Copper peptides

[SarahVaughter]

Pickart commented on this thread:

Who is the "chemist"? Does he have a real name? Did he go to a real school? Has he published any papers on copper peptide chemistry? If he is that confident about his statements he certainly can reveal his name and background. He then can come to Seattle and explain is his ideas in a court of law.

I have a BA degree in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Minnesota and a PhD in Biochemistry from the University of California at San Francisco.

I seriously doubt this "chemist" is real. Copper peptides are prepared by a very simple procedure. A copper salt is dissolved in water. An adequate amount of peptides is added to the solution to bind the copper ions. The pH of the mixture is raised to pH 7 and the copper peptides are formed. Copper ions cannot stay in solution as the pH is raised. If there are no peptides to bind the copper ion, then the copper ions form copper hydroxide which precipitates from the solution. The binding affinity of small peptides for copper 2+ ion is about 10exp(+9). This means that for each billion molecules of copper-peptide, there is 1 free copper ion.

A grade school student, with proper direction, could make copper peptides in about 10 minutes.

........................................

The safety tests on the 2nd generation copper peptides were published.

In vivo nickel contact dermatitis: human model for topical therapeutics. Zhai, Chang, Singh, and Maibach (University of California, San Francisco, USA) Contact Dermatitis Vol. 40, pp. 205-208, 1999

Stripped skin model to predict irritation potential of topical agents in vivo in man. Zhai, Poblete, and Maibach (University of California, San Francisco, USA) International Journal of Dermatology, Volume 37, pages 386-389, 1998

Sodium lauryl sulfate damaged skin in vivo in man: a water barrier repair model. Zhai, Leow, and Maibach (University of California, San Francisco, USA) Skin Research and Technology, Volume 4, pages 24-27, 1998

Human barrier recovery after acute acetone perturbation: an irritant dermatitis model. Zhai, Leow, and Maibach (University of California, San Francisco, USA) Clinical and Experimental Dermatology, Volume 23, pages 11-13, 1998

Howard Maibach is considered the top expert on the safety of skin products in the world and has published about 2,400 papers and books.

......................

Further safe tests on second generation copper peptides were performed at the Shanghai Medical University, a top medical school in China, and the testing facility of the Shanghai Municipal Government. The 2nd generation copper peptides were found to be non-toxic, non-carcinogenic, non-poisonous, and non-allergic.

...................

The methods of making such peptides are detailed in:

Pickart US Patent 5,382,431 Tissue protective and regenerative compositions US Patent 5,554,375 Tissue protective and regenerative compositions US Patent 5,698,184 Compositions and methods for skin tanning and protection US Patent 5,888,522 Tissue protective and regenerative compositions.

The basic method of making copper peptides is also in:

Tripeptide in human serum which prolongs survival of normal liver cells and stimulates growth in neoplastic liver. Pickart and Thaler (University of California, San Francisco, USA) Nature New Biol 1973 May 16;243(124):85-7

Growth modulating tripeptide (glycylhistidyllysine): association with copper and iron in plasma, and stimulation of adhesiveness and growth of hepatoma cells in culture by tripeptide-metal ion complexes. Pickart and Thaler (University of California, San Francisco, USA) J Cell Physiol 1980, 102(2):129-39

Growth modulating plasma tripeptide may function by facilitating copper uptake into cells. Pickart, Freedman, Loker, Peisach, Perkins, Stenkamp and Weinstein Nature 1980, 288, 715-7

...............

In over 10 years of clients using our 2nd generation copper peptides, we have had zero claims for damage on our liability insurance.

[kakalakingma]

My commentary plus other information regarding your #61 post above:

You wrote:

“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…

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. "

My response:

I know about this website and its forum before. This forum is a lot more built, so of course, more information has been shared. I am interested in reading the entire thread. But in regard to the quote you provide here, I will say this: it is a complaint that can be made by anyone. This person, doodlebug, has visual no evidence to back up his or her claim, thus, leaving only partial to no credibility. This person even states that s/he has no experience in science. Plus, even if s/he does provide a picture, it must go through further analysis to test its authenticity. Or, even if the picture is real, there are a plethora of other things to consider: what is s/he using in conjunction with the CP serum that may have caused a bad reaction or accumulated reaction? Perhaps his or her skin is too sensitive to the strength of CP serum. Dr. Pickart does say that for those with sensitive skin, they should start with GHK-Cu Serum or Cream and stay there OR acclimate to SRCP. The time of acclimation I would have to speculate that it is on an individual basis.

