Copper Peptide questions

[ukmale24]

There is no doubt that the percentages are higher now. I have used it myself and others have also complained of the same thing, it burned the hell out of my scalp. Its very potent stuff.

Isn't it meant to prevent burning rather than cause it?

I got all confused in this thread. I do wanna get a copper peptide topical to replace minoxidil with, but i don't have much money to spend. Is it worth me buying one?

 

[Jacob]

blaze...Wow..now there's the staining and irritation issue. No worries! is what was said regarding this 2.5%. That is something else Dr. Y touched upon. And btw..I didn't mention anything about the "study" until later in our exchanges..and by then you guys were busy dealing with the Chinese or something :woot:

 

[Bryan]

The reason why it *was* 1% was due to the staining problem. That was the blue color problem Dr Pickart was referring to. At 1% there seems to still be some issue with that. Its obvious the very first Folligen that came out according to that interview was was only 1% CP's. Dr Pickart cosigned with that. However there is no doubt that Folligen contains more than that now. Even Pickart said back then his guess was that Folligen would improve markedly.

A few times in the past when the subject came up of whether Tricomin or Folligen was better as a hair stimulator, I admitted that I simply didn't know for sure. Now with this other discussion of Folligen having a possible "staining" and "burning" effect when applied to the scalp, I'm now leaning toward Tricomin as probably the proper choice. It would appear to be a better idea to use one specific copper-peptide (like Tricomin's AHK-Cu) which has plenty of potential to protect and grow hair, and avoid using large amounts of random peptides that have little or no specific effect on hair (like what you get in Folligen); since those "non-hair-specific" peptides would also apparently have the problem of staining and burning the scalp when applied topically, it now seems to me to be a bad idea to use that "peptide smorgasbord" approach that Dr. Pickart uses in Folligen. Tricomin now seems like a probably better idea to me, even if it's more expensive to do it that way.

 

[Jacob]

Maybe it's the other ingreds causing the irritation :dunno:

Or it's just the % of cu peptides.

 

[Bryan]

Jacobs beloved Dr Y said that the 2.5% AHK-Cu used in the famous tricomin studies you refer to Bryan arent a "true" 2.5%, but rather 2.5% of a preexisting solution. Dr Y thinks that there are only very small amounts of AHK-Cu used in the tricomin studies. MUCH less than a "true" 2.5%
uke:

In all honesty, Dr. Y's strange insinuation above that Procyte didn't _really_ use a 2.5% solution in that study (but a much smaller one) makes me rather suspicious that maybe he himself (Dr. Y) isn't being completely open and aboveboard about what he's using in his own products!

 

[Jacob]

Cute Bryan..reread what I said. But actually it does show he knows how companies do hype things up and play with the #'s...as this 90% / 10% product mentioned in this thread shows. There is one that is not completely open and aboveboard about what he's using in his own products..it's Dr. Proctor. "Mysterious ingredients"...watered down versions..etc.

And here you are arguing with others about what Tricomin and Folligen %'s actually are.

 

[Bryan]

Maybe it's the other ingreds causing the irritation :dunno:

Or it's just the % of cu peptides.

Which is EXACTLY the point I made (your second statement): maybe Folligen has too many "useless", inert paptides which don't have any real effect on hair growth, but still cause staining and burning when applied to the scalp.

 

[Jacob]

Or maybe they're not "useless" but still cause staining and burning.

I thought there were higher % AHK-Cu products that some have complained caused irritation etc.

 

[Bryan]

Cute Bryan..reread what I said. But actually it does show he knows how companies do hype things up and play with the #'s...as this 90% / 10% product mentioned in this thread shows.

I do think that advertisment is very misleading, but I won't go _quite_ so far as to claim that its author is actually LYING and DISHONEST. Perhaps he was honestly thinking that he was accurately telling the truth when he said it was "10% GHK". I don't know. I just don't know.

There is one that is not completely open and aboveboard about what he's using in his own products..it's Dr. Proctor. "Mysterious ingredients"...watered down versions..etc.

And here you are arguing with others about what Tricomin and Folligen %'s actually are.

True, Dr. Proctor isn't completely "aboveboard" in the sense you're suggesting, but he's never LIED about what his products contain. What I suggested a moment ago about what Dr. Y may be doing with his own products was being a little too easy on him with my wording: if what I suggested was correct, that would be a LIE on his part (not having as high a percentage of his ingredients as he claims). I hope he's telling the truth, and that remark he made before about Procyte's old peptide study was just a curiously odd thing to say.

 

[Bryan]

Or maybe they're not "useless" but still cause staining and burning.

Not bloody likely. If they're just RANDOM peptides, a lot of them are pretty useless. Staining and burning, and useless!

I thought there were higher % AHK-Cu products that some have complained caused irritation etc.

Like WHAT?? :dunno:

 

[Jacob]

Again..the study was not mentioned to him when bringing up the 2.5% figure- he was going by Tricomin containing 2.5%...maybe my wording confused him. I did later on to get a clarification but(and this is in another forum so it's going over ppl's heads) didn't bother posting it due to the "my way or the highway" attitude over there. Which ended up proving Dr. Y right on sourcing :whistle:

I think the problem with that 10% product is the other ingred is supposed to be 90%. I thought I saw some other ingreds listed...

