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

free skin care · Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:56 pm

OK I did not want to hijack "sunscreen" the thread any further so I decided to start a new thread.

I do hope we can have a good and fruitful discussion and abstain from engaging in ad hominems with other posters which do not provide really any information regarding the topic at hand.

I claimed that there is no evidence that the second generation of copper peptides has any anti-aging effect. I also contend that the website makes unsubstantiated claims and selectively quotes medical literature to prove a point.

So I asked for references. And I was told they were 4 studies. The 4 studies Dr. Pikart cites can be found here on his website: http://reverseskinaging.com/studies15.html

The website claims:
"Four independent, placebo-controlled double-blinded clinical studies at the University of California at San Francisco have given statistically significant positive results that our products markedly accelerated the rate of skin regeneration and reduced skin irritation after severe skin damage. Dr. Howard Maibach, who directed the studies, is one of the the world's leading dermatologists with over 60 books and over 1,350 papers on the topic."

Just from the start there are some poblems:

- Dr. Maibach has over 1200 papers but not ON THE TOPIC of skin regeneration or copper peptides. His research specialty (as per his website) is: Dermatotoxicology, dermatopathology and percutaneous penetration.

- The studies did not assess the "rate of skin regeneration". The studies assessed TEWL which is transepitelial water loss. It is used many times to measure the integrity/function of the stratum corneum. It is not synonym of skin regeneration. In fact, there are substances (and cosmetics) who diminish the TEWL yet impair skin regeneration. One study also measured a visual score (VS), skin blood flood volume (BFV) and skin color.

- The damage was not "severe". This were clinical trials done in healthy volunteers so as it is obvious, you can't cause severe damage to volunteers for clinical trials.

- One study did not find any significant difference, yet that is conveniently not mentioned in the website

- No study discusses clinical significance. Things can be statistically significant but not clinically significant. For e.g. I can have a large sample size. In one sample size the average height is... 1.65 m and in the other the average height is 1.64. I do my statistical tests and I find that the 2 populations are statistically significan different with p<0.05. Now... is really the difference between 1.65 and 1.64 important or relevant? Probably not. That's why in clinical research is always better to report the confidence interval as opposed to simply the p-value. The thing is that the purposes of this studies was to mainly evaluate their models of irritation more than to test a particular agent. So the did not report confidence intervals since they were not really that interested in clinical significance but in the ability of their model to detect differences.
For more information of p-value, you can read:
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2009 May; 106(19): 335–339)

Acta Paediatr. 2008 Aug;97( Cool

:1004-7. Epub 2008 May 7.

In there it states: " It is good practice for authors of research articles to report CIs with their estimates instead of just p-values as p-values are less informative and convey no information on clinical importance."

Now... on to the studies....

1) Zhai, Chang, Singh, Maibach, Contact Dermatitis, 40, 1999, 205
Sample size = 14
Study on the effect of topical copper on contact dermatitis. Copper peptide improved TEWL, skin color and VS more than placebo starting on day 8-10. BFV showed no significant difference. Clinical significance not discussed

2) Zhai, Poblete, Maibach, Int. J. Dermat., 37, 1998, 386
Sample size= 6
Study on the effect of topic copper on skin irritation (measured by TWEL). The study found NO EFFECT.
"Our data showed that there was no statistical difference between the topical agent and stripped skin during the barrier function repair process. The results indicate that topical application had no adverse effect on repair"

3) Zhai, Leow, Maibach, Clin. Exp. Derm., 23, 1998, 11.
Sample size = 6
Study on the effect of copper peptide on skin barrier after irritation by acetone (measured by TWEL). The study found a positive effect of copper peptide vs. placebo. Clinical significance not discussed.

4) Zhai, Leow, Maibach, Skin Res. Tech., 4, 1998
Sample size = 6
Measure TWEL after detergent irritation and copper peptides. They found an effect of copper peptides. Clinical significance not discussed.

So... what can conclude after reading this articles? One can conclude that a solution containing copper peptides may help accelerate water barrier function. Do these studies provide any evidence that the copper peptide studies "regenerate skin", or have any antiaging function whatsoever? NO.