In regard to the second quote, I will say this: this is partially false. I have already provided studies done on the efficacy of his products on skin irritation that is in vivo and placebo-controlled. Granted, I haven’t seen “double-blind” yet. I need to double-check on that, though. Plus, in regards to GHK-Cu research, there are well-designed studies reinforcing its safety and efficacy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You quoted Dr. Torodov:

"Free copper promotes free radical damage and collagen breakdown leading to accelerated skin aging".

My response:

I was disturbed by that statement, too, Sarah! I tried to look in his forum and I see no research substantiation on that claim. I am very interested to see he post up independent publication or testing on copper chloride breaking into free copper ions in Dr. Pickart’s present product formulation or in the present with hydrolyzed soy proteins. Just a speculation on my part, could it be that the hydrolyzed soy proteins have an affinity for copper and prevents free copper ions from causing free radical damage? And just to be clear: it’s copper chloride not free copper ions that are present in his products. I am not aware of any testing or research showing that copper chloride can easily break down into free copper ions… then again… under what condition? With which chemicals? Also, which ion form of copper is dangerous? Cu(I) or Cu(II)? Copper chloride is CuCl2. I would love to see the research to this!!!

So… I ask Dr. Pickart’s team myself. Cassia sent my concern to Dr. Pickart and he replied. His reply consists of his opinion and counter-argument:

“In part, here is Dr. Pickart's reply to those who ask:

"We are often asked about assertions from a Dr. Todorov. He says that copper peptides, especially our 2nd generation peptides, cause skin damage and inflammation by increasing skin oxidation. Todorov's assertions are ignorant and not supported by clinical studies or tests in animals and humans.

Todorov is really an advertising salesman who sells advertising for his website. He called me once in the past on our Toll Free 800 line and tried to get me to buy ads on his website. I declined, then he started attacking our products.

We do not put ads on "information" websites. It is too much like buying Mafia Fire Insurance. We tried this at times on certain websites and always received great comments on our products. But as the website fees increased and we dropped using such sites, then we would receive nothing but negative reviews.

Todorov has a website smartskincare.com. Todorov claims to have many academic degrees (BS, MS, PhD, plus an additional degree in nutrition) but does not say when they were and where they granted, so we cannot check to see if they are real. Todorov passes himself off as a scientist who performed research on but never seems to have published papers in reviewed journals on skin or cell biology.

If he has data to support his contentions, then he should publish the findings in scientific journals. He also claims to be an expert on skin care and cell growth but I have working this area for 47 years and never heard of him. None of my friends in cell biology and dermatology have every heard of him. A search of Google for "german todorov" brings up nothing of value. A search of PubMed for published papers for "todorov g" also brings up nothing pertinent. Real scientists give talks, publish papers and file patents . He has his name on a 1992 paper of the actions of tumor promoters on cultured fibroblasts which he claims make him and expert on skin. But this is a cancer research paper and not about skin or dermatology.

The effects of copper peptides have been studied in over 1,000 people have been in various types of studies. Because the SRCPs were originally intended for clinical use, there were a great number of safety studies in animals and humans. Even at high SRCP concentrations, no researcher ever reported skin irritation or inhibition of skin repair.

Todorov has said that the copper complexes complexes oxidize tissue, but if this happened, then there would have been tissue inflammation observed in the studies. There are zero reports of skin damage from the academic studies.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, there are people talking about Dr. Torodov on Dr. Pickart’s Skin Biology forum, and vice vera. On Dr. Torodov forum, a poster allegedly pasted what Dr. Pickart’s wrote in an email regarding Dr. Torodov on the topical of free copper radical damage:

“Copper-peptide oxidations were never observed on skin in any study in humans or animals. Even at copper levels that exist in Super Cop 2X. Todorov does not understand skin remodeling and confuses it with skin oxidations. Skin remodeling removes the older, damaged skin and proteins and replaces them with new skin cells and proteins. Too fast a pace on skin remodeling can remove older, hardened skin before the new skin and new protein is rebuilt and this can produce a temporary skin laxity but this always tightens later. But this is a tightly controlled regenerative process and not a biological oxidation. I will be giving a talk on skin remodeling at The 1st International Symposium on Wound Healing and Technology (WHAT I) in August. Todorov should attend so he understands what he is writing about.

