What did @tash_body actually say?
She's injecting GHK-Cu, a copper peptide, into gluteal fat tissue every three days, sourced from a compounding pharmacy with a prescription. Her stated goals: reduce hair shedding, build collagen in skin and nails. She notes the injection site was "really, really sore, almost like a Charlie horse" for the first week or two, then improved. She reports a "huge decrease" in shedding after three to four months, while acknowledging skin results are harder to measure. The vial cost about $200 Canadian and lasts a couple of months.
Credit where it's due: she mentioned swabbing the vial, swabbing the injection site, using fatty tissue, measuring per prescription, and getting a prescription from a licensed provider. That's more safety awareness than most peptide content on this platform.
Does the science back this up?
Partially, and the gaps matter. GHK-Cu has real preclinical data behind it, but injectable systemic use for hair loss specifically is where the evidence gets thin fast.
GHK-Cu (glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine copper) is a naturally occurring peptide in human plasma. It has demonstrated wound-healing, anti-inflammatory, and collagen-stimulating activity in multiple in vitro and animal studies. Pickart and Margolina (2018, Symmetry) summarized decades of research showing GHK-Cu activates genes involved in tissue remodeling and antioxidant defense. Finkley et al. (1990, Journal of Dermatology) found topical GHK-Cu stimulated hair follicle enlargement in mice. A small human study by Uno and Kurata (1993) showed scalp application increased follicle size. But those were topical, not injectable.
For systemic injectable use in humans targeting hair loss, there are essentially no randomized controlled trials. The biological plausibility exists, but plausibility is not proof. Anyone telling you otherwise is extrapolating.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
She got the safety protocol mostly right. Sterile technique, prescription sourcing, measuring doses per provider instructions: these matter and she mentioned all of them. That's not nothing.
Where she oversteps is attributing a "huge decrease" in shedding specifically to GHK-Cu after three to four months. Hair shedding is highly variable. It fluctuates with stress, hormonal cycles, nutritional status, and seasonal patterns. Without a control period or objective hair counts, this is anecdotal attribution, not evidence.
She also says skin results are "harder to measure" and she's "just kinda having faith." That's actually the most honest thing in the video, and it applies equally to the hair claim she made with more confidence.
The soreness she describes, described as similar to a Charlie horse, is consistent with injection site reactions that can occur with copper compounds. This is a known tolerability issue, not a sign the peptide is "working." It's worth knowing before you inject.
What should you actually know?
GHK-Cu is a legitimate area of peptide research, but injectable systemic use is far ahead of the clinical evidence base. Most published human data involves topical application. The leap from "topical data looks promising" to "I should inject this systemically" is a significant one that deserves more scrutiny than a TikTok can provide.
Compounded peptides are not FDA-approved drugs. Compounding pharmacies operate under different regulatory frameworks than manufacturers of approved medications. Quality, sterility, and concentration can vary between compounders. That doesn't mean compounded peptides are automatically unsafe, but it means you are taking on real regulatory and quality uncertainty that prescription drugs don't carry.
Copper toxicity, while rare at peptide doses, is a real consideration with systemic copper administration. No one in this video mentions baseline copper levels or monitoring. If you're considering injectable GHK-Cu, that conversation should happen with your prescribing provider before you start, not after three months.
Hair loss has multiple causes, including androgenic alopecia, telogen effluvium, thyroid dysfunction, and iron deficiency. A peptide that might support follicle health doesn't address root causes. Three to four months of subjective improvement is not a treatment outcome.