Are the website claims misleading? In my opinion YES, but each one has different standards on when to classify something as misleading.

free skin care · Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:57 pm

Josee, is the evidence for the first generation copper peptides more substantial in providing benefits for the skin?

free skin care · Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:47 pm

m1rox wrote:

Josee, is the evidence for the first generation copper peptides more substantial in providing benefits for the skin?

This is an excellent question. From previous discussions, I think the answer was determined to be yes. But I'll defer to the experts, of course!

However, that doesn't mean that the 2nd generation CPs don't work.

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:08 am

Yes, this is an excellent question.

Could someone please spell out for me what exactly the difference is between first and second generation CPs.

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:18 am

^ I'm v interested in this too and in general. Not taken the plunge and started w cps yet.

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:23 am

Josee, I'm curious as to what Dr Pickart says about your question. Have you emailed SkinBio as if anyone could provide more facts hopefully it would be them!

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:11 am

m1rox wrote:

Josee, is the evidence for the first generation copper peptides more substantial in providing benefits for the skin?

Josee, I would also like to hear your thoughts on this and any studies you may find. I researched copper peptides a while back, and I found most things were related to wound repair (and in my humble opinion a wrinkle is not a wound).

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:21 am

rileygirl wrote:

m1rox wrote:

Josee, is the evidence for the first generation copper peptides more substantial in providing benefits for the skin?

Josee, I would also like to hear your thoughts on this and any studies you may find. I researched copper peptides a while back, and I found most things were related to wound repair (and in my humble opinion a wrinkle is not a wound).

Me Too, I would like to hear from a variety of sources. Josee seems very knowledgeable IMHO Smile

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:24 am

Me too. I agree with you Riley re wound repair and scar repairs and not wrinkles.... its something I have often wondered about. Mag on the old YTF board said she preferred Retin A for that very reason, and I know I was using Retin A for as long a period as she was and so have no reason to doubt her. I tried CPs out in the 90's when they seemed to be in fashion. Its soo confusing though. I thought that Dr Pickart had many studies, not just four studies.

rileygirl wrote:

m1rox wrote:

Josee, is the evidence for the first generation copper peptides more substantial in providing benefits for the skin?

Josee, I would also like to hear your thoughts on this and any studies you may find. I researched copper peptides a while back, and I found most things were related to wound repair (and in my humble opinion a wrinkle is not a wound).

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:30 am

Did Josee mention that her supervisor also published some studies on copper peptides? Perhaps there is some water under the bridge between these researchers and Dr. Pickart?

However, I do not think that we can dismiss what she puts across as she does have valid points to make. I know there are some who are very loyal to Dr. Pickart and have benefitted from his products but she should have a chance to present her points of view as well.

As we know, medicine is as much an art as a science and scientific studies don't always do justice to a specific product. Unlike the big companies like Proctor and Gamble, etc. the small companies do not have the money and resources to carry out large clinical studies to validate their product. Just because there is no proper scientific study done on the 2nd generation copper peptides doesn't mean that they don't work and (hopefully) the testimonials of some of you are genuine (not aided by the company) and there really is some benefit that can be gained by using them. Of course, one wouldn't expect them to work for everyone as each individual's condition is different.

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:41 am

m1rox wrote:

Did Josee mention that her supervisor also published some studies on copper peptides? Perhaps there is some water under the bridge between these researchers and Dr. Pickart?

m1rox,
I believe Josee's supervisor is published but I am not recalling that was to do with CP's, but my memory could be off? Hopefully we will hear back from her?
I like taking many sources of information (well researched) into account and then deciding from there. I have straddled the fence about trying CP's or not for ages it seems and I tend to read up from a variety of sources before making a decision. Smile

Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:44 am

Josee,

Thank you for the clear presentation of your concerns regarding the "science" of Cps. Your post is carefully laid out and presented as a research and not the least provocative.

I have asked the same questions myself, going directly to SB and Dr. Pickart, all to no avail.

I too believe in CP wound healing properties. But, as I, like Reiley(sp) don't agree that a wound is a wrinkle- there use remains a mystery.

