Copper peptides for wrinkles: what TikTok gets right and wrong

What did @myskin_gt actually say?

Honestly, this one is tough to fact-check cleanly. The transcript is largely unintelligible, a mix of Spanish fragments and phonetic approximations that don't form coherent sentences. What we can piece together is a promotion of The Ordinary's Buffet and Buffet + Copper Peptides 1% products, with apparent claims that they treat wrinkles ("arrugas"), skin laxity ("flaccidés"), and fine lines ("lineas finas"), and that these products are among the best peptide options on the market. The creator seems to frame this as a multi-tasking product that addresses multiple skin concerns simultaneously. That's the working interpretation. If that's wrong, the transcript itself is the problem, not the fact-check.

Does the science back this up?

Partially, and with real caveats. GHK-Cu, the copper peptide in question, has a reasonably decent body of supporting evidence for skin applications, but most of it comes from in vitro studies or small trials, not large randomized controlled trials.

Pickart and Margolina (2018, Cosmetics) reviewed decades of GHK-Cu research and found evidence for collagen synthesis stimulation, antioxidant activity, and wound repair signaling at the cellular level. A small clinical trial by Leyden et al. (2009, Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology) found measurable improvements in fine lines and skin density with topical copper peptide use over 12 weeks. So the basic premise, that GHK-Cu can support skin structure, is not fabricated.

The Buffet serum also contains argireline, matrixyl, and various amino acids. Matrixyl (palmitoyl pentapeptide-4) has its own supporting data. Robinson et al. (2005, International Journal of Cosmetic Science) showed a reduction in wrinkle depth with consistent use. Stacking these in one formula isn't inherently a problem, though interaction effects aren't well studied.

What did they get wrong (or right)?

What they likely got right: GHK-Cu does have a plausible mechanism for addressing fine lines and skin firmness over time with consistent use. The Ordinary is also a legitimate, widely studied consumer brand, not a random supplement company, so the product itself isn't snake oil.

What's missing, and this matters: topical copper peptides are not a clinical treatment for skin laxity. "Flaccidés" or significant sagging is a structural issue involving the dermis and underlying tissues. A topical peptide serum applied to the surface will not reverse significant skin laxity. That's a misalignment between what cosmetic products can do and what listeners may hear. If this video implies the product is equivalent to a clinical anti-aging intervention, that's overselling the data.

There's also no acknowledgment that GHK-Cu can conflict with vitamin C or certain acids when layered, a real formulation consideration that gets skipped in short-form content like this.

What should you actually know?

Topical GHK-Cu is one of the better-studied cosmetic peptides. That's a real distinction worth making. Most peptides in skincare have weak or no human trial data. GHK-Cu at least has mechanistic plausibility and some small-scale clinical backing. But "some evidence" is not the same as "proven treatment."

For everyday skincare, a product like The Ordinary Buffet + Copper Peptides 1% is a reasonable addition to a routine that already includes sunscreen and a retinoid, the two interventions with the strongest evidence base for photoaging. It should not replace those. And anyone expecting a serum to address significant skin laxity or deep wrinkles is setting themselves up for disappointment. Manage expectations accordingly.

If you're exploring peptides for skin health in a clinical context, GHK-Cu injectables exist in a completely separate regulatory and evidence category from a topical consumer product. Do not conflate the two based on shared ingredient names.