 

[Jacob]

Or maybe they're not "useless" but still cause staining and burning.

Not bloody likely. If they're just RANDOM peptides, a lot of them are pretty useless. Staining and burning, and useless!

I thought there were higher % AHK-Cu products that some have complained caused irritation etc.

Like WHAT?? :dunno:

Unless they've been studied to be useless...they could be usable :woot:

Iamin and Neova or something-or-other...seems they contained the saime peptides.

 

[Bryan]

Iamin and Neova or something-or-other...seems they contained the saime peptides.

Iamin containes "prezatide copper acetate", which obviously isn't the same as the copper-peptide in Tricomin. Don't know about Neova.

 

[blaze]

blaze...Wow..now there's the staining and irritation issue. No worries! is what was said regarding this 2.5%. That is something else Dr. Y touched upon. And btw..I didn't mention anything about the "study" until later in our exchanges..and by then you guys were busy dealing with the Chinese or something :woot:

Wow...you really have no clue regarding this topic jacob, do you? You dont even know the difference between these copper peptides and your trying to argue and debate the issue intelligently?

Different copper peptides produce different results, and some are negative results such as burning and stinging and no hair growth. Bryan posted some studies where they tested various copper peptides and the result was that the specific peptide sequence played a BIG role in the effectiveness or lack thereof. Just because Folligen CP's can produce staining, burning etc doesnt mean AHK-Cu or Prezatide Copper Acetate will. They are completely different copper peptides. Understand?

I thought there were higher % AHK-Cu products that some have complained caused irritation etc.

Again, you have no clue about any of this do you. Tricomin is the only hairloss product along with American Crew(which dont use AHK-Cu anymore) that have hair loss products out using this CP. No one ever has complained of irritation, ever. Search if you dont believe me.

 

[Jacob]

Actually I do know the difference. Reread what I said to Bryan regarding such "irritation" that I swear I've read regarding the skin products.

Now maybe it's some other cu peptide/complex I'm thinking of..and you can go WOW again :shock:

 

[Medium]

The reason why it *was* 1% was due to the staining problem. That was the blue color problem Dr Pickart was referring to. At 1% there seems to still be some issue with that. Its obvious the very first Folligen that came out according to that interview was was only 1% CP's. Dr Pickart cosigned with that. However there is no doubt that Folligen contains more than that now. Even Pickart said back then his guess was that Folligen would improve markedly.

A few times in the past when the subject came up of whether Tricomin or Folligen was better as a hair stimulator, I admitted that I simply didn't know for sure. Now with this other discussion of Folligen having a possible "staining" and "burning" effect when applied to the scalp, I'm now leaning toward Tricomin as probably the proper choice. It would appear to be a better idea to use one specific copper-peptide (like Tricomin's AHK-Cu) which has plenty of potential to protect and grow hair, and avoid using large amounts of random peptides that have little or no specific effect on hair (like what you get in Folligen); since those "non-hair-specific" peptides would also apparently have the problem of staining and burning the scalp when applied topically, it now seems to me to be a bad idea to use that "peptide smorgasbord" approach that Dr. Pickart uses in Folligen. Tricomin now seems like a probably better idea to me, even if it's more expensive to do it that way.

How do you feel if _I_ add Prox-n into this discussion ?


Would Prox-n be "above/better" (if for a better word) than Tricomin, assumin cost is not an issue ?

Also do you think there is *much* difference between Prox-n from DR P and Prox-n from LEF (which is also from DR P) ?


Thanx in advance Bryan if you could share ure opinion on this

 

[Bryan]

How do you feel if _I_ add Prox-n into this discussion ?

Would Prox-n be "above/better" (if for a better word) than Tricomin, assumin cost is not an issue ?

All three of the questions you ask (including the last one below) are really difficult to speculate about, since we don't have any idea at all about the level of ingredients in Prox-N, and very strong and contentious opinions about the level of AHK-Cu in Tricomin!

My own personal opinion is that of the three products talked about (Tricomin, Folligen, and Prox-N), Prox-N would very likely be the best. The reasons seem pretty obvious: (1) Prox-N has additional SODs like TEMPO/TEMPOL and PBN which are very likely more effective than the copper-peptides used in either Tricomin or Folligen; and (2) Prox-N also has additional ingredients (perhaps most notably NANO) which fall under a completely different category than the SODs. We have no idea at all of the levels of all those various ingredients in Prox-N, but it seems like a pretty safe bet to me that of those three products, Prox-N would be the one to use.

Also do you think there is *much* difference between Prox-n from DR P and Prox-n from LEF (which is also from DR P) ?

I don't know for sure. All I can go by is Dr. Proctor's honesty, when he admitted a while back that the LEF version is "probably a better deal for the money". Seems like an honest thing to say!

 

[Medium]

Thank you Bryan for your thoughts


I tend to agree with you


LEF are on back order until Mid October !

 

[Jacob]

Dr Proctor's honesty? :laugh:

Tricomin made it through Phase II of the FDA clinical trials. And yet it's so obvious to Bryan that a mixture of untested who-knows-what(remember the mysterious ingreds) would be better. 10+ years with hardly a thing to show for it.

I'm sure Medium already knew he'd get that answer from Bryan btw

 

[Medium]

And Im sure some thought that they would get that response from you :woot: