What did @howardbiohacks actually say?
The creator runs through three compounds in under a minute: GHK-Cu for skin, hair, and nails via collagen production; a second peptide described only as "the actual powerhouse" that fights appetite and raises metabolic rate; and something he calls "Lanitan" that gave him a visible tan in winter despite being naturally fair-skinned. He ends with the classic disclaimer: "this is for research purposes only," then immediately directs viewers to a bio link or his DMs. That last move is worth noting right away. Offering to sell research chemicals through DMs while calling them "research purposes only" is a legal shield, not a safety measure. It does not change what the compounds actually are or how they affect the human body.
Does the science back this up?
Partially, and it depends heavily on which compound we're talking about. GHK-Cu has the most legitimate research base of the three. The "red peptide" and "Lanitan" are much harder to defend from a safety standpoint.
On GHK-Cu: this copper-binding tripeptide does have real published research behind it. Pickart and Margolina (2018, Cosmetics) reviewed its role in stimulating collagen and glycosaminoglycan synthesis in skin fibroblasts. Anti-inflammatory and wound-healing effects have been documented in cell and animal studies. The skin and hair claims are not invented. What's missing is robust randomized controlled trial data in humans at scale, so the creator oversells the certainty.
On the "red peptide": context strongly suggests this is semaglutide or a GLP-1 analog, though the creator never names it. If it's a compounded GLP-1, appetite suppression is real and documented. If it's a research peptide sold as a "peptide," provenance and purity are serious unknowns.
On "Lanitan": this appears to be Melanotan II, a synthetic melanocortin agonist. Its tanning effects are real. Its risk profile, nausea, spontaneous erections, increased mole size, and unresolved questions about melanoma risk, is not mentioned once.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
Credit where it's due: the GHK-Cu skin and collagen claims are broadly consistent with the published literature. Pickart et al. and subsequent reviews do support a role in dermal repair. Calling it good for "skin health, hair health, nail health" is a reasonable lay summary, not a fabrication.
The metabolic and appetite claims for the unnamed "red peptide" are not wrong on their face, but presenting an unnamed injectable compound as something to casually pick up via DM is irresponsible framing regardless of the research disclaimer.
The Melanotan II omission is the biggest problem here. Saying "I'm pretty freaking dark after using it a couple times" and linking to a purchase source without mentioning the documented side effect profile is a meaningful failure of disclosure. The European Medicines Agency has flagged Melanotan II products for cardiovascular and dermatological risks. A 2009 case series in the BMJ documented serious adverse events. None of that appears in this video.
- GHK-Cu collagen claims: mostly accurate within cell and animal study limits
- Appetite and metabolic rate claims: plausible but applied to an unnamed compound with no context
- Melanotan II tanning claim: accurate but stripped of all safety context
What should you actually know?
Three things matter here that the video glosses over entirely.
First, "research purposes only" does not make an unapproved injectable compound safe for self-administration. It is a legal disclaimer, not a pharmacological one. None of these compounds, sold outside a regulated pharmacy, come with verified purity, sterility, or accurate concentration labeling.
Second, Melanotan II is not approved by the FDA or EMA for any indication. It stimulates melanocortin receptors systemwide, not just in skin. That systemic activity is exactly why the side effect profile exists. Litt and Shear's drug reaction handbook and multiple case reports describe priapism, hypertension, and melanocytic changes. Framing this as a casual "it works" tanning hack to 11,000 viewers is genuinely concerning.
Third, the creator's DM sales model sits in a regulatory gray zone that the FTC and FDA have both been scrutinizing more closely since 2022. If someone experiences an adverse event after following this advice, there is no prescriber of record, no informed consent process, and no recourse. That context belongs in the video. It is not there.