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

free skin care · Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:51 pm

dogstar wrote:

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.

I could not agree more on all counts.

Josee is very much missed here, she is lovely and never "talked down" to anyone!

free skin care · Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:39 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

dogstar wrote:

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.

I could not agree more on all counts.

Josee is very much missed here, she is lovely and never "talked down" to anyone!

What happened to Josse?

free skin care · Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:20 pm

DrJ wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

dogstar wrote:

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.

I could not agree more on all counts.

Josee is very much missed here, she is lovely and never "talked down" to anyone!

What happened to Josse?

She popped in just the other day, as I recall she was taking on a new position and said she would be extremely busy. That was a while back.
If you mean on SkinBio, she is mentioned on the "TROLL" page over there for starting this very thread.

free skin care · Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:36 am

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.

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 6:06 am

Keliu wrote:

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.

You are so right, I was being a tad too nice, the page posted about Josee is an utter disgrace!
Also seeing how members here and on the thread posted linking to SCT have been treated by Skinbiology I am truly shocked that any business would behave in such an irresponsible way.

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 · Mon Apr 02, 2012 4:01 am

foxe wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

There are some very real concerns about copper chloride, if they are indeed used in the second generation CP's.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/ukpids/ukpids/ukpid53.htm

At first, this does sound worrisome. But, while reading it, I come to some observations.

First, I note that the dates on some of the references are quite old. The newest is in 1996, while most are from the 70’s. I know that CPs were not introduced until around 1997 and that safety tests were done first, so I’m sure that from a safety standpoint, we should not worry.
Second, I saw mention of copper 1 – It is proposed that free Cu(I) (from Cu(II) reduction) binds to intracellular sulphydryl groups and inactivates enzymes such as glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase and glutathione reductase (Dash, 1989).

It is the copper II that Dr Pickart has found to bind to GHK, not copper I.
“GHK has a very high binding for copper 2 and is able to obtain copper 2 - which is tightly bound by other molecules - in the human body. The second generation peptides cannot bind copper as effectively as GHK. But if they are preloaded with copper 2, then they have very strong skin repair properties. In all my basic tests, they work better than GHK on skin rebuilding.--Dr Pickart”

Finally, (if I’m reading this right), it appears the toxicity follows oral administration. Not what we would do w/ the topical application of CPs. And topical applications of CPs were tested safe, after all.

Updated from 2009,

http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/tom.moffett/MSDS/cupricchloride_msds.pdf

Eye and skin irritation are concerns.

free skin care · Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:47 am

DarkMoon wrote:

foxe wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

There are some very real concerns about copper chloride, if they are indeed used in the second generation CP's.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/ukpids/ukpids/ukpid53.htm

At first, this does sound worrisome. But, while reading it, I come to some observations.

First, I note that the dates on some of the references are quite old. The newest is in 1996, while most are from the 70’s. I know that CPs were not introduced until around 1997 and that safety tests were done first, so I’m sure that from a safety standpoint, we should not worry.
Second, I saw mention of copper 1 – It is proposed that free Cu(I) (from Cu(II) reduction) binds to intracellular sulphydryl groups and inactivates enzymes such as glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase and glutathione reductase (Dash, 1989).

It is the copper II that Dr Pickart has found to bind to GHK, not copper I.
“GHK has a very high binding for copper 2 and is able to obtain copper 2 - which is tightly bound by other molecules - in the human body. The second generation peptides cannot bind copper as effectively as GHK. But if they are preloaded with copper 2, then they have very strong skin repair properties. In all my basic tests, they work better than GHK on skin rebuilding.--Dr Pickart”

Finally, (if I’m reading this right), it appears the toxicity follows oral administration. Not what we would do w/ the topical application of CPs. And topical applications of CPs were tested safe, after all.

Updated from 2009,

http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/tom.moffett/MSDS/cupricchloride_msds.pdf

Eye and skin irritation are concerns.

This doesn't seem to be a concern for CPs (according to SB's forum) as Dr Pickart and his staff have mentioned several inquiries regarding cuprich chloride or copper chloride in posts.

Here is one:

Quote:

There is no copper chloride in the products.

We list the ingredients as we buy them as required by FDA regulations.

In a water solution, the copper ion becomes extremely tightly bound to the peptides during the manufacturing process.

So about 99.9999999999% (10exp12)of the copper is bound to peptides.

http://healthyskin.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6870034833/m/7470076164?r=6970038164#6970038164

And another:

Quote:

Thank you for posting your question - Cupric chloride, formulated as it is in our products, is very tightly bound to the peptides. And even the simplest binding makes it anti-inflammatory.

So much depends on how it is formulated.

http://healthyskin.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6870034833/m/5621057006?r=7981098006#7981098006

It seems to have to do with the formula Skin Bio has that creates the copper peptides and turns these ingredients into beneficial ones.

free skin care · Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:00 am

foxe wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

foxe wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

There are some very real concerns about copper chloride, if they are indeed used in the second generation CP's.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/ukpids/ukpids/ukpid53.htm

At first, this does sound worrisome. But, while reading it, I come to some observations.

First, I note that the dates on some of the references are quite old. The newest is in 1996, while most are from the 70’s. I know that CPs were not introduced until around 1997 and that safety tests were done first, so I’m sure that from a safety standpoint, we should not worry.
Second, I saw mention of copper 1 – It is proposed that free Cu(I) (from Cu(II) reduction) binds to intracellular sulphydryl groups and inactivates enzymes such as glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase and glutathione reductase (Dash, 1989).