I have used Cps for over a year..I've seen no good result and refuse to wound my skin with needles, rollers, acids in the vain hope that I someday will.

If you indeed discover that there is a differance between the 1st and 2nd gen CPs please inform us. However, I don't think you'll be long lived on this forum

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:19 am

moleeds wrote:

Josee,

Thank you for the clear presentation of your concerns regarding the "science" of Cps. Your post is carefully laid out and presented as a research and not the least provocative.

I have asked the same questions myself, going directly to SB and Dr. Pickart, all to no avail.

I too believe in CP wound healing properties. But, as I, like Reiley(sp) don't agree that a wound is a wrinkle- there use remains a mystery.

I have used Cps for over a year..I've seen no good result and refuse to wound my skin with needles, rollers, acids in the vain hope that I someday will.

If you indeed discover that there is a difference between the 1st and 2nd gen CPs please inform us. However, I don't think you'll be long lived on this forum

Actually, None of this makes any sense to me? Misinterpreted conclusions allover the place regarding wounds vs wrinkles. You do NOT have to wound your skin for CPs to work. Use of mild Hydroxy's though will enhance the remodeling process. And if you have deep scars, you will have to get more aggressive to break down the damage.

The basis for wrinkle reduction is the abilty to stimulate new collagen production which declines as we age. CPs do this.

Just like Retin-A which was invented as an anti-acne remedy, it was later discovered that it stimulates new collagen production and was then deemed the darling of wrinkle reduction. But not overnight. It takes a couple of yrs of continued use to see real results. Many can't use Retin-A though due to chronic redness & dryness. That does not mean that it does not work.

So if you don't believe that CPs have merit in anti-aging, then move on. Why focus on something that you do not believe in? Because many people out there who have used them feel quite the opposite.

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:30 am

I was always led to believe that there are many studies, not just 4.

I like Star's explanation though re wrinkles/wounds. Whilst I have felt like Riley the research has been geared towards scar removal, that makes sense.

Whilst Josee's original post does provide an interesting question, I can't help but wonder why they've chosen to post it here rather than seek an answer if there is one from SkinBio. They are usually forthcoming in their answers to me and others I've seen, so I can't understand why they wouldn't be with Josee or Moleeds. Moleeds did your query not get any answer at all?

Its all an interesting point though for sure!

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:51 am

Star Model wrote:

Actually, None of this makes any sense to me? Misinterpreted conclusions allover the place regarding wounds vs wrinkles.

The majority of the studies that I have seen involving copper peptides are done regarding Wounds, which again in my own opinion are not wrinkles. Yet, conclusions are drawn (by some) that if the CP's help with wounds, then they will also help with wrinkles. Hence my question to Josee. (I believe there was 1 study recently with the 1st gen of CP and usage of the LED, but that is the only one I am familiar with as far as wrinkles/CP.)

StarModel, you say that CP's stimulate new collagen production (like Retin A), would you provide any studies that show this? I would love to read them. I am very interested in CP's. (And, I have read around on the skinbiology website to try to find information.)

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:39 am

I am not a scientist, but my closest friend from college grew up to be a biochemist, now a professor at a major NY university. We had a few discussions back in the day and I (the MBA) was surprised at her antipathy for commercial applications of science. I didn't agree with it, but I understood. She didn't believe any research should have commercial purposes, and in her ideal world, all funding would come from generous people who wanted to advance knowledge, not from profiteering corporations big or small.

So that is one end of the science/research spectrum, the pure scientist who disdains entrepreneurs.

Another facet to consider is that research itself is not only expensive but often extremely limited. So if I am trying to test the results of copper peptides, say, I must carefully select my subjects and then apply a measured amount of product to a carefully delineated piece of skin. Months or (more likely) years later, you can enumerate results for that very specific process...but that may or may not tell you what happens in the 1001 scenarios that differ from your controlled experiment (eg wound vs wrinkle). So it is absolutely understandable if cosmetic companies don't do hard core testing except to ensure safety. It isn't necessary. Customers buy results, not the science.

