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

free skin care · Tue May 18, 2010 12:13 am

Does anyone know if the Skin Biology copper peptides have been licensed as drugs by the FDA?

The reason I ask is, from the claims made (remodelling skin) they do not meet the FDA's definition of cosmetics but DO meet the definition for a drug.

free skin care · Tue May 18, 2010 3:55 am

Thanks Josee! That makes total sense. Your posts are always so educational & are always backed up with references, and now visual aids. Wink

Josh - I don't believe Skin Biology's products would be licensed as drugs. Drugs have to have a specific format on the ingredient label (you know, inside that box like for sunscreen & say "Drug Facts"). When I bought products from SkinBio a couple years ago there were no ingredient labels at all on the products come to think of it. Confused

free skin care · Tue May 18, 2010 4:59 am

I saw that.
The only reason I was questioning, really, is because doctoral students in science fields must do a lot of research and publish articles as a graduate student, but that research doesn't necessarily mean that one fulfilled all the requirements for the PhD and then received it. One does not necessarily imply the other, which is why I was concerned. His own bio seems to imply this--it never says, "received PhD in year X."
The fact that someone calls another pereson their "associate" could mean they worked in the same lab together, outside of actual graduate research work in the University.

However, if he published a thesis, than that clears it up! There is no controverting that as fact--he must have received his PhD.

Thanks, guys!

--avalange

ClaudiaFE wrote:

Here is an article that discusses the Dr. who apparently was one of Pikart's professors... and the article sites Pikart as his doctoral student, and later his associate...

http://journals.lww.com/jpgn/Fulltext/2009/03000/Presentation_of_the_2008_Shwachman_Award_to_M_.1.aspx

I would imagine that a phone call to the University might clear this up for many...

free skin care · Tue May 18, 2010 5:50 am

Wow this thread does seem to have gone off tangent. I suppose it would be great if people would just turn back to the subject at hand which is CPs in general and how they can help or hinder users etc.

With studies etc, I think its one of those things that the pros themselves are never going to fully agree on. I think Josee posted some interesting questions which definitely got me thinking and don't ever appear to have been acknowledge or at least answered by Dr Pickart, which is surprising to me. However, thats not to say that I personally believe CPs are bad, although I've read several others experiences of them and can understand/appreciate why others would be apprehensive on using them.

Aprile interestingly enough I spoke direct with SkinBio after you told me about the response you got, (about CPs not being necessary for someone under 30 with good healthy skin), and they said the opposite (which is also interesting as Nanci of NCN said somewhere she wouldn't recommend them to anyone under 30 on EDS).

I've searched their forums and I can't find any specific age ranges mentioned or that they shouldn't be used on healthy skin and I think thats partly the real issue also that SkinBio aren't specific in their recommendations to all (and thats probably partly because we all different etc) but I got scarred as I started my son on them (and he's 26) and used to suffer with razor cuts etc, and since using CPs he's been fine and his skin has become healthier looking - but I got worried that he was going to do more harm than good and so far its not been the case but it illustrates I believe part of the problem. You were told one thing (but have writing to back up what you were told from the Dr himself), and I was told a completely different thing. No wonder we get confused in CPs discussions.

I really wish the amount of energy that goes into attacking products could instead be spent used to improve products and promote them. Same with facial exercise programs, who cares what people are doing (whether FlexEffect, Facercise, Ageless etc) as long as people are doing them, and are happy whats the difference.

free skin care · Tue May 18, 2010 7:42 am

Josh wrote:

Does anyone know if the Skin Biology copper peptides have been licensed as drugs by the FDA?

The reason I ask is, from the claims made (remodelling skin) they do not meet the FDA's definition of cosmetics but DO meet the definition for a drug.

No, CPs are not drugs under the FDA but surprisingly they do make drug claims.