But if what Todorov says is true, he should publish his studies in reviewed science journals. The world awaits his article.”  (LINK)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the email reply Cassia sent to me, she provided three thread from Dr. Pickart’s forum on his reply to Dr. Torodov

Thread 1

Thread 2

Thread 3

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pure Skin Formulation (PSF) is a skin care company, not an independent testing company that does tests for other companies’ products. If I am wrong, I would love to see some credentials on their part. From the letter, PSF says,

“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.”

This is true and I am glad to hear this company is honest about that. But remember Dr. Pickart do have independent researchers testing his SRCP and GHK-Cu, perhaps not all of the studies, but some studies are better than none. Also, Dr. Pickart and his team agrees that the majority of the research has been done on GHK-Cu, he is not dishonest on that note.

[kakalakingma]

My commentary first:

I have research 5 independents studies on free copper ions and I found out something interesting. All five studies says that Cu(II)  alone do NOT induce DNA damage, only in combination with other chemical, especially hydrogen peroxide. Each study uses a variety of tests to examine whether or not copper (II) ion cause DNA damage. I think 5 articles mean five times the reinforcement of credibility. There are so many articles I have to read, but I don't want to take days to read. Also, remember that copper chloride is CuCl2 in Dr. Pickart’s product, so even if it breaks down, it will be Cu(II), which should not cause DNA damage. And there is no H2O2 in his SRCP products. I think Dr. Torodov and the biochemist from PSF should have been specific about which copper ion generate free radical damage because Cu(II) surely does not according to these independent peer-reviewed published studies. I have a bad feeling the whole free copper ion issue is based on misinterpretation or a way to attack Pickart on the assumption that probably people will take their credentials for granted and decide not to look at the research themselves? Hmm… I have! Unless someone find me a contradicting research, I am sticking to what I found myself. Plus, Dr. Pickart was not a participant in this study, either. There is no acknowledgment that he plays a financial role for this study. If someone finds it, then tell me please.

Another important thing:

I am not chemist or a doctor (yet). I do like to do research and I research what I can. Also, I never say I know everything about chemistry, biology, dermatology, biochemistry or whatever; I just happen to be a skin care junkie and I don't mind sharing information. These published scientific articles are VERY scientific and esoteric about biology and chemistry or biochemistry. But no denying in reading statement like "Cu(II) alone do not cause DNA damage" that is pretty darn clear cut to me, especially when study after study reinforce it's credibility. Just saying. Oh, and sorry for not posting in a day or so. I have gathering information. lololololol

Also, I would like to apologize in advance if I misinterpret anything from the quotes I have provided. But I am fairly sure it is clear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STUDY 1

Hydroxyl free radical is not the main active species in site-specific DNA damage induced by copper (II) ion and hydrogen peroxide.

I have partially pasted the result section (you can read the rest with the link):

“   Cleavages of "'P-labeled DNA Fragments Induced by Cu(II) plus H2O2—The extent of DNA damage was estimated by gel electrophoretic analysis. Fig. 1 shows the autoradiogram of double-stranded DNA fragments treated with Cu(II) plus H202. Oligonucleotides were clearly detected on the autoradiogram as a result of Cu(II) plus hydrogen peroxide-induced DNA cleavage. Cu(II) or H2O, alone caused no DNA damage. The cleavage increased with time (Fig. 1) and with the concentration of H2O2 (data not shown). The cleavage without piperidine treatment suggests the breakages of deoxyribose phosphate backbone by active species (Fig.1 B).T he increased amount of oligonucleotides with piperidine treatment (Fig.1A) suggests that the base alterations and/or liberations were induced by Cu(1I) plus H202.

