What did @fluxaxe actually say?
Honestly, there is not much to work with here. The transcript is almost entirely inaudible or corrupted, giving us only a fragment: "8 weeks of using this case you pep on it. So do it anyways." The caption fills in the gaps a little, referencing GHK-Cu, a copper peptide, and mentioning that weeks 5 through 7 updates were skipped. So the implied claim is that eight weeks of GHK-Cu use produced some kind of visible result worth documenting, a "glow up" in TikTok terms. That is the claim we can evaluate.
The creator does not appear to make strong therapeutic promises. The tone, what we can reconstruct of it, is casual and self-directed. That is worth noting. They are not selling anything or citing studies. They are just logging a personal experiment, which is a different category of claim than a wellness influencer reciting mechanism-of-action talking points.
Does the science back this up?
GHK-Cu has more legitimate research behind it than most peptides trending on TikTok, but that bar is low, and the evidence still has real limits. The short answer: topical GHK-Cu shows plausible skin benefits in early studies; systemic use is a different and murkier story.
Pickart and Margolina (2018, Cosmetics) summarized decades of work showing GHK-Cu stimulates collagen synthesis, promotes antioxidant activity, and may support wound repair in cell and animal models. A study by Leyden et al. (2018) found topical copper peptide formulations improved fine lines compared to vehicle controls in a small randomized trial. These are real signals, not nothing.
The problem is that most of the mechanistic data comes from in vitro or animal studies. Human randomized controlled trial data on GHK-Cu specifically is thin. The jump from "this does interesting things in a petri dish" to "eight weeks changed my skin" is a leap the current evidence does not fully support, even if it does not fully contradict it either.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
Without a clear transcript, it is hard to assign specific errors. What we can evaluate is the framing. The creator says "do it anyways," which suggests they are recommending self-experimentation without waiting for certainty. That is a reasonable personal philosophy, but it glosses over some real considerations.
GHK-Cu is generally regarded as low-risk topically, with a favorable safety profile in the literature. Systemic administration via injection is a different situation. The regulatory status of injectable GHK-Cu is not equivalent to topical formulations, and anyone using compounded injectable peptides should be doing so under medical supervision, not because a TikTok video told them it worked after eight weeks.
On the positive side, the creator is not claiming GHK-Cu cured a disease, reversed aging definitively, or that everyone will get their result. The honest "I skipped some weeks" disclosure is actually more transparent than most peptide content on this platform. They are not pretending this was a controlled experiment.
What should you actually know?
GHK-Cu is one of the more researched peptides in the skin and wound-healing space, but researched does not mean proven for every application being marketed. Topical use has the strongest evidence base. Injectable use, which some biohackers are documenting online, operates in a much grayer regulatory and safety zone.
If you are considering GHK-Cu for cosmetic or recovery reasons, the topical route has the most human data and the lowest risk profile. Pickart (2015, Journal of Aging Science) noted that GHK-Cu concentrations decline with age, which is part of the rationale for supplementation, but that rationale has not translated into robust clinical outcomes data yet.
The "glow up" hashtag also matters here. Subjective skin appearance after eight weeks is influenced by sleep, hydration, diet, stress, lighting in videos, and camera settings, not just any single compound. Without controls, no single person's before-and-after is evidence of anything except that person's experience on that particular compound plus everything else happening in their life.
Bottom line
This video is not dangerous misinformation. It is an anecdotal self-experiment with a peptide that has plausible but limited human evidence behind it. The science on GHK-Cu is genuinely interesting, particularly for skin applications. But "interesting" and "proven" are not the same thing, and eight weeks of personal use with no controls tells us essentially nothing about whether GHK-Cu caused any changes the creator observed.
If you are curious about copper peptides, talk to a provider who can evaluate your specific situation. Do not dose based on TikTok timelines.