Emily100 was banned because of the following reasons:
1. She said she did not understand my arguments but she also was not interested in them, preferring to believe Dr. Pickart instead of me, strongly suggesting that I was basically libelling him.
2. She suggested that our analysis of Pickarts' fake before-and-after pictures was bogus, disinformation. Without offering an alternate explanation or refuting our arguments.
3. Then she went on to strongly endorse Dr. Pickart's products, even though our (understandable?) rule is that promoting competing products here is not allowed. Especially not when the competitor has just been exposed as a scammer. Don't tell me I'm a liar. Just don't. Not on my own forum.
4. Various rude remarks directed towards you, and towards me. It is a well-known phenomenon on forums that the most valuable contributors such as yourself face vehement opposition from certain other discussion participants. We have chosen to have a zero-tolerance policy towards such meta-critiscism. (criticism against the person and character and intentions and ulterior motives and behavior and prolificness and topic-selection of a poster, not against the actual content of the postings). We ban spammers and since yesterday we ban rude people who provide no substance. It is an act of extreme disrespect to say that you do not understand the argument, that you are not interested in the argument, but that you prefer to believe that the site owner is the scammer, and not Dr. Pickart in this case. She even said that she did not like me any more, and that she would not post here any more, and that I should delete her postings. I do not want her postings to be deleted, because they document her increasingly rude remarks over the course of this thread. To avoid that she deletes her own postings and then accuse me of rudeness on other forums without us having the ability to defend ourselves, I blocked her from accessing her own posts.
I know that emily100 made nice remarks about me in the past but I won't tolerate suggestions that I am a slanderer, that I lie and mislead, that I cause customers financial damage out of negligence, that I am a bad forum moderator etc. Not on my own forum.
No amount of flattery will make me tolerate such insults. This forum is provided as a service to whomever is seeking answers to questions. It is not a platform for Sarah-bashing. Zero tolerance for anyone attacking other forum members, zero tolerance for spammers and zero tolerance for rudeness and accusations of malfeasance towards myself. If emily wants to post again, she can create another account, it is trivial. She's banned to prevent her from deleting or editing her offending postings.
I have just started reading several
long threads about Dr. Pickart's copper products. It seems that the more informed the people are, the more sceptical they are of his claims. Some report skin damage. Others report contradictions, false statements and other irregularities. A lot of critiscism towards the "research". Let Pickart show the original image files if he can be bothered. And let him explain how he can turn weed killer into gold. A quote from that thread:
"I have tried the SkinBio CP Serum (regular strength) and it was a disaster for me!" "Honestly, I never thought that a skin care product could do this to someone's skin." and
"i only wish my experience with cps was as pure and simple as throwing the little green bottle away along with my $40. instead, my skin aged 10+ years in six months"A forum poster on that Essential Day Spa thread says that when he asked Pickart to clarify about the danger of free copper in his 2nd generation products, he answered that he does not want to discuss it with laypeople.
"I too find Dr. P to be full of contradictions. I've been to their forum a few times & his asnwers to questions are short & rude IMHO. I have also noticed a defitinite double-standard. He trashes every other skin care line out there & says not to use anything that is not supported by placebo-controlled, double blind, peer reviewed studies, but then his products don't meet those criteria either."
To sum up my opinion on copper peptides: GHK-Cu has at least some documented beneficial effect on skin remodeling in case of healing scars. And on collagen production in general. But Pickart's "second generation skin remodeling copper peptides" are a scam. Buy his 1st generation line if you like. Not the 2nd- they are dangerous and they aren't GHK-Cu. On other forums, similar discussions about Pichart's latest copper products ignited a firestorm of ad-hominems. It seems the topic of copper peptides is a passionate one, almost like religious fundamentalism, Pickart being the main deity. As I said, we want to avoid that - we ban people who start insulting others.
