What did @mouniratalks actually say?
Honestly, the auto-generated transcript here is nearly useless. The captions appear to be a garbled mistranslation, likely from French, producing word salad like "Daddy's parents will work a small amount of time" and "make a collage of the political party." What we can actually evaluate comes from the video caption itself, which describes a preparation protocol for GHK-Cu 50mg using bacteriostatic water (BAC water), a 3ml syringe, needles, and alcohol swabs.
The hashtags confirm the intent: #ghkcupeptide, #glassskin, #glowskin, #over40. This is a skin-focused peptide injection tutorial aimed at an anti-aging audience. The creator appears to be demonstrating how to reconstitute and inject GHK-Cu at home for cosmetic skin improvement. That is the claim we can fact-check. And there is a lot to unpack there.
Does the science back this up?
The short answer: GHK-Cu has real and interesting biological activity, but the evidence for injected GHK-Cu specifically for skin aesthetics in humans is thin. Most credible data comes from in vitro studies and topical formulation research, not injectable human trials.
GHK-Cu (glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine copper) is a naturally occurring copper peptide first isolated by Loren Pickart in the 1970s. It has demonstrated wound-healing, anti-inflammatory, and collagen-stimulating properties in cell culture studies. Pickart et al. (2015, Journal of Aging Science) reviewed decades of data showing GHK-Cu upregulates collagen, elastin, and glycosaminoglycan synthesis in fibroblasts. That part is well-supported.
However, most human studies involve topical application. A double-blind RCT by Leyden et al. (2018, Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology) found GHK-Cu-containing creams improved skin laxity and fine lines. Translating that to subcutaneous injection for "glass skin" is a significant leap that lacks direct clinical trial support.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
Right: GHK-Cu does have a legitimate scientific basis for skin biology. It is not pseudoscience. Copper peptides are studied seriously by researchers interested in wound healing and dermal regeneration. The creator is at least working with a compound that has plausible mechanisms.
Wrong, or at least unsupported: the assumption that injecting GHK-Cu produces better cosmetic skin results than topical application. There is no published human RCT comparing subcutaneous GHK-Cu injection to topical GHK-Cu for aesthetic skin outcomes. The "results are very good" implied in the caption is anecdote, not evidence.
Also concerning: this is a home injection tutorial. Subcutaneous peptide injection carries real risks including infection, lipodystrophy at injection sites, and improper reconstitution leading to contamination. BAC water reconstitution requires sterile technique. Without specifying training or medical supervision, this content normalizes practices that carry genuine harm potential. That is worth saying plainly.
What should you actually know?
GHK-Cu is not approved by the FDA as a drug for any indication. Compounded injectable GHK-Cu exists in a regulatory gray area. It is not equivalent to any approved pharmaceutical product, and no compounded peptide should be treated as such.
The skin-improvement mechanisms attributed to GHK-Cu, including collagen stimulation and antioxidant activity, are biologically plausible. Pickart and Margolina (2018, Biomolecules) published a review of GHK-Cu's role in activating over 4,000 human genes involved in tissue remodeling. That is genuinely interesting science. But "interesting science" and "proven cosmetic treatment via home injection" are very different things.
If you are considering GHK-Cu for skin health, topical formulations have more direct human evidence and a substantially safer administration profile. Anyone exploring injectable peptides for any purpose should do so under the supervision of a licensed medical provider who can assess individual risk, not based on a TikTok tutorial with 94,000 views.