Moreover, those of us who have been around for a few decades have seen much-touted research disproven, and last year's marvel become next year's carcinogen. M.Ds once touted the health benefits of cigarettes and xrays were a cure for acne.

My point: though I love to read research as much as the next curious soul, it's not a make-or-break for me, especially when the research doesn't pass my straight face test. Research provides a circumscribed bit of data than may or may not lead me to buy a product. And I don't think there's ever been any product that has been proven to work 100% of the time, so even the most thoroughly researched products may not be my cuppa.

I have been using the second gens for a few months, but as far as I can tell, no one else is using them as aggressively as I am. And I am okay with not knowing if this protocol has been researched and proven effective. If I decide it's not working for me, I'll try something else. The world of remedies is vast and expanding all the time.

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:51 pm

Hello... wow it seems there's a lot of interest on this... it's great!

Some clarifications are in order (I guess):

a. For those who frequent the "EDS Lounge", you know that I'm a pain sometimes. I do tend to be skeptical of things (read my rant about multivitamins? Smile

) and I voice my opinion. So this "copper peptides" thread is no different from the other many opinions that I have had on other threads to which people have strongly disagreed with me. I do hope we can agree to disagree in a civil way without imputing "evil intention" or anything like that to each other

b. I have no idea why this came up but to make it very clear... I have no connections at all whatsoever with any cosmetics or pharmaceutical company or lab, nor do I work or have ever worked for a cosmetic or pharmaceutical company or lab. I have never received any money from any pharmaceutical or cosmetics company or lab.
The research I do has to do with evidence-based medicine, health technology assessment and public health.
I am not an expert at all in dermatology, cosmeceuticals or anything like that. Like most of you, I have an inquiring mind which has led me to read up on cosmeceutical, cosmetic procedures, etc, etc.

c. I really like the field of evidence-based medicine and I push in every way I can to make sure that decisions are made based on evidence. I truly DO NOT LIKE IT when people and/or companies make claims that cannot be substantiated or that can mislead people. This applies to every field, from politics to health care!

d. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. I can't stress this enough. There is no perfect "potion" for skin. Most cosmeceuticals have little research behind it. But knowledge is POWER. Because... as long as you KNOW... then you can make informed decisions.
I myself have bought stuff because "a friend tried it an it worked great!" So what? There's nothing wrong with that! I realize that there's no "real" evidence but I still take the plunge!

So... to end, there is a lot written on EDS about the potential benefits of copper peptides, the theories behind how it works, etc, etc. I am not interested in that, not because it's not interesting but because that info is already out here. I am interested in seeing what hard, peer-reviewed research is out there regarding copper peptides and then do claims based strictly on that.

As bethany said in this thread, the fact that there might not be evidence today about something working does not mean it doesn't work. It just means there's no evidence.

All the best,
Josee

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:30 pm

I, for one, am very glad for this post. I think Josee has presented her information concisely and objectively, and her responders have made valid points regarding how and where they would like to assimilate the information. i respect everyone's opinion here and truly hope this post does not get deleted.

Cps (2nd generation) did not work for me, and although they have produced visible, excellent results for some, I think it is very important to point out the fact that they can be damaging and risky to others.

If this were just a matter of "effectiveness" and whether or not a certain ingredient lived up to its anti-aging promises, then none of this hullaballoo would occur.

The real issue here is that consumers unwittingly put their faith in commercial interests and privately-funded research (which is as treacherous in the pharmaceutical as in the cosmeceutical industries) to provide them with the best and more effective ingredients. I think most of us would agree that we are looking for results, and while perhaps disappointed when they do not occur, we are not assuming that we may be signing up for longterm and/or permanent damage. think about how drugs for certain adolescent psychological problems have come out as having a tendency to incite suicidal thoughts, or rather, think about how mineral oil is a leftover from the petrochemical industry that must be cleaned of carcinogenic material in order to be sold cheaply to the cosmetics industry. i made the point in a post about mineral oil that i doubt the cosmetics companies went to the petro industry and said, 'hey, have any by-products in your refinery plants after making gasoline that you could apply harsh chemicals to in order to make it usable as a cheap barrier ingredient for our creams?' it is this kind of critical thinking that we have to apply to all levels of our relationships with the world of consumer goods, in order to be responsible for the choices we make.

i do not see josee's informative post as an attack, just a different set of facts for us to assess when thinking about using a (seemingly ever-more) controversial product as cps.

