What did @theglobalbillionaire actually say?
Dr. Lawrence Bourgeois introduced what he calls the "Hollywood stack," a combination of peptides marketed for anti-aging, hair, energy, fat loss, and muscle repair. He named four compounds: GHK-Cu ("the aesthetic peptide"), Tesofensine (referred to as "Tessa Morland"), Retatrutide ("red a true tide"), and Metformin (likely "matzi"). He described Retatrutide as helping with "fat loss by preserving muscle," Tesofensine as helping with "muscle damage," and Metformin helping with energy. He also filmed a patient self-injecting on camera.
The framing here is luxury wellness, not medicine. Phrases like "fountain of youth" and "maximize what they have" are doing a lot of work to make unapproved compounds sound like spa treatments. That framing matters, because it obscures real regulatory and safety questions.
Does the science back this up?
Partially, but the compound identification and their described effects are garbled in ways that could mislead viewers. GHK-Cu has the most legitimate research behind it. Retatrutide is a real investigational drug, but it is not a peptide in the traditional therapeutic sense. Tesofensine is a neurotransmitter reuptake inhibitor with no established role in muscle repair. Metformin is an oral diabetes drug, not an injectable peptide.
GHK-Cu (copper tripeptide-1) does have published evidence supporting collagen synthesis and wound healing. Pickart and Margolina (2018, Cosmetics) reviewed its tissue remodeling properties. Retatrutide is a GIP/GLP-1/glucagon triple agonist in Phase 2 trials for obesity, with Jastreboff et al. (2023, NEJM) showing significant fat mass reduction. But describing it as simply "preserving muscle" during fat loss is an oversimplification of a complex metabolic drug still under investigation. None of these compounds are FDA-approved for the indications described here.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
Several things are wrong here, some mildly, some significantly. GHK-Cu being called "the aesthetic peptide" is a reasonable lay shorthand. The research on skin and hair applications is more developed than most peptides in this space, so partial credit there.
The bigger problems: Tesofensine is not known for muscle damage repair. It is a centrally acting appetite suppressant studied for obesity (Astrup et al., 2008, The Lancet). Attributing muscle recovery to it is not supported by published data. Metformin does not primarily help with "energy" in the way the video implies. It works through AMPK activation and glucose regulation. Describing it as an energy booster without context misrepresents its pharmacology.
Retatrutide is still in clinical trials. Presenting it to a 26,000-person audience as a stack ingredient, alongside a patient self-injecting, raises serious informed-consent and off-label promotion concerns. What they got right: GHK-Cu's aesthetic applications have a reasonable evidence base. What they got wrong: the mechanism descriptions for at least two compounds are inaccurate, and the overall framing treats investigational drugs as proven wellness tools.
What should you actually know?
These are not interchangeable wellness supplements. Retatrutide is an investigational drug. You cannot legally obtain it as a finished pharmaceutical in the US. Compounded versions exist in gray-market peptide supply chains, and purity and dosing are not guaranteed. Tesofensine has a cardiovascular side effect profile, including elevated heart rate and blood pressure, noted in Astrup et al. (2008). Mixing it with GLP-1 class agents like Retatrutide without medical supervision is not a casual decision.
Metformin has real clinical evidence for longevity-adjacent applications, including the ongoing TAME trial (Barzilai et al., 2016, Cell Metabolism), but it is a prescription drug with gastrointestinal side effects and contraindications. Framing it as an energy booster in a "Hollywood stack" strips out the clinical nuance that a prescribing physician would actually discuss.
The self-injection scene also deserves attention. Filming a client self-injecting compounds of uncertain regulatory status for social media is not a standard of care situation. It is content creation dressed as medicine.