Here's a post that highlights some drug claims: CP drug claims

Also here's a link responding to some of the latest claims regarding copper peptides: Copper peptides

free skin care · Tue May 18, 2010 10:04 am

Thanks Josee. I didn't think they were but they SHOULD be. The claims made meet the FDA's definition of a drug, not a cosmetic. I'm going to see if I can find out what department/area in the FDA one reports them to (if anybody knows that already and would like to save me some time, please message me!)

free skin care · Tue May 18, 2010 10:11 am

Josh wrote:

Thanks Josee. I didn't think they were but they SHOULD be. The claims made meet the FDA's definition of a drug, not a cosmetic. I'm going to see if I can find out what department/area in the FDA one reports them to (if anybody knows that already and would like to save me some time, please message me!)

Hi Josh,

I thought this might be of interest to others as well so figured it should be posted.

-
Safety
Home > Safety > Report a Problem
Report a Problem
How to Report an Emergency
How to Report a Non-Emergency
Reporting Unlawful Sales of Medical Products on the Internet
Consumer Complaint Coordinators
Questions and Answers: Problem Reporting
-
Report a Problem
What products does FDA regulate?
Consumers can play an important public health role by reporting to FDA any adverse reactions or other problems with products the agency regulates. FDA is responsible for ensuring that foods are safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled. It also oversees medicines, medical devices (from bandages to artificial hearts), blood products, vaccines, cosmetics, veterinary drugs, animal feed, and electronic products that emit radiation (such as microwave ovens and video monitors), ensuring that these products are safe and effective.
Why should I report?
The testing that helps to establish the safety of products, such as drugs and medical devices, is typically conducted on small groups before FDA approves the products for sale. Some problems can remain unknown, only to be discovered when a product is used by a large number of people.
When problems with FDA-regulated products occur, the agency wants to know about them and has
several ways for the public to make reports. Timely reporting by consumers, health
professionals, and FDA-regulated companies
allows the agency to take prompt action. The
agency evaluates each report to determine how serious the problem is, and, if necessary, may
request additional information from the person
who filed the report before taking action.

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/ReportaProblem/default.htm
-
Spotlight
MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program

free skin care · Tue May 18, 2010 12:55 pm

Thank you DarkMoon, much appreciated!

free skin care · Tue May 18, 2010 2:15 pm

If you take a look at this FDA alert, you'll see that almost every company with an anti-aging product crosses the line between "cosmetic" and "drug" and that the FDA is well aware of the problem - even though the larger companies may be the only ones who've caught the agency's eye.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_188.html

I personally think it's a mistake for skincare companies to have a forum presence on the internet because that usually leads to these "exaggerated" claims.

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 · Thu May 20, 2010 10:00 pm

I'm going to add a link here that some might find helpful...

I do think it's very important to be as informed as possible about any product that you are going to smear on your face... it's your face, and hey, your body might suffer too. (not that THAT seems to matter much...which is worrisome to me, (but that is infact just IMHO) that seems to be the risk worth taking...as long as it's informed... I guess.)

I found this article back in 2008 and posted it then...(on my site) It's got a great write up discussing what MOST experience, and also a WARNING as to what SOME experience. You should def. know what you're getting into.. I have to say, the one comment I'm SICK TO DEATH of hearing on forums (any forum) is... "OK, I bought xyz product... NOW WHAT DO I DO???" My response? ----NOTHING! You have no idea why you're using it... learn that first! Otherwise, no need to beg for a disaster... you're following the recipe for that...

http://www.smartskincare.com/treatments/topical/copper.html

free skin care · Thu May 20, 2010 11:59 pm

sister sweets wrote:

RickR wrote:

Hermosa is right. This horse has been beaten to death

I agree.

The questions raised about the science behind copper peptides haven't been answered satisfactorily in my mind. Perhaps they never will be but that doesn't mean one shouldn't continue to question.

Myself (and others) have given our stories and experiences, and rightly so. While these experiences say nothing about the "science" behind copper peptides, they are real-world user experiences which can be quite valuable to anyone considering using copper peptides, or indeed any product. Everybody has the right to be as informed as possible, particularly when there can be negative side-effects. This is the beauty of the internet and forums such as this.