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 · Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:39 pm

Keliu wrote:

Yes, this is an excellent question.

Could someone please spell out for me what exactly the difference is between first and second generation CPs.

Copper peptides in general are copper molecules + some peptides. Generation 1 and 2 differ on the peptides.

The first generation copper peptides is the one called GHL-Cu (or GHK-Cu) for

G = Glycyl (from glycine)
H = Histidyl (from histidine)
L = Lysine

According to Dr. Pickart (I have not seen a study to corroborate this but I really haven't looked either): "The actions of GHK-Cu are limited by its fragility and tendency toward breakdown and also its lack of adhesion to the skin surface"

rileygirl wrote:

I researched copper peptides a while back, and I found most things were related to wound repair (and in my humble opinion a wrinkle is not a wound).

Regarding first generation copper peptides, there are quite a few papers on non-skin cells (mostly liver cells), and other in vitro studies, including some done on skin cultures or skin cells. There are some on animals and some on humans. Most deal with wound healing.

I am going to try and do a compilation this week of all the research done on skin or skin cells and post it here. Also there's one small PILOT RCT done many years ago comparing Retin-A, copper peptides, vitamin C and melanin. I haven't been able to get my hands on it but I'm trying to get it to see the quality of the study and the detailed results. The abstract seems to indicate that copper peptide performed better than Retin A in certain outcomes.They only followed the patients for a month (Retin A takes longer to really act) so the comparison might not be good but still it's something to look at!

There is something interesting to note and that really remarks the importance of large, high-quality, controlled studies. The most evidence (in vitro, in animals and in humans) regarding copper peptides deals with wound healing. And it seems very promising. I think most of us, after reading those papers would be inclined to try copper peptides for wound healing.

However, when a large, multicenter randomized trial was carried out by Procyte(a Phase III RCT for FDA approval), it failed.

Previous reports and patent applications spoke about how good it was, how it penetrated the skin, how it was stable, etc, etc. It's not that they were lying or anything it's just that research is HARD and sometimes things in vitro or in small samples just do not represent the bigger reality. That's why many times the "miracle cure" of today ends up being the "poison" of tomorrow! And that's why it's good to have nice, good clinical studies Smile

TheresaMary wrote:

Josee, I'm curious as to what Dr Pickart says about your question. Have you emailed SkinBio as if anyone could provide more facts hopefully it would be them!

Dr. Pickart was informed of the thread and actually responded to it (you can see it on the sunscreen thread), so he can obviously participate like the rest of us if he has the time.

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:07 pm

Josee wrote:

Regarding first generation copper peptides, there are quite a few papers on non-skin cells (mostly liver cells), and other in vitro studies, including some done on skin cultures or skin cells. There are some on animals and some on humans. Most deal with wound healing.

I am going to try and do a compilation this week of all the research done on skin or skin cells and post it here. Also there's one small PILOT RCT done many years ago comparing Retin-A, copper peptides, vitamin C and melanin. I haven't been able to get my hands on it but I'm trying to get it to see the quality of the study and the detailed results. The abstract seems to indicate that copper peptide performed better than Retin A in certain outcomes.They only followed the patients for a month (Retin A takes longer to really act) so the comparison might not be good but still it's something to look at!

There is something interesting to note and that really remarks the importance of large, high-quality, controlled studies. The most evidence (in vitro, in animals and in humans) regarding copper peptides deals with wound healing. And it seems very promising. I think most of us, after reading those papers would be inclined to try copper peptides for wound healing.

Thanks, Josee. That would be great to have a compilation of the research to look at.

I will say regarding copper peptides (2nd gen) and wound healing that for myself (and my dogs) it works great on wounds. I didn't try the 1st gen on the wound, but I would imagine it would work but possibly take longer to heal. When I applied the CP to a wound that my dog had, it healed in 2 days. This was after using the medicated creams from the vet for 2 weeks prior and my dogs wound getting a lot worse on the vet meds.

