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

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:46 pm

avalange wrote:

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.

Just curious Avalange, Where did you get the impression that 2nd generation CPs were milder than 1st? It is quite the opposite.

Perhaps your misunderstanding regarding 1st & 2nd generation copper peptides in terms of gentleness & strength is where you went wrong. I have never read that anywhere.

2nd generation CPs are stronger than 1st.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:37 pm

alexes wrote:

And no Josee I did not say the study had to be published, but that it had to be published "as is". This means that if the decision is made to publish, as clearly it was, the findings can not be changed. The findings of these studies clearly state that CPs are useful as anti-agers, something you said was unfounded, and a misleading claim on the part of SkinBio.

2 things:

a. Posters are not considered "publications". As a researcher, when you send your CV to a university (or to NIH, etc.), you have one one hand "publications" where you put your articles published in journals, then "posters and oral presentations" where you put the posters and oral presentations that you did in congresses.

But this is just a semantic clarification

b. No, studies don't have to be published "as is". You can select which comparisons you publish, you can select which outcomes you publish.

For example... Imagine I do a placebo-controlled RCT between X and placebo. Among my outcomes are... skin appearance (by visual scale) and collagen content and structure in skin punch biopsy. So I measure the skin appearance both in X and placebo BEFORE the treatment (i.e. at the start of the study) and then after 10 weeks.
Now at the end of 10 weeks... I see that there is no difference between the placebo and X. However, there is an improvement in face appearance in BOTH placebo and X (there's usually a high placebo effects in cosmetics because people in trials do for those weeks a rigorous skin care routine even if it is with a simple placebo hydrating cream, so the appearance still improves).
So what do I do? I don't report the placebo-X comparison... I report the Pre/Post X comparison.

So I say... "results showed that, after 10 weeks, the appearance of skin improved in subjects using the X compound".

So ... people read it and say... "hoooray X is a great thing!!". However, they don't see that if they had put the placebo the skin would have improved too and that X is no better than placebo.

Now... in a reputable peer-reviewed journal article this would not fly. However, in non-peer reviewed things (patent applications, scientific communications, oral presentations, posters, abstracts from scientific meetings, letters to the editor) this can, and DOES happen frequently.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:04 pm

Josee wrote:

I do believe (and I will do this tomorrow since today I don't have the stamina) there is selective reporting of outcomes and comparisons to make something look good and "effective". This is a well known strategy of pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

This is not a marathon and if you are not finding what you are looking for, then there are plenty of other products out there for you to search for your answers.

There is plenty of evidence that CPs work in rebuilding skin, that is why so many are using them to do the most difficult task which is "beyond curing the wrinkle" – they are using them for "scar reduction".

And actually wrinkles are likes scars in a sense, so that is why others with "no scars" are using them.

CPs heal wounds without forming scars. That is one of its biggest assets in my opinion. CPs suppress the scar forming protein which allows the wound to heal clean, free & clear of new scar formation. Like 1st generation CPs, they are regenerative in that sense unlike anything else.

Whether it is wrinkles or scars or overall condition of skin, CPs are very beneficial if you are willing to go slow & put in your time. The more damaged your skin, the longer they will take.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:28 pm

Star Model wrote:

There is plenty of evidence that CPs work in rebuilding skin, that is why so many are using them to do the most difficult task which is "beyond curing the wrinkle" – they are using them for "scar reduction".

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I guess some people (like yourself) may believe that there is plenty of evidence and other people (like myself) believe that there is not. We don't need to agree.

Star Model wrote:

And actually wrinkles are likes scars in a sense, so that is why others with "no scars" are using them. CPs heal wounds without forming scars. That is one of its biggest assets in my opinion. CPs suppress the scar forming protein which allows the wound to heal clean, free & clear of new scar formation. Like 1st generation CPs, they are regenerative in that sense unlike anything else.

Not really. Scars are formed because fibroblast over proliferate and over produce collagen I.

Wrinkles are formed because collagen breaks down.

So if I want a cream to prevent scarring, I wouldn't mind if it has quite a bit of MMP/TIMP imbalance activity because I do want some of the collagen to break down to prevent the scar.

However, I certainly do not want much MMP activity for wrinkle treatment! So something can be good for wound healing but not for wrinkle prevention.

Also for wrinkle prevention/improvement I'd like something that stimulates both the production of collagen III and I, not just I.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:29 pm

Star Model wrote:

Whether it is wrinkles or scars or overall condition of skin, CPs are very beneficial if you are willing to go slow & put in your time. The more damaged your skin, the longer they will take.

StarModel, are you saying that even healthy young skin with no damage can benefit from the CP's? That has been what I thought and is what I call "anti-aging". However, I noticed several posters on the other CP thread stating that CP's are not for healthy skin and those with healthy skin should not be using CP's?