[Parts of post removed by Mabsy].

free skin care · Fri May 21, 2010 1:46 am

Hi Josh...

I'm curious if you used Skinbio's "getting started" link... where you answer their questions... and get the recommendation for which of their products to use.

I see earlier that you posted your diary/usage... and that it was just this year that you first started CP's?

Had you heard at all about other's negative experiences? How did you weigh those?

Based on your signature info: 40y/o male, sensitive with acne, normal skin, it would have been recommended to start at the mildest form GHK Serum... and the strongest CP serum...

What made you decide to go with the strongest route?

Trust me... I'm not looking to "blame"... I have lots of clients that use this product, and I'm always worried about the gung ho "I'll try anything types". Kind of like you that are self proclaimed cosmetic junkies (I fall into that category way too often. You should see what arrived in the mail today!!! Very Happy

)

Obviously, it seemed reasonable to you to up the dosage week after week because you were seeing "positive" results.

IS it because you believed in old damage coming up that you continued?

I had started with this product, and I think I was using CP Serum (might have been Super) as well. I was doing fine with it until one day weird eye sag. Almost looked like a pc. of skin just folded over itself. It was "sudden", but I didn't use the product for several months starting that day. And have since backed down to just protect and restore. With no ill effects. And I use it when I remember to. I've had amazing results healing little pimples, almost over night.

I am quite aware of childhood sunburns that would result in visible adulthood damage... not terribly visible at the time... but I have freckles as an adult that I did not have as a child. I never had bad acne, so I wouldn't expect any acne scars to "surface", and although I have 3 scars on my face, they are much less visible now than they were as a child.

At this juncture, I always tell my clients less is more. Go VERY slow... I kind of bang them over the head with that, given the opportunity.

I attached an article above... it's one I refer people to ... Do you think now... hind site being 20/20, had you read that, you might have approached with even more caution (or do you think you WERE being cautious for your skin type.. since you consider yourself sensitive?), or even skipped the product all together?

Thanks...

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.

free skin care · Fri May 21, 2010 2:22 am

Hi Claudia Smile

ClaudiaFE wrote:

Hi Josh...

I'm curious if you used Skinbio's "getting started" link... where you answer their questions... and get the recommendation for which of their products to use.

I did, and having reviewed the suggestions felt that they would be unsuitable (they were recommending the creams, which I know would cause me to break out). I also contacted their customer service, fully explaining my skin and what I wanted to use them for (reducing sebaceous hyperplasia) and followed their recommendation.

ClaudiaFE wrote:

I see earlier that you posted your diary/usage... and that it was just this year that you first started CP's?

Correct, started only a few months ago.

ClaudiaFE wrote:

Had you heard at all about other's negative experiences? How did you weigh those?

I had read about "the uglies", but nothing more serious.

ClaudiaFE wrote:

Based on your signature info: 40y/o male, sensitive with acne, normal skin, it would have been recommended to start at the mildest form GHK Serum... and the strongest CP serum...

What made you decide to go with the strongest route?

Because their customer service suggested I start with the CP Serum.

ClaudiaFE wrote:

Trust me... I'm not looking to "blame"... I have lots of clients that use this product, and I'm always worried about the gung ho "I'll try anything types". Kind of like you that are self proclaimed cosmetic junkies (I fall into that category way too often. You should see what arrived in the mail today!!! Very Happy

)

I'm not one of those "gung ho" types. I have sensitive and somewhat difficult skin and I'm aware of it. Despite being a bit of a product junkie I'm also very cautious with what I use on my skin.

ClaudiaFE wrote:

Obviously, it seemed reasonable to you to up the dosage week after week because you were seeing "positive" results.

I was following Skin Biology's recommendation. Also the amount that I was using was *tiny*. When I talk about a drop in X drops of water I'm talking about 1 small drop from the CP Serum bottle to a drop of water off my finger which is considerably more. So the dilution was very weak.