However, as I said in my opinion a wrinkle is not a wound, and I am interested in CP's for wrinkles, so any studies along those lines would be great (for either the 1st or 2nd gen).

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:36 pm

Although a wound is not a wrinkle, the products that help to heal wounds could well help to reduce wrinkles if they stimulate collagen production. I would be disappointed if the comparison between copper peptides and retinoids is not over a longer period of time (eg one to two years). As we all know, within a period of one month, retinoids do have a tendency to make skin look worse before it gets better and I don't think a one month time scale is fair to compare these products. The skin improvements with retinoids take months and there are also long term benefits.

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:20 pm

rileygirl wrote:

However, as I said in my opinion a wrinkle is not a wound, and I am interested in CP's for wrinkles, so any studies along those lines would be great (for either the 1st or 2nd gen).

Regarding first generation CPs and skin aging, all I have found is ONE apparently peer-reviewed PILOT study. The study was published in a journal that was around for less than 2 years so I really don't know much about that journal. But this study is the one I'm most interested in seeing but I can't find the full text.

All the other sources cited by Dr. Pickart are from studies done and paid for by NEUTROGENA. Not only that, Neutrogena did not even publish them in any peer-reviewed journal. All they did was present some posters in the annual American Academy of Dermatology Meeting. As anyone working in research will be able to attest, you can basically write anything on a poster and go to the conference. Posters don't go through any thorough peer-review process or anything like that. As long as the abstract sort of makes sense, you accept it... especially if it comes from a cosmetics company that's giving money so that the meeting can happen! Very Happy

On top of that the Abstracts are published in the very typical "pharmaceutical/cosmetics" industry. Some are blinded, some are not, some compare to baseline, the outcomes are not clear... a disaster. It reminds you of the papers by Philip Morris on tobacco... very entertaining Very Happy

No one looks at those posters but... hey they pay for our stay so at least we let them be.

If anyone finds another paper, please post it so we can add it.

Finally... one of the things that I find ironic is that if you follow Dr. Pickart's advice on what to buy ... you wouldn't buy copper peptides.

The website states:

http://reverseskinaging.com/industry1.html

Why Do Cosmetic Companies Rarely Sponsor Independent Studies of Their Products?
Because the studies might show their products are worthless.

If They Cannot Send You Published Articles in Scientific Journals About Their Product ...
Do not buy it if they cannot send you articles on their miracle product from science or medical journals. New improvements in skin care are easy to publish if they are real.

Real Science and Cosmetic Science
The primary problem with most these products is the lack of serious scientific studies and independent studies by reputable experts in dermatology. Many use uncontrolled studies that are never published, and could not be published, in reputable journals. Even many, very large corporations are unwilling to sponsor serious studies of the their products. As a executive of a large cosmetic company told me, "We pay our top scientist $180,000 a year and our top model $4,000,000 a year".

There are no independent, well controlled clinical studies on copper peptides and skin aging published in reputable journals...I really don't know what to make out of this.

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:43 pm

m1rox wrote:

Although a wound is not a wrinkle, the products that help to heal wounds could well help to reduce wrinkles if they stimulate collagen production. I would be disappointed if the comparison between copper peptides and retinoids is not over a longer period of time (eg one to two years). As we all know, within a period of one month, retinoids do have a tendency to make skin look worse before it gets better and I don't think a one month time scale is fair to compare these products. The skin improvements with retinoids take months and there are also long term benefits.

The study followed the people for only 1 month. It seems it was not blinded, and there was no placebo.

I also think that something important is to see what type of collagen is increased. A product that increases only collagen type I (the one that's secreted in healing wounds, the scar tissue one) is not as interesting as one that increases I and III

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:19 pm

There might possibly be more studies on the use of emu oil than copper peptides?

Hmm...I wonder if there is any potential toxicity issues associated with long term use of copper peptides? Since it's not a prescription product, I suppose we will not know as there is no monitoring.

free skin care · Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:26 pm

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

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.