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:16 pm

Josee wrote:

Quote:

However, I certainly do not want much MMP activity for wrinkle treatment! So something can be good for wound healing but not for wrinkle prevention.

MMP & CPs are not the same thing, so you can't compare the 2.

Josee wrote:

Quote:

Also for wrinkle prevention/improvement I'd like something that stimulates both the production of collagen III and I, not just I.

So keep on looking. GHK stimulates Collagen I/ CPs - III. That is why some people use both - alternating their products. It is a good idea, really. But if you need an "All-In-One" you're going to have to continue your search.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:22 pm

rileygirl wrote:

Star Model wrote:

Whether it is wrinkles or scars or overall condition of skin, CPs are very beneficial if you are willing to go slow & put in your time. The more damaged your skin, the longer they will take.

StarModel, are you saying that even healthy young skin with no damage can benefit from the CP's? That has been what I thought and is what I call "anti-aging". However, I noticed several posters on the other CP thread stating that CP's are not for healthy skin and those with healthy skin should not be using CP's?

Yes, CPs can be used on healthy skin. I am not sure what you mean by that?

Often times damage is buried & unnoticeable on the surface. Most people, other than young children have some sort of damage especially "us girls" from cosmetic use.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:26 pm

Star Model wrote:

So keep on looking. GHK stimulates Collagen I/ CPs - III. That is why some people use both - alternating their products. It is a good idea, really. But if you need an "All-In-One" you're going to have to continue your search.

Is there any published research that CPs stimulate collagen III?

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:36 pm

Star Model wrote:

MMP & CPs are not the same thing, so you can't compare the 2.

I don't think you understood my comment. MMPs and CPs not only are not the same thing, they have nothing to do with each other.

MMPs degrade collagen. TIMP 1 and 2 inhibit MMP.

In vitro studies have suggested that CPs stimulate MMPs and TIPM secretion.

So for wound healing, it is good to put something that in the balance stimulates MMPs (even countered with TIMP) because you WANT not too much collagen to be deposited. However, for wrinkles you don't want that necessarily since you don't want the collage to be degraded.

The difference in balance between MMPs and TIMPS is can make something good for wound healing but not for wrinkle prevention/improvement.

So just because something is good for wound healing, it does not mean it's good for wrinkle prevention/improvement.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:36 pm

rileygirl,

i'm sorry, i think I misunderstood the motivations behind your post. I apologize for my crabby mood, which most certainly affected how I read your question.
let's carry on, and learn.

--avalange

rileygirl wrote:

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 3:41 pm

Dear Star Model,

You're right, it's been a while and I was mixing them up in my mind. I used the 1st gen ghk-cu product, very sparingly, which was released after the 2nd gen cps, so i misremembered that as 2nd gen. whew! confusing!
I was under the impression the entire time that the action of ghk-cu was meant to be much milder and needed no dilution. i used the least strong formulation--the cream.

--avalange

Star Model wrote:

avalange wrote:

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.

Just curious Avalange, Where did you get the impression that 2nd generation CPs were milder than 1st? It is quite the opposite.

Perhaps your misunderstanding regarding 1st & 2nd generation copper peptides in terms of gentleness & strength is where you went wrong. I have never read that anywhere.

2nd generation CPs are stronger than 1st.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:44 pm

Actually this was just posted today on the SB Forums in direct response to this thread that Josee has started on CPs which much of the info. was left behind on the Physical SS Thread that was being hijacked.

Dr. Pickart's response:

Quote:

We are aware of a sudden rash of attacks on Skin Biology and myself on various Internet Bulletin Boards. This has happened many times before and usually we are able to trace these back to a competitor.

Some of these items are:

1. "Dr. Pickart is not a real scientist."

This is news to me. I have a BA in Chemistry and Mathematics from the University of Minnesota and a PhD in Biochemistry from UC San Francisco.

The main problem in human life is that we die too soon. Other scientific problems are trivial in comparison. My goal in life was to discover a method of reversing some of the effects of aging in the human body. I discovered Gly-His-Lys during studies on aging and GHK has been proven to reverse many effects of aging on human skin. For references go to www.skinbiology.com/copperpeptideregeneration.html.

Now I am primarily working to determine whether Gly-His-Lys could be used to treat inflammatory conditions of aging. There is also a possibility that Gly-His-Lys might activate unused adult stem cells and allow a "slipping
around" the Hayflick Limit and extend healthy human life for many more years. We are also studying the evidence that Gly-His-Lys suppresses cancer metastasis and working this into a linkage between wound healing
actions and cancer growth.

2. "Dr. Pickart is an entrepreneur and not a scientist. He writes patents and not enough scientific papers."

The basic idea here is that scientists should avoid any commercial interests and never develop products for the general public. They should live like a priestly cult that is constantly begging for money, and practicing chastity, poverty, and obedience.