Effects of Concentration of Bathocuproine on DNA Damage Induced by Cu(II) plus H202—Fig. 2 shows the effects of the bathocuproine concentration on DNA damage induced by Cu(II) plus H202. When 40 µM bathocuproine was added to the reaction solution containing 20 µM Cu(II), DNA damage was completely inhibited. Since bathocuproine is a specific chelating agent for Cu(I), Cu(I) is considered to participate in DNA damage. When DTPA in a concentration a t least 20 µM was added to the reaction solution containin2g0 µM Cu(II), DNA cleavage was inhibited (data not shown). The results suggest that Cu(II) binds to DNA and reacts with H2O2, resulting in DNA damage.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STUDY 2

Free-radical generation by copper ions and hydrogen peroxide Stimulation by Hepes buffer.

The study provided the reaction for the formation for radical:

“CU(2+) + H202 – Cu(+) + HO2 • + H(+)

The Cu(+) ions thus generated are able to generate OH• via reaction (2).

   In the body free copper ions are not normally available but are bound tightely to serum albumin or incorporated into caeruloplasmin. The tendency of copper ions to bind readily to amino groups of proteins has often made it appear that proteins will thus prevent copper-ion-dependent OH•  formation. Actually, the OH• generation is not prevented but rather localized to the site of binding of the copper ions, and the protein molecule itself will be damaged by the OH• radicals (Gutteridge & Wilkins, 1983; Hunt et al., 1988)….

In this paper we have studied the Cu2+/H202-dependent generation of chemiluminescence (CL), deoxyribose degradation and benzoate hydroxylation, which, used in conjunction, can be taken as markers of OH• production…”

“RESULTS

(1) Hepes-enhanced CL generated by Cu2+/H202

With the standard conditions of 5 mM-H202, 0.5 mMCuSO4 and 10 mM-phosphate buffer, the presence of Hepes was an absolute requirement for the generation of a CL response, but its effect was biphasic (Fig. 1). Below 0.5 mM-Hepes no response was seen, between 0.5 and 2.5 mm a concentration-dependent response was seen, and higher concentrations (> 10 mM) inhibited the response. Neither Cu2+ nor H202 alone, with or without Hepes, induced a response. Therefore, at low concentrations, Hepes seemed to be facilitating the reaction by keeping Cu2+ in solution and/or facilitating copper cycling in the redox potential reaction.

The effect of Hepes was also tested in the absence of sodium phosphate (Fig. 2). Again Cu2+ alone did not catalyse a CL response. With the addition of Hepes (as well as Cu2+) a CL response was obtained that was of much greater intensity, reached a maximum more rapidly and was of shorter duration than that which had been obtained in the presence of phosphate. The response showed a biphasic dependence on concentration: low concentrations (2.5-10 mM) stimulated the response in a dose-related fashion, and high concentrations (20 mM) inhibited it completely. After the spontaneous termination of CL the response could be regenerated by the addition of H202 but not by any of the other system components. In this system (with no phosphate present) Cu2+ remains in solution, and yet Hepes (at low concentrations) still stimulated the response and so can be presumed to act at least in part, by interaction with Cu2+ and subsequent generation of a more redox-active complex. High concentrations of Hepes inhibited the response to a similar degree as in the system with phosphate present…

With the use of the standard Hepes (4 mM) and phosphate (10 mM) concentrations the effect of varying the Cu2+ concentration was studied. The CL response was dose-related up to 50 mM, above which a plateau in the response was obtained and therefore less than 10% of the normal concentration of added Cu2+ was necessary. In the absence of Hepes no CL response was obtained even with concentrations of Cu2+ up to 5 mM.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STUDY 3

Copper-ion-dependent damage to the bases in DNA in the presence of hydrogen peroxide

The abstract states:

“It is proposed that Cu2+ ions bound to the DNA react with H202 and ascorbic acid to generate hydroxyl radicals, which then immediately attack the DNA bases in a site-specific manner. A hypoxanthine/xanthine oxidase system also caused damage to the DNA bases in the presence of Cu2+ ions. This was inhibited by superoxide dismutase and catalase. The high activity of Cu2+ ions, when compared with Fe3+ ions, in causing hydroxyl-radical-dependent damage to DNA and to other biomolecules, means that the availability of Cu2+ ions in vivo must be carefully controlled.”