ClaudiaFE wrote:

IS it because you believed in old damage coming up that you continued?

I didn't continue using it more than a few days after I first noticed the odd appearance my skin was taking on and of course the damage. I stopped and went to my derm shortly afterwards.

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

Sun May 23, 2010 6:39 am

I find this thread quite interesting in general, though not from the specific CP perspective but from the "science behind" part of the topic. One of the interesting issues that has been raised in investigating the science behind CPs (or any skincare for that matter) is searching for reliable, independent research that supports the claims of the products. While this would certainly be nice, I don't think it's unusual for companies to make claims that are not backed by research published in journals (not just journals, but reputable journals - everyone can start a journal that doesn't make it good). This is, of course, unfortunate.

Like some of you, I am a professor at a University. I can tell you two things that, personally, I would take into consideration if I wanted to limit my skincare purchases to those that are backed by reliable studies (as it stands, I am happy to try any product and see for myself if the claims are true - that is my personal choice and a risk that I take):

1. This varies across disciplines, however, I can tell you from my experience that publishing a study in GOOD quality journals takes *ages*. We are talking *years*. My most recent paper which appears in the top journal in my discipline was submitted in 2007 - it is at the moment forthcoming (not yet published except for in soft copy). I thought this took too long but this is in line with the average time the papers at this journal spend in the multi-round review process. 95% of papers submitted to this journal are rejected in the first round of review - this might take up to 6 months (sometimes longer) depending on the reviewers and the AEs. The longest I have ever had to wait for a journal review was 1 year (!!!). Once you make it as one of the 5% of papers you (a) celebrate, and then (b) revise the paper, (possibly) reanalyse data, write responses to reviewers (which are often WAY longer than the original paper). You do this while you lead your other research projects, while you teach, deal with admin, and also (likely) dabble in consulting. Meanwhile, your revised paper and your response goes to the AE and the reviewers and, if they have more questions, suggestions etc, then here comes another round of peer review.... It all takes TIME. So, the bottom line for me, from a skincare perspective, is that I could wait years to see what gets published, or I could try using it and see if it works. That is a risk that each person must evaluate for themselves in the absence of published research. Also, there are cases where results are not released for public consumption while they are under review for a journal. This is not unusual and it depends on the journal (some make it a condition of submission of the work to the journal in the first place).

2. A journal, is not a journal, is not a journal, if you know what I mean. Not surprisingly, the 'quality' of the editorial board of a journal is linked with the quality of the journal itself, which is a reflection of the quality of the works it chooses to publish (because the editorial board are essentially the associate editors of the paper and also reviewers who the senior editor relies on to make the accept/revise/reject paper decision). The quality of the peer-review process differs between different journals so if you *really* are looking for scientific proof for any skincare claim you will not only look to see if related studies are published in journals but you will also look at the ranking of that journal (disciplines usually have their own internal journal rankings). There are many examples of empirical studies that are published in lower quality journals that have methodological flaws in them (which are not acknowledged in the limitations section). This is rather rare in the top journals (indeed, I've never seen an example of this in my discipline) and this is yet another reason why one should not rely on a published study unless it is published in a top journal where you can identify who the reviewers are or unless you have the appropriate research methods training to judge if the study was carried out properly.

I am in general sceptical of product claims and do go to some lengths to find out the science behind them. However, I also accept that, even with my rather privileged access to academic journals: (a) I will not find all relevant studies, (b) I don't know the best journals to look in (and frankly, as you can probably tell by my absence from the forum, my job doesn't really give me enough spare time to devote to investigating this), and (c) research takes a long time to publish and that doesn't mean that a cream won't work for me. My view of it is that I am happy to use a product if it works for me, regardless of who makes it or whether it is backed by research, and if it does not work for me then I move on to something else. That, again, is my personal view that is impacted by being time poor, and I am glad that there are people who do ask the tough questions and try to understand if a product can deliver on its claims based on its ingredients but we need to remember that just because something is not in a journal does not mean it should not be considered.

free skin care · Sun May 23, 2010 4:54 pm

Hello Masby,
I actually agree with everything you said. Thankfully, in my field people don't take that long to respond... a year?? That's crazy!