A Few Scientific Entrepreneurs

Galileo - The Father of Modern Science who sold telescopes and had a mistress, the very beautiful Marina Gamba of Venice.
Pasteur - Created and named biochemistry. Also obtained patents and worked closely with industry.
Nikola Tesla - Created the modern electric system and many other things.
Always raising money from investors. Obtained about 300 patents. The International System of Unit of measuring magnetic flux density and
magnetic induction, the Tesla, was named in his honor.

There have been many entrepreneurs from my graduate school - UC San Francisco - such as Herb Boyer who founded Genentech and William Rutter who founded Chiron. These companies have had a huge impact on improving
human health.

As for publishing papers, my first was in 1983 and my last in 2009.

There are about 70. Some are in computerized indexes, others are in books and in industrial journals since I want my discoveries to be used
by other humans. Two more will be published later this year.

There are criticisms that I did not publish a large number of papers.

Well, why publish endless trivia (each paper read by about 20 people) like the Academic Trolls who spend their embittered, miserable lives ( I have often listened to their complaints) on a paper-publishing treadmill
and a world of "You are only good as your last funded grant". The key is not a number of papers but the importance of discoveries in the papers.

3. "Dr. Pickart skips research steps and ignores authorities in his research field."

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

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

"What Do You Care What Other People Think?" Richard Feynman

"Why not go out on a limb? That's where the fruit is." Mark Twain

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:49 pm

I totally agree.
Perhaps we are putting onerous pressure on cps here at this point. No other active outside of retinoic acid has been approved by the FDA in the US because of double-blind, independent studies.
I think in the cosmetics world, as our discussion here shows, "studies" and scientificm in general are largely marketing ploys.
BUT, cela dit, the thing that gets me is that cps might have adverse effects instead of just no effects on skin. Of course we all put our faith and hope in the latest cosmeceutical as skincare junkies, but the worst that I would expect from slathering a cream on my face is that it doesn't work, or makes me skin bad for a month, and then goes back to normal. this product happens to change skin texture and tone adversely for some, beneficially for others. If this is so, then there is a need for more studies to be conducted on its method of action and efficacity in non-wounded skin. bottom line, cps should come with a warning, and I believe that studies should be done to determine with more rigor why this might be happening for to what seems to me to be not an insignificant portion of users.

--avalange

Hermosa wrote:

Except for students, no scientist does research without getting paid. So in a sense, there is no such thing as independent research. You always have to ask: who is signing the check? What are those entity's interests?

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:52 pm

Star Model wrote:

Yes, CPs can be used on healthy skin. I am not sure what you mean by that?

Often times damage is buried & unnoticeable on the surface. Most people, other than young children have some sort of damage especially "us girls" from cosmetic use.

Thank you, StarModel. I was referring to this conversation on the regular CP thread:

sister sweets wrote:

Hermosa wrote:

Does anyone who sells CPs claim they have anti-aging properties? I'm not even sure what that means. CPs help regenerate collagen when skin is not in its optimal state.

Seems to me that anti-aging is more about protecting the skin and maintaining its condition. You wouldn't use CP on skin that's in great condition, any more than you'd use super glue on a dish that hasn't been broken.

You were reading my mind - I never considered CP's as anti aging -(This was just written by another poster on another Skin bio thread - saying it has been promoted as an antiaging compound). CP's are meant to bring out new skin from under damaged skin - to allow skin renewal to occur. Not as a preventive measure.

thanks for bringing this up. I use others for Prevention - C & E ferulic as one (DIY)....

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:53 pm

avalange wrote:

rileygirl,

i'm sorry, i think I misunderstood the motivations behind your post. I apologize for my crabby mood, which most certainly affected how I read your question.
let's carry on, and learn.

--avalange

No need to apologize, Avalange! Very Happy

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:04 pm

Star Model wrote:

Actually this was just posted today on the SB Forums in direct response to this thread that Josee has started on CPs which much of the info. was left behind on the Physical SS Thread that was being hijacked.

I think you may have missed my question. You said that CPs increase collagen III production and I asked if there was any published research stating that.

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:56 pm

If there are any citations for non-Neutrogena-funded studies on second generation copper peptides, could somebody please post them here?

Those who have close contact with Dr. Pickart might be able to get them from him or from the company. If they are in peer-reviewed journals, they would not be proprietary information.

If nobody is able to provide these, then I would repeat that it is safer to use 1st generation copper peptides and to continue to use other proven anti-ageing products in ADDITION to copper peptides in rotation eg tretinoin, vitamin C, sunblock (whatever you believe should be the appropriate sunblock to use).

free skin care · Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:02 pm

m1rox wrote:

If there are any citations for non-Neutrogena-funded studies on second generation copper peptides, could somebody please post them here?

