-to-date anti-aging active for my skin. when i tried cps there was a long-standing thread on the subject and its anti-aging, "firming," "pore-refining," and "rejuvenating" qualities were being touted. i visited the sb forums, other forums, and knew about the "uglies," which is why i decided to try the 2nd gen cps, which were supposed to be gentler and cause less issues.

i love skincare and always want to be abreast of the latest technology and actives. i take full responsibility for my decision to try cps, but it's quite odd that you would question me for wanting to try them.
This, from the sb forum:

Quote:

Copper peptides - Skin treatment products to help tighten facial skin, improve skin texture, improve skin tone, and improve skin complexion.

Why wouldn't someone want to use a product apparently backed by the latest research that promises such results?

--avalange

rileygirl wrote:

avalange wrote:

i bought the cps from a third party, and sent her my photos (which you can find here on eds with a search) and his response to this third party was that, at age 30 and with no visible damage, there was no reason why i should be using cps.
so i felt (justifiably) misled.

Avalange, can you share why you were recommended CP's? Meaning what where your skin concerns or what were you looking for help with regarding your skin?

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:26 pm

avalange wrote:

hi rileygirl,

i think i've made it quite clear that i was looking for the most up-to-date anti-aging active for my skin. when i tried cps there was a long-standing thread on the subject and its anti-aging, "firming," "pore-refining," and "rejuvenating" qualities were being touted. i visited the sb forums, other forums, and knew about the "uglies," which is why i decided to try the 2nd gen cps, which were supposed to be gentler and cause less issues.

i love skincare and always want to be abreast of the latest technology and actives. i take full responsibility for my decision to try cps, but it's quite odd that you would question me for wanting to try them.
This, from the sb forum:

Quote:

Copper peptides - Skin treatment products to help tighten facial skin, improve skin texture, improve skin tone, and improve skin complexion.

Why wouldn't someone want to use a product apparently backed by the latest research that promises such results?

--avalange

Thanks, Avalange. I was not sure if you had a particular skin condition/issue.

I understand exactly what you are saying and agree with you. The skinbiology website Does seem to promote the CP's for anti-aging and I see no mention on their site for how old one must be to try their products.

In my opinion, if copper peptides are going to be compared to Retin A and topical C (along with the statement on the skinbiology website that CP's performed better than either one of the above) then Most people, I would think, would come to the same conclusion - that CP's Are for anti-aging and not just for "damaged" skin.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:39 pm

The studies are independent, double blinded and conducted over months on more than fifty people in each case. On a casual search I was able to discover many doctors and researchers who also stand behind the use of CPs. They are discussed in The Aesthetic Surgery Journal (please see Vol 24, Issue 1), The British Journal of Dermatology and others, all with regards to their use by doctors. In some cases they are discussed as wound healers, in others as anti-agers. These are doctors that deal with skin on a daily basis,and have published their findings, their patient out comes and their personal feelings on the subject. I do not like how easily these studies are being dismissed, nor do I appreciate the dismissal of doctors and their suggestions to their patients.
Another doctor who wrote on CPs is at this link:
http://thedremablog.com/2008/06/23/do-peptides-in-skin-care-products-work/

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:42 pm

http://thedermblog.com/2008/06/23/do-peptides-in-skin-care-products-work/
Sorry the above does not seem to work try this...

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.