I also think that once you're in the "loop" you also know not only which journals are good, but also which authors are good. There are some authors in the field that you know you don't want to miss and that you'll read whatever they write. Also, if you have good training in epidemiological methods, you will be able to read a paper and see whether the design was appropriate, the data analysis was appropriate and whether the conclusions in the discussion are sound or not.

I think most of us don't base our cosmetics in science. Personally, I think that the only science-based product I use is Retin-A, which ironically is the cheapest product I use!

I also believe that sadly, most cosmetic companies make lots of claims that are not backed by science. Still they make them.

However, I think there are obviously different degrees in this practice. And I think that we are all sensitive in different ways. For example, a big part of the success doctors have in clinical work is because patients' trust them, trust their competence, and trust the decisions they take regarding the patients' healthcare.

Now if a doctor comes along and says "traditional medicine is wrong, they're trying to fool, you, this is how it is...." and starts selling products branded: Peterson, MD, he is somehow affecting all of us. Because his actions can give us all a bad name, his unproven theories can actually harm patients, and his claims can make people lose confidence in the medical profession.

In case someone hasn't realized, I love science. I've loved science since my parents gave me my first "chemistry lab" kit when I was a kid. I have sadly been a first-hand witness of people trying to tamper with research, trying to torture data until it shows what they want it to show, hiding important facts, etc. And it really scares me and upsets me.

I don't mind if a product doesn't have science behind it. I do mind people misusing science to sell their products.

free skin care · Tue Sep 14, 2010 2:20 am

http://www.owndoc.com/dermarolling/copper-peptides-for-dermarolling/

free skin care · Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:32 am

http://www.smartskincare.com/treatments/topical/copper.html

Quote:
From Dr. Torodov on Smartskincare:

Caution: While moderate use of copper peptides stimulates collagen synthesis and has antioxidant effect (by stimulating the antioxidant enzyme superoxide dismutase), excessive use can have an opposite effect by increasing the levels of free copper and/or by triggering excessive production of metalloproteinases. Free copper promotes free radical damage and collagen breakdown leading to accelerated skin aging. Metalloproteinases can digest collagen and elastin, weakening the skin and causing sag. These problems do not seem to occur among the majority of copper peptide users. However, there are anecdotal reports indicating that such side-effects might happen with overuse or, rarely, even normal use in sensitive individuals. Ideally, a sufficiently large study is needed to better quiantify these risk.

free skin care · Sun Dec 26, 2010 9:04 am

I've been using copper peptides for about nine weeks now. I want to give it 12 weeks before I make any blanket statement on how they've worked for me or not.

...as for this thread? I think CP's must really work for some..or why all the attention? I don't see "science" threads on the countless other useless products discussed on EDS.

How many of us have wasted... WAY more money $$$$ on other creams and laser procedures that did nothing or even made our skin worse for a while? Yeah that would be you. you. and you. (or you wouldn't be here).

My impression of Skin Biology is that it is pretty obvious that copper peptides are not a "one formula fits all" kind of skin care product. The company seems pretty up front about that. I feel informed from the website that it will take TIME for the products to work. That i may have to experiment with different combinations of products to see what works for me. They don't hide the fact that "uglies" can happen..talk openly about it. The products don't cost a lot compared to other cosmetic lines.

It is my impression that Dr. Pickart is really more interested in helping people with scars and those with severe acne get normal skin. That improved youthful skin is just a fallout of his research...and folks like us clamor for a miracle.

His website is not slick or sexy. CP product packaging is modest. His representatives are not perfect looking like models..they look like "real" people. So I don't see a big scam here people.

I think cp's do work...but expectations are the problem here. Do they work to your expectations?

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.