What did @felix.garaayy actually say?
The transcript here is rough, heavily garbled by what appears to be Spanish-to-English machine translation, so pinning down exact quotes is tricky. But between the caption and the audio, the creator's core position is clear enough: GHK-Cu supports collagen production, tissue repair, wound healing, hair health, and inflammatory processes in the skin. They also state that BPC-157 and TB-500, included in a product called GLOW, have no direct skin benefit compared to isolated GHK-Cu. They frame the content as informational and recommend consulting a professional, which is worth noting.
The caption explicitly says GHK-Cu is "not a supplement" but a peptide studied for cellular signaling, collagen production, tissue repair, and skin health. That framing matters because it shapes audience expectations about what this compound actually is and how it works.
Does the science back this up?
On GHK-Cu specifically, the research base is real, if imperfect. Most of what exists is in vitro or animal data, not large randomized controlled trials in humans. That gap matters.
Loren Pickart, who has studied GHK-Cu for decades, published work in 2015 in Organogenesis showing GHK-Cu stimulates collagen synthesis and promotes wound healing in cell models. A 2015 review by Pickart and Margolina in the same journal outlined its role in gene expression regulation, not just collagen, which is a more nuanced picture than most influencers present. For skin aging, a small clinical study by Leyden et al. published in Cosmetic Dermatology found topical GHK-Cu improved skin laxity and reduced fine lines, but the sample sizes were small and industry-funded. The collagen and repair story has support. The scope of that support is narrower than the video implies.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
Credit where it is due: the creator is right that GHK-Cu is not a standard supplement. It is a tripeptide copper complex with a distinct mechanism of action, and lumping it in with vitamin C serums would be inaccurate. They are also correct that it has been studied for collagen production and tissue repair.
Where it gets shakier: the claim that BPC-157 and TB-500 have "no direct benefit" to skin is stated with more confidence than the evidence warrants. BPC-157 has shown wound-healing properties in animal studies, including dermal tissue. A 2018 paper by Chang et al. in the Journal of Applied Physiology documented accelerated tendon and soft tissue repair in rodent models, and skin is soft tissue. TB-500, a synthetic fragment of Thymosin Beta-4, has similarly shown roles in angiogenesis and tissue remodeling. Saying these peptides do "nothing" for skin is an overstatement. Whether they add meaningful benefit in a topical or systemic product aimed at skin specifically is a different, more legitimate question.
What should you actually know?
GHK-Cu has one of the more credible research profiles among cosmetic peptides, but the clinical evidence in humans is still thin. Most compelling studies are cell-based or animal-based. Topical absorption of copper peptides is also debated, since peptide stability and skin penetration vary significantly by formulation.
The "not a supplement" framing is accurate and important. GHK-Cu used in injectable or compounded forms falls under a completely different regulatory category than a face cream. If someone is considering a product like GLOW that combines GHK-Cu, BPC-157, and TB-500, they should understand that the combination has not been clinically tested as a stack, the individual components have different evidence levels, and a licensed prescriber should be involved. The creator does say to seek professional support, which is the right call.
One more thing: the idea that skin "naturally deteriorates with age" and peptides can slow that process is broadly supported by research on collagen loss rates. But no peptide product has been approved by the FDA to treat aging skin as a disease. Framing these as optimization tools, not treatments, is the honest position.