Trying to separate three different claims about GHK-Cu: that it is the right molecule, that it is the right dose, and that it does something useful.
The measured outcome and the hoped-for outcome are rarely the same thing in these threads.
Mechanism is not outcome, and a plausible pathway is the most expensive kind of evidence there is.
Animal data is much of what exists here and the human stuff is thin and small.
Happy to be corrected on any of the above.
Baseline first. Without a baseline the after picture is decoration. Currently on GHK-Cu myself.
Same here.
Same here.
Narrow conclusion, briefly right. Broad conclusion, interestingly wrong. I know which I keep choosing.
Most of the popular protocol is borrowed from a clinical population and applied to healthy people without comment. Injection site reaction was my main issue with GHK-Cu too.
Stupid question: how do you know whether what is in the vial matches the label at all?
Same here.
How long before you can reasonably say something is or is not doing anything?
Nobody has ever been talked out of a stack by a stranger on the internet.
Narrow conclusion, briefly right. Broad conclusion, interestingly wrong. I know which I keep choosing.
Stupid question: how do you know whether what is in the vial matches the label at all?
What is the first thing you would read if you were starting from zero? How long have you been on GHK-Cu?
How long before you can reasonably say something is or is not doing anything?
Most of the popular protocol is borrowed from a clinical population and applied to healthy people without comment.