What did @cindylaurenyan actually say?
In a TikTok with over 500K views, @cindylaurenyan said that after a year and a half on peptides, her top three are GHK-Cu (which she calls "the BD peptide"), NAD, and glutathione. Her claims are personal and specific: GHK gave her better skin and faster hair growth, NAD gives her more energy and is "great for general preventative aging," and glutathione has reduced her hangovers. She frames all three as lifestyle supplements rather than medical treatments, which is a meaningful distinction. Two of the three, NAD and glutathione, are not technically peptides at all, which matters when you are watching a video categorized under peptide therapy.
Her tone is enthusiastic but anecdotal. She is not claiming to treat a disease. That keeps her out of the most dangerous misinformation territory, but it does not mean everything she said holds up under scrutiny.
Does the science back this up?
Partially, but the evidence is thinner than 504K views might suggest. GHK-Cu has real published data behind it. NAD precursors have solid mechanistic science but murkier human outcome data. Glutathione for hangovers is mostly bro-science with a thin clinical thread.
GHK-Cu is a naturally occurring copper-binding tripeptide with legitimate peer-reviewed research. Pickart and Margolina (2018, Symmetry) reviewed decades of work showing GHK-Cu stimulates collagen synthesis, promotes wound healing, and has anti-inflammatory properties in cell and animal models. A double-blind trial by Leyden et al. found topical GHK-Cu improved skin laxity and fine lines. Hair studies exist but are mostly preclinical. The skin claim has legs. The hair claim is weaker.
NAD is a coenzyme, not a peptide. Preclinical data from Rajman, Chwalek, and Sinclair (2018, Cell Metabolism) shows NAD+ declines with age and restoration improves mitochondrial function in mice. Human trials on NMN and NR, the common precursors, show modest benefits in some markers but no large randomized controlled trial has confirmed the "energy" and "anti-aging" benefits she describes.
Glutathione as a hangover remedy has almost no controlled trial support. One small study (Sacco et al., 2011, European Journal of Nutrition) suggested antioxidant supplementation may reduce oxidative stress from alcohol, but "wake up feeling great" is a long way from that data.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
She got GHK-Cu more right than wrong for skin. The collagen and skin repair research is real, and calling it a personal holy grail for skin is defensible given the available topical data. Hair growth is less supported in humans specifically.
She got NAD mostly right on mechanism. It is genuinely "an essential co-enzyme" and it does decline with age. That part is textbook biochemistry. Where she oversimplifies is connecting supplementation directly to her personal energy levels. The human data on subjective energy from NAD precursors is inconsistent. Yoshino et al. (2021, Science) found NMN improved muscle insulin sensitivity in postmenopausal women but did not measure subjective energy. Extrapolating to "I don't need 75 coffees" is a stretch.
She also misidentifies NAD and glutathione as peptides. NAD is a dinucleotide. Glutathione is a tripeptide technically, so that one gets a partial pass, but NAD is categorically not a peptide. This matters because the regulatory and clinical frameworks for peptide therapy do not apply the same way.
The hangover claim is the weakest. Glutathione does play a role in alcohol metabolism, and the liver uses it to process acetaldehyde. But supplemental glutathione has poor oral bioavailability (Witschi et al., 1992, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology), meaning most of what you swallow does not reach systemic circulation intact. Liposomal or IV formulations change that equation, but she does not specify delivery method.
What should you actually know?
These are not magic bullets, and the way she presents them skips some important context. GHK-Cu is one of the better-studied cosmetic peptides and has a reasonable evidence base for topical use. If you are interested in skin health, it is not an unreasonable thing to explore with a provider. But the studies are largely short-term and the long-term safety profile of systemic GHK-Cu administration is not well established in humans.
NAD precursor supplementation is a genuinely interesting area of longevity research, but the human trial evidence is still catching up to the hype. Doses used in trials vary widely, and nobody should be dosing based on a TikTok. The energy benefits she describes are plausible but not confirmed by controlled data.
Glutathione is worth understanding correctly. IV glutathione has real clinical applications. Oral glutathione is a different product with a different absorption profile. Using it to manage hangovers while continuing to drink regularly is also not a strategy any clinician would design a protocol around. Alcohol causes oxidative stress, liver damage accumulates over time, and no antioxidant supplement cancels that out.
If any of these three genuinely interest you, a telehealth provider can review your labs, your goals, and your history before recommending anything. That is a very different process from picking your top three on TikTok.