Here's what experts have to say about Pickart's second gen copper products:
"Dear Heather,
Thank you for your email. I can understand your frustration & confusion in
regard to copper peptides. Due to patent restrictions, open research on
this ingredient until recently has been somewhat restricted. We use the
GHK-Cu (Gly-His-Lys+Cu2) in our Bio-Copper Serum due to the fact that this
is the only copper peptide complex that has published research to support
its safety & efficacy. To be frank, it is the belief of our chief
scientist that the so called “second generation” copper peptides or copper
chloride+hydrolyzed soy protein is not a real copper peptide, but a copper
and protein complex. Unlike GHK-Cu, this copper complex is not naturally
found in the body. Skin cells have no receptors to accept this molecule.
Therefore, it is broken down into free copper ions and protein fragments
which apparently have little to no benefit for skin.
Until more research is done on the copper/soy digest complex, I would not
recommend its use to any of our customers. This would be the case even if
we did not produce a GHK-Cu product. Copper is a trace metal that can
trigger edema, contact dermatitis, pro-oxidation by hydroxyl radicals &
DNA damage if not bound to a particular peptide in a specific, controlled
sequence. Copper complexes other than those naturally found in the body
(such as GHK-Cu) have been found to promote double-strand DNA damage,
dependent on their geometric structures and types of ligands. This is why
we have concerns with the copper chloride/hydrolyzed soy protein material.
Please note that the INCI ingredient name for this material denotes that
it is not an actual peptide, but a combination of two different
ingredients (copper and protein). This view is also shared by the Procyte
Corporation, which for years held the patent to GHK-Cu and sponsored &
published many of the studies on the use & safety of GHK-Cu on skin.
As for studies, there are published studies on GHK-Cu and wound healing,
collagen synthesis & inhibition of scar tissue formation. We are currently
doing a pilot study investigating the use of GHK-Cu on intact, aging skin.
We do not how far this study will go – if the pilot study stirs up enough
interest that a third party wishes to undertake more research on this
topic, then we will be thrilled. The problem that we face as a
manufacturer is that any independent studies that we carry out, even if
published & peer reviewed, will be criticized and doubted, since we are
also selling this material. For credible research to ensue on this
subject, a third party would have to find this topic deserving enough to
take over the research on their own, devise & carry out a study & report
their findings. With cures for diseases such as cancer and AIDS still
evading the scientific & medical community, I do not know that a
researcher would find the use of copper peptides on wrinkles a worthy
endeavor, and would spend the time acquiring funding for such a study that
would provide no long term benefit in their eyes. And if we were to
sponsor the study, as has been done in the past by other cosmetic
manufacturers, then the findings again would be constantly questioned &
dismissed as purchased research.
I understand your desire to compare GHK-Cu with the “second generation”
copper/soy protein complex, however we believe that such a comparison is
impossible for a few reasons. Firstly, the two materials are completely
different – maybe not apples & oranges, but…let’s say oranges &
grapefruits. One material is a true copper peptide, and the other is a
combination of copper and soy protein. Secondly, there is no publically
available research on the copper/soy protein material. The firm that holds
the patent on this material cites only research done on GHK-Cu and will
not release any studies (if they exist) on the copper/soy complex for
comparison. This makes it impossible for me to answer your question. I’m
not trying to be evasive, but I only deal with facts, and I do not have
enough information on the copper/soy material to make an informed argument
other than to again state that it is the belief of our scientists that
random mixtures of copper and proteins should be avoided and that the only
safe & effective copper protein complex that can or should be applied to
skin is GHK-Cu (Gly-His-Lys+Cu2).
I hope that I was able to answer some of your questions. Thank you again
for contacting Pure Skin Formulations."
There you have it. Dr. Pickart's 2nd generation SRCP's can cause cancer as well as skin damage. There is no GHK-Cu in it at all. There is no evidence that it works. The before-and-after pictures are fake. The promises are commercial hype.
Some more "testimonials" on 2nd gen SRCP's:
"The premature ageing effect I personally experienced happened only when I used the copper, and it occured very quickly. It stopped once I discontinued the copper, and it took me coming up to 2 years to get my skin 95% back to normal again (ie. not prematurely aged)."
"So, as someone who saw first hand the havoc this stuff can wreak on your skin, I believe you 100%. I was shocked that a cosmetic could do this to someone!"