It is the copper II that Dr Pickart has found to bind to GHK, not copper I.
“GHK has a very high binding for copper 2 and is able to obtain copper 2 - which is tightly bound by other molecules - in the human body. The second generation peptides cannot bind copper as effectively as GHK. But if they are preloaded with copper 2, then they have very strong skin repair properties. In all my basic tests, they work better than GHK on skin rebuilding.--Dr Pickart”

Finally, (if I’m reading this right), it appears the toxicity follows oral administration. Not what we would do w/ the topical application of CPs. And topical applications of CPs were tested safe, after all.

Updated from 2009,

http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/tom.moffett/MSDS/cupricchloride_msds.pdf

Eye and skin irritation are concerns.

This doesn't seem to be a concern for CPs (according to SB's forum) as Dr Pickart and his staff have mentioned several inquiries regarding cuprich chloride or copper chloride in posts.

Here is one:

Quote:

There is no copper chloride in the products.

We list the ingredients as we buy them as required by FDA regulations.

In a water solution, the copper ion becomes extremely tightly bound to the peptides during the manufacturing process.

So about 99.9999999999% (10exp12)of the copper is bound to peptides.

http://healthyskin.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6870034833/m/7470076164?r=6970038164#6970038164

And another:

Quote:

Thank you for posting your question - Cupric chloride, formulated as it is in our products, is very tightly bound to the peptides. And even the simplest binding makes it anti-inflammatory.

So much depends on how it is formulated.

http://healthyskin.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6870034833/m/5621057006?r=7981098006#7981098006

It seems to have to do with the formula Skin Bio has that creates the copper peptides and turns these ingredients into beneficial ones.

God bless you foxe,

I know you are very loyal to Dr Pickart, and love his products and I respect you and your right to that. I state that in all sincerity!

I am just not convinced of the safety of the use of copper chloride in my skin care, I hope you can respect that we just have differing opinions. Smile

free skin care · Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:20 pm

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?

free skin care · Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:22 pm

packratmack wrote:

According to the SkinBio thread link, Dr. Pickart states that there is no copper chloride in his CPs. 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?

That's my take on it.

free skin care · Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:25 pm

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?

And, even though the copper chloride is shown as an ingredient, he says he has to list ingredients that way due to FDA requirements.

But, it sounds like he's saying that because the copper chloride becomes bound to the peptides, it changes the properties of them.

free skin care · Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:37 pm

Thanks foxe.

free skin care · Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:29 pm

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

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 3:02 am

packratmack wrote:

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.

Hi packratmack,

This whole issue does deal with the second gen. CP's, and it is easily confusing. I guess what made me feel that the second gen were out for long term use is the free copper possibility.
I personally after weighing pros and cons think it is one thing to use the second gen. on a cut occasionally yet daily exposure using in skin care is another, The second for me just seemed not worth the risks until or if more studies have been done that back up Dr. Pickart's claims. I am just not one to take the word of one person who formulated and also sells these products. I also do find it something to consider for me at least, Dr. Pickart developed the second gen.during the period where Procyte had exclusive rights to the patent on GHK-Cu or first gen. copper peptides. These are my personal thoughts and decisions, I just hope all are basing theirs on unbiased information. Smile

BTW...GHK-Cu also is great for healing wounds! Very Happy

free skin care · Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:21 am

DarkMoon wrote:

I also do find it something to consider for me at least, Dr. Pickart developed the second gen.during the period where Procyte had exclusive rights to the patent on GHK-Cu or first gen. copper peptides.

Hi DM, I didn't know this. This is definitely something to consider.

DarkMoon wrote:

BTW...GHK-Cu also is great for healing wounds! Very Happy

That's true. But, CP serum is a lot cheaper for this use.

Do you have an opinion on NCN Skincare's new GHK-Cu with EGF? I wonder if it has as much GHK-Cu as Dr. Pickart's products. But, I think someone named Dr. J said on another thread that EGF can promote proliferation of skin cancer cells. Another thing to have to consider.

free skin care · Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:31 am

packratmack wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

I also do find it something to consider for me at least, Dr. Pickart developed the second gen.during the period where Procyte had exclusive rights to the patent on GHK-Cu or first gen. copper peptides.

Hi DM, I didn't know this. This is definitely something to consider.

DarkMoon wrote:

BTW...GHK-Cu also is great for healing wounds! Very Happy

That's true. But, CP serum is a lot cheaper for this use.

Do you have an opinion on NCN Skincare's new GHK-Cu with EGF? I wonder if it has as much GHK-Cu as Dr. Pickart's products. But, I think someone named Dr. J said on another thread that EGF can promote proliferation of skin cancer cells. Another thing to have to consider.

It is the case after he left Procyte they retained the exclusive rights for a number of years.

I know the GHK-Cu is more expensive, I am not sure why?

I haven't researched the one NCN is selling, but as you said Dr.J brought up food for thought about the safety of EFG on it's own, so I find myself again on the fence about safety on continued use? Shock

free skin care · Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:00 am

DrJ wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

dogstar wrote:

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.

I could not agree more on all counts.

Josee is very much missed here, she is lovely and never "talked down" to anyone!

What happened to Josse?

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

free skin care · Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:29 am

I've been using CPs for at least three years now and haven't noticed anything bad happening to my skin. Besides, aren't skinbiology's CPs in a lot of department store skin products? Why pay more?

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 10:50 am

rileygirl wrote:

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.

That makes two of us, and I know there are many more.

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.

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.