Just for clarification, the Neutrogena ones are for the first generation copper peptides not the second. Also they were never published in any peer-reviewed journal.

free skin care · Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:40 am

Does anybody know the difference between the 1st and 2nd generation copper peptides? Why can the 2nd gen ones be used with acids and not the 1st gen?

free skin care · Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:44 am

Hi Avalange

Thanks for this, it makes more sense. As I said before, I'm worried now re my son. Although he hasn't yet had any bad reactions, I'm kind of scarred that he might, so I might get him to stop using it.

I can't help but wonder if that was in fact his response, or her version of his response. Can completely understand you feeling misled though, I'm feeling it too as the advice is very contradictory in nature.

How long were you using it for may I ask?

Theresa

avalange wrote:

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

free skin care · Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:54 am

I always get confused by this and SkinBio's forum aren't much help, their charts also seem to say different things at different times re strengths of their products (and they said recently that this was because with their latest stuff its often mixed with things like HAs or oils to help it penetrate deeper). Its soo confusing.

m1rox wrote:

Does anybody know the difference between the 1st and 2nd generation copper peptides? Why can the 2nd gen ones be used with acids and not the 1st gen?

free skin care · Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:13 am

Dear Theresa Mary,

The response was from Dr. Pickart himself, to her. She forwarded me his emailed response after she emailed him my photos and my story.
You know, cps might work for some, not others. Your son may be fine. Perhaps you should email Dr. Pickart directly and see if he is still inclined to respond in the same way he did to me. It might be good, just so we can share information about cp's best uses and applications.

--avalange

TheresaMary wrote:

Hi Avalange

Thanks for this, it makes more sense. As I said before, I'm worried now re my son. Although he hasn't yet had any bad reactions, I'm kind of scarred that he might, so I might get him to stop using it.

I can't help but wonder if that was in fact his response, or her version of his response. Can completely understand you feeling misled though, I'm feeling it too as the advice is very contradictory in nature.

How long were you using it for may I ask?

Theresa

avalange wrote:

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

free skin care · Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:19 am

TheresaMary wrote:

I always get confused by this and SkinBio's forum aren't much help, their charts also seem to say different things at different times re strengths of their products (and they said recently that this was because with their latest stuff its often mixed with things like HAs or oils to help it penetrate deeper). Its soo confusing.

m1rox wrote:

Does anybody know the difference between the 1st and 2nd generation copper peptides? Why can the 2nd gen ones be used with acids and not the 1st gen?

It's all very confusing even here at times the term CP is used for either 1st or 2nd gen. I have difficulty keeping them straight. I also thought acids were a no no with any CP as it's the copper is what's reactive to acids, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear I have that one wrong also?
Rolling Eyes

free skin care · Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:17 am

m1rox wrote:

Does anybody know the difference between the 1st and 2nd generation copper peptides? Why can the 2nd gen ones be used with acids and not the 1st gen?

The 1st generation uses a particular tripeptide (GHL). The second generation uses a mix of peptides.

The claim (I have not seen evidence regarding the claim but I have not really looked much) is that GHL-Cu is unstable and reacts with acids and that the second generation is more stable and does not react with acids.

DarkMoon wrote:

It's all very confusing even here at times the term CP is used for either 1st or 2nd gen. I have difficulty keeping them straight. I also thought acids were a no no with any CP as it's the copper is what's reactive to acids, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear I have that one wrong also?
Rolling Eyes

All the discussion in this thread (except for the first post) is regarding FIRST GENERATION. I think we didn't discuss second generation because there isn't any research out there regarding them (except the 4 papers I referenced in the first post).

Whether any CP reacts with acids or not will depend on the "strength" of the bond of the Cu to the peptides, the shape of the complex (i.e. where the Cu is located), and the peptides, etc. So some complexes can react "slower" and thus not be degraded so fast, or sometimes not react all.

free skin care · Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:26 am

Well I only purchased them after the Super CP serum after they were recommended by SkinBio (who I understood had spoken to Dr P).

I just ordered the Super CP serum. Im not sure whether its first generation, second generation - as if you look at their website they don't label their products as either. I got even more confused when GHK was introduced as they marketed that as second generation. My head can't cope with all these figures, but I'm thinking if he's saying that CPs aren't for people with healthy skins, then thats something we should know about for sure.

How long were you using yours for Avalange and did they not give you any recommendations for how to reverse it? I think thats terrible.

Theresa

avalange wrote:

Dear Theresa Mary,

The response was from Dr. Pickart himself, to her. She forwarded me his emailed response after she emailed him my photos and my story.
You know, cps might work for some, not others. Your son may be fine. Perhaps you should email Dr. Pickart directly and see if he is still inclined to respond in the same way he did to me. It might be good, just so we can share information about cp's best uses and applications.

--avalange

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.