The result of the study

“Derivatives of hydrolysed DNA samples were analysed by g.c.-m.s. with selected-ion monitoring. Products arising from free-radical attack upon the DNA bases were identified and their yields are shown in Tables 1-3. The isolated DNA used in our experiments already contained some products of base modification (Table 1), as observed previously [16,17]. Addition of H202 alone, hypoxanthine/xanthine oxidase alone, Fe3+ alone, Cu2+ alone or ascorbic acid alone produced no significant increase in the amount of base modification (results not shown). Cu2+/H202 produced significant increases in the amounts of DNA base products, in contrast with the much smaller amount produced by Fe3+/H2O2 (Table 1). The major base product formed was 8-hydroxyguanine, although increases in the amounts of almost all the other base products were observed. This wide range of base modification suggests that a highly reactive species had attacked

the DNA. Addition of ascorbic acid to the Cu2+/H202 system produced a striking increase in DNA damage, with 8-hydroxyguanine, 8-hydroxyadenine, cytosine glycol and thymine glycol being the major products formed. Also, very high proportional increases over the background levels were observed in the yields of 5,6-dihydroxycytosine, 4,6-diamino-5-formamidopyrimidine and 2,6-diamino-5-formamido-4-hydroxypyrimidine (about 170- fold). Similarly, the Fe3+/H202/ascorbic acid system produced more DNA damage than the Fe3+/H202 system. However, the amount of DNA damage by Fe3+/H202/ascorbic acid was much less than that produced by the Cu2'/H202/ascorbic acid system (Table 1).”

My commentary:

Again, it is the combination effect including Cu(II) that cause DNA damage, NOT Cu(II) alone.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STUDY 4

https://http://www.jbc.org/content/264/3/1729.full.pdf"> Site-specific Oxidative DNA Damage at Polyguanosines Produced by Copper Plus Hydrogen Peroxide*

“Result

DNA Strand Break Induced by Copper Plus H202—Untreated DNA showed a major band corresponding to the supercoiled form (form I) and a minor band corresponding to nicked circular form (form II) (Fig. 1, control lane). No linear form (form III) was evident. Plasmid DNA remained intact after incubation with 10-4 M Cu(II) or 10-3 M H202 alone (Fig. 1, lanes 3 and 4). However, when DNA was incubated with a mixture of 10-4 M Cu(II) plus 10-3 M H202 DNA damage occurred as shown by the decrease in the amount of form I molecules and concomitant increase in form II and III (Fig. 1, lane 5). This indicates that both Cu(II) and H202 were required for the production of single and double strand breaks in DNA. Up to 10-2  M Cu(II) or 10-2  H202 alone did not result in detectable loss of form I molecules (data not shown).

The rate of production of breaks by DNA by Cu(II) plus H202 as a function of incubation time was measured at different temperatures (Fig. 2). The decrease in proportion of form I DNA followed single hit kinetics as a function of incubation time with 10-4 M Cu(II) plus M H2O2. An average of one single strand break/DNA molecule (37% form I molecules remaining) was obtained after incubation periods of 11, 52, and 300 min at 37, 23, and 6.5 °C, respectively. This represents an exponential decrease in incubation period/strand break with increasing incubation temperature.

The effect of the concentration of copper plus H202 on the production of DNA strand breaks was studied (Fig. 3). With 30 min of incubation at 24"C, a mixture of 0.01 M Cu(I1) plus 0.01 mM H202 resulted in about 94% form I molecules remaining. 0.1 mM Cu(I1) plus 0.1 mM H202 resulted in 31% remaining form I molecules or slightly more than one single strand break/5400-bp molecule. This concentration corresponds to about 1 molecule of Cu(II) and 1 molecule of H202 DNA base pair. 10 mM Cu(II) or 10 mM H202 alone did not produce any detectable loss of form I molecules (data not shown).”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STUDY 5

https://http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6192847"> Copper salt-dependent hydroxyl radical formation. Damage to proteins acting as antioxidants.

