What did @savannah_gamblin actually say?
Savannah is documenting what she calls an "ugly stage" after starting GHK-Cu, a copper peptide. Her claims are specific: the peptide causes skin breakouts as "shit gets pushed to the surface," triggers flaking from accelerated cell turnover, and produces new hairline fuzz that she compares, memorably, to Morty from Rick and Morty. She frames this as expected and temporary, and by the end of the video she's reporting improvement. To her credit, she's not selling anything here. She's just narrating her face.
The framing is sympathetic and relatable, but several of the mechanistic explanations she offers deserve scrutiny. "Gets worse before it gets better" is one of the most repeated phrases in skincare, and it does real work to normalize side effects that may or may not have a biological basis.
Does the science back this up?
Partially, but the mechanism she describes is muddier than she implies. GHK-Cu (glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine copper complex) has legitimate research behind it, particularly for skin remodeling. What's less supported is the specific "purging" narrative she applies to it.
A 2015 study by Pickart and Margolina in Cosmetics documented GHK-Cu's role in upregulating collagen synthesis, improving skin elasticity, and stimulating hair follicle activity. A 2018 review in the Journal of Aging Research confirmed GHK-Cu promotes wound healing and may stimulate hair follicle enlargement. The hair growth angle is real and has some mechanistic grounding, GHK-Cu appears to extend the anagen (growth) phase. So "new hair growth" at the hairline is biologically plausible.
The skin "purging" claim is trickier. True purging, where active ingredients accelerate cell turnover and bring clogged pores to the surface faster, is well-documented for retinoids and chemical exfoliants. GHK-Cu is not in that category. It does not meaningfully increase cell turnover in the same way. Breakouts during early use are more likely attributable to formulation ingredients, delivery vehicles, or coincidence than to copper peptide-driven purging.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
She got the hair growth piece mostly right. The "fuzz" she describes around the hairline is consistent with early-stage hair regrowth, and GHK-Cu's influence on follicle activity is one of the better-supported claims in the peptide literature. That part checks out.
Where she goes wrong is the skin purging framing. Calling it "all this shit getting pushed to the surface" implies a detox-style mechanism that isn't how GHK-Cu works. Copper peptides stimulate collagen, wound healing signals, and antioxidant enzymes, not the kind of rapid keratinocyte turnover that causes classic purging. If she broke out, it's worth asking what else changed in her routine or what the formulation contained.
The flaking claim is in a gray zone. GHK-Cu can support skin barrier renewal, but attributing visible flaking directly to "generating new skin cells" oversimplifies the biology. Flaking is more commonly a barrier disruption symptom than a sign of healthy turnover.
What should you actually know?
GHK-Cu is one of the more interesting peptides in cosmetic and topical research, but it is not magic and the "ugly stage" framing should not automatically validate every side effect as part of the process. That reasoning pattern, "it's getting worse so it must be working," can delay people from recognizing a genuine adverse reaction.
A few things worth knowing: GHK-Cu is used both topically and as an injectable peptide, and those are very different products with different evidence bases. Topical GHK-Cu serums have cosmetic research behind them. Injectable GHK-Cu is less studied in controlled human trials. Savannah does not specify her administration route, which matters.
If you are considering GHK-Cu through a telehealth platform, a provider should review your skin history, current medications, and whether topical or systemic use is appropriate for your situation. The "ugly stage" may be real for some people in some contexts. But it is not a guaranteed feature of the peptide, and it should not be used to explain away side effects without clinical input.