What did @drasusanafreire actually say?
Here is the honest problem with this fact-check: the audio transcript provided is incoherent and appears to be a failed auto-transcription of a Portuguese-language video. The actual content cannot be reliably extracted from lines like "all of us are also brothers and brothers and sisters" or "several glass of milk." What we can work with is the caption, which is coherent, specific, and actually quite careful.
The caption describes GHK-Cu as "a promising active in dermatology," a copper-bound peptide "studied for decades" with topical benefits for "skin regeneration, collagen stimulation, and antioxidant action." Critically, the caption then cuts off mid-sentence on a warning: "However, extrapolation for injectable use is not re" — which suggests the creator was about to push back on injection use. That incomplete sentence is doing more responsible work than most peptide content on Instagram.
Does the science back this up?
On the topical side, yes, the evidence is real, though not overwhelming. GHK-Cu deserves more credit than it gets in mainstream dermatology, and less than the optimization community gives it.
Loren Pickart, who first isolated GHK in human plasma in 1973, spent decades characterizing its biological activity. More recent work has confirmed meaningful effects. A 2009 study by Finkley et al. in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology found topical GHK-Cu improved skin laxity, density, and reduced fine lines in a double-blind trial. Badenhorst et al. (2016, Wound Repair and Regeneration) confirmed GHK-Cu accelerates wound healing and collagen synthesis in vitro and in animal models. The antioxidant claim is supported by Pickart and Margolina (2018, Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity), who documented GHK-Cu's role in upregulating antioxidant genes including superoxide dismutase.
The injectable extrapolation is where the science gets genuinely thin. There are no robust human clinical trials on injected GHK-Cu. Animal pharmacokinetics are not transferable to human dosing without controlled studies.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
Based on the caption, @drasusanafreire got the topical science directionally right, and appears to have been about to flag the injection problem before the caption cut off. That is more than most creators do with this compound.
What is missing from the caption framing is any acknowledgment that even the topical evidence has limits. Most of the stronger studies are in vitro or animal-based. The human trials that exist are small, often industry-funded, and rarely replicated. Calling GHK-Cu "studied for decades" is accurate but can imply a more settled evidence base than actually exists.
The phrase "promising active" is fair. But Instagram's algorithm rewards confidence, and even a careful dermatologist's caption can get shared into communities where "promising" becomes "proven." The creator cannot fully control that, but it is worth naming.
On the injection question specifically: without seeing the full video, we cannot evaluate what the creator said. The caption hint suggests skepticism, which would be the correct clinical position given the current evidence gap.
What should you actually know?
GHK-Cu is a legitimate area of dermatological research. It is not snake oil. But the evidence hierarchy matters here. In vitro studies showing collagen gene upregulation do not automatically translate to wrinkle reversal in humans. Animal wound healing models do not automatically translate to injectable anti-aging protocols.
For topical use in cosmetic formulations, GHK-Cu has a reasonable evidence base, particularly for wound healing support and as a cosmetic ingredient. Regulatory bodies in the US and EU permit it in topical cosmetics. For injectable use, there is no approved formulation, no established safety profile in humans, and no clinical trial data supporting efficacy. Compounded injectable GHK-Cu is not equivalent to a studied pharmaceutical product. Anyone offering injectable GHK-Cu protocols is working well outside the evidence base.
The antioxidant mechanism is biologically plausible and partially supported, but "antioxidant" has become a marketing term that carries more weight in consumer contexts than in clinical ones. Mechanism is not outcome.
The bottom line on GHK-Cu content
Peptide content on social media tends to run two directions: uncritical hype or blanket dismissal. Based on the caption alone, @drasusanafreire appears to be trying to occupy a more responsible middle ground. The topical claims in the caption are defensible. The incomplete sentence warning against injectable extrapolation suggests clinical judgment was being exercised. That deserves credit.
What the broader audience should take away is this: topical GHK-Cu in regulated cosmetic products has a plausible mechanism and some human evidence. Injectable GHK-Cu has neither a regulatory approval pathway nor the clinical trial data to justify routine use. "Studied for decades" does not mean "proven safe and effective at any route of administration."