“Result

Both cupric (Cu 2+) and ferric (Fe 3÷) salts in the presence of hydrogen peroxide generate free radicals capable of degrading deoxyribose with the formation of thiobarbiturate-reactive products (Tables I and II). More thiobarbiturate-reactive material is formed by the use of copper salt than by an equimolar concentration of ferric salt (TableII). The cupric ion-dependent reaction can be inhibited by copper chelators, the hydroxyl radical scavengers mannitol and thiourea and significantly by all proteins added. Catalase was by far the most effective protein and its activity could be reduced substantially by heat denaturation (Table I). In comparison, the ferric salt-dependent reaction was markedly inhibited by catalase, and only slightly inhibited by superoxide dismutase, albumin and gamma-globulin (Table II).”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: I found another study reinforcing that only a combination of chemical including Cu(II) induce DNA damage, not copper alone. Another interesting to note that all these studies mention and/or test specific antioxidant or chelator, such as EDTA or catalase or superoxide dimutase, that can suppress the damage done by the combination of chemicals. That being said, perhaps in skin care formulation, adding catalase, for example, to prevent or suppress any possible free radical occurrence. Am I missing something?

Also, I apologize I cannot post up the tables and figs for this study because only max of 5 attachment is permitted per post. Maybe in another post later.

STUDY 6

Cupric ion/ascorbate/hydrogen peroxide-induced DNA damage: DNA-bound copper ion primarily induces base modifications.

"Result

....

Induction of frank DNA strand breaks by copper ion/ ascorbate/hydrogen peroxide; the effect of dialysis of target DNA

Neither Cu(II) alone, Fe(III)-EDTA alone, ascorbate alone, nor HzOz alone induced detectable frank strand breaks after 10 min at room temperature in purified human genomic DNA, regardless of whether the DNA was dialyzed (Table 1). Dialyzable substances supported production of frank strand breaks in the presence of ascorbate + H202; dialysis of the DNA in EDTA containing buffer made DNA/ascorbate/H20~ absolutely dependent upon added transition metal ions for frank strand break generation. Also, Chelex ® resin or EDTA treatment of nondialyzed DNA suppressed induction

of frank DNA strand breaks by ascorbate + H202 in the absence of supplemental Cu(II) (Fig. 1). In this respect, the dialyzable substances behaved like transition metal ion contaminants. In the complete reaction, when Cu(II), ascorbate, H202, and DNA were added, the presence of dialyzable substances markedly enhanced the contribution of copper ions to frank strand break production; for instance, the effect of copper ions could not have been assessed if the contaminating dialyzable substances were not removed from the DNA . The presence of these dialyzable substances in the DNA substrates may explain why DNA strand breaks have been observed in previous studies using low copper ion concentrations.19,20 Dialysis partially suppressed frank strand breaks caused by Cu(II)/ascorbate/ H202 at any H202 concentration up to 100 mM (Fig. 2), although small amounts of degradation are visible at ---1 mM H202. The relative insensitivity of the glyoxal gel analysis at damage levels below 1 per 10 kilobases does not permit quantitation of the strand break frequencies observed in Fig. 2. The suppression of strand breaks caused by H202 without supplemental transition metal ion by dialysis in EDTA-containing buffer had been previously observed by others.

                     

Attached files

       

[kakalakingma]

Sarah, you really unbanning emily? Well, that good because then she could post up her scar management testimony.

Another thing, that list of ingredient list she sent to you is readily available on their website. Do you want me to send you the link to each product?

I hope everything is good between you two.

[SarahVaughter]

I don't take these things personally. I tried to un-ban her but I only managed to turn it into a 1-day ban. I've been going through some stressful days lately, sorry for being hair-triggered. I'm a "Lymie", Lyme neuroborreliosis. Lyme rage :-(

[kakalakingma]

Well, I never really thought she meant any harm at all. I think it was a little bit miscommunication, a little bit name calling, a little bit of pure anger lol. But at least things will be good so ... GOOD! I am so tired from gathering research paper and I need a break. Maybe be back tomorrow. I hope you get to relieve your stress. Have a nice cup of green tea! OR white tea because it has higher antioxidant content.

[thehalokid]

im absolutely speechless i never thought the pickharts copper peptides where a scam, I thought there was solid independent evidence and study s to suggest his stuff worked. I was up untill recently using 'protect and restore' on my face and a surgical scar, but after reading this i think they are only good for the bin! unless Dr. pickhart has a reply?

[SarahVaughter]

The key to understand in this case is that Pickart sells two very different copper peptide products, GHK-Cu (extremely expensive to make), which has been proven to work in independent research and "random" copper peptides (very cheap and simple - Dr. Pickart himself says that any chemistry student can make them in ten minutes), made by mixing Copper chloride and hydrolized soy protein. The latter is associated with very serious negative side effects on the skin and there is virtually no serious research backup to validate his claims of them being even better than GHK-Cu.

Pickart was notified of this thread by Emily100 and he replied to her. I pasted his full answer a bit earlier in this thread.

[SarahVaughter]

I deleted the posting that was put here because:

1. It was a Copyright violation (copy of a full article),

2. The article had many links to commercial products by vendors we do not trust. It's OK to posts links, but this poster has been posting hundreds of links to usually the same websites. It's starting to get on my nerves :-)

I hope that the poster does not do the same with my articles (post them on other websites) because we then have to ask these websites to remove them, etc. This looks too much like SPAM, sorry. The problem with hundreds of links to always the same sites on this forum is that Google will consider this entire forum to be SPAM for those sites, and that may result in consequences in our search engine rankings.

[kakalakingma]

SarahVaughter;1210 wrote: I deleted the posting that was put here because:

1. It was a Copyright violation (copy of a full article),

2. The article had many links to commercial products by vendors we do not trust. It's OK to posts links, but this poster has been posting hundreds of links to usually the same websites. It's starting to get on my nerves :-)

I hope that the poster does not do the same with my articles (post them on other websites) because we then have to ask these websites to remove them, etc. This looks too much like SPAM, sorry. The problem with hundreds of links to always the same sites on this forum is that Google will consider this entire forum to be SPAM for those sites, and that may result in consequences in our search engine rankings.

 

Hi Sarah, I had no idea it was a violation because I had posted full articles on this thread before (post of article I found from Dr. leslie baumann and Dr. Torodov). I thought it was OK. I thought as long as I give credit to the original author and LINK to the original article, it would be safe. I didn't think that constitute as SPAM. I did make a disclaimer that those products are hers and not mine endorsements. So far I am only active on your forum, I have not use your articles on any other forum you can do a check on Google if you worry.

Clearly there is some specifics on SPAM that I am not understanding. I am just confused because you didn't say anything about my other similar posts. I guess I am a little confused as to where the line is drawn on how to post. But in the end it is your forum and not mine. I am owning up to my wrong doing. Sorry!

So it is only okay to put JUST the link to the orginal article instead? Would that be best? Or am I allowed to just paste a "part" or so?

[SarahVaughter]

The problem is that you make many posts that are full of links to cosmetics companies. I noticed that week after week, you post links to the same cosmetics companies. I know youre not a spammer, but nevertheless this is becoming SPAM.

This forum is not intended to keep reminding people how wonderful the products are of a select few companies. This forum is for help with our products and to answer questions. You are answering people's questions by posting countless links to producs we totally disagree with, to companies we do not trust and you keep doing it, day after day until this forum has nothing but hundreds of links to the same few companies.

So I would like you to link more to scientific studies and less to the same cosmetics companies with expensive, questionable products, that's all. Some people here have expressed concern about your excessive link-dropping and I gave you the benefit of the doubt but this really is getting out of hand. I think you should stop posting links to cosmetics products. There is absolutely no need for that. We decided that you've posted enough links to those companies.

We value your help to others but if your massive link storm continues then it will have negative consequences for this forum. Google does not favor, or likely will not favor, in the search engine result pages, forums with overly many links, especially not when they are for the same companies. Google will start to think that this forum is not a real forum but a fake forum, created solely to SPAM for some companies. We like this forum to be high-quality and not a link farm.

About posting articles from other sites: It's just not allowed by law, and we like to avoid trouble with other webmasters. Attribution is OK, but attribution does not absolve you from Copyright law. Attribution plus a few sentences is all that's permitted by law, and we like to keep friends with other sites.

[Sonny]

I've been reading this whole section about Dr. Pickart's copper peptide............I' surprised that most of his products no longer contain "real" copper peptides!! And how potentially dangerous copper chloride and soy protein can be.....

What about copper peptide products that claim to contain:

 "Copper aminoacetylamino imidazolyl propanoate"

Does anyone know what that is? I tried researching it but came up with nothing.......

Thanks

[SarahVaughter]

UPDATE:

I have heard that Pickart was not allowed to sell his 1st generation copper peptides anymore because of the threat of a patent lawsuit, hence the need to launch something else. I do not know the veracity of the claim.