I have been told repeatedly that there is not a cure for emphysema; however, these reputable government-backed studies state in no uncertain terms that the copper tripeptide GHK-CU reverses emphysema (or COPD, depending on the study) and promotes pulmonary healing.
For those who are unaware, GHK-CU is sold in skin creams. There are oral supplements available to the public, but they are listed as being only for research. One of the studies from 2012 stated that it can take another 15-20 years to get a drug to market.
My question is, has anybody tried the oral GHK-CU supplement (us.supersmart.com/article.p...? If this stuff does not work then why can't I find any studies listing side effects? If this stuff works and is safe, and it appears as though it at least definitively works, why is there only one supplement available? I am very hopeful as well as cautious when it comes to guinea pigging myself. Everything I have read states that copper peptides are safe (it is endogenous to the human body), reverse aging, repair DNA, cure dementia and cancer, reverse emphysema, and more...so, then, what is the catch?
Thank you
The ability to reply to this post has been turned off.
Yes the do state that. However note the word "study" not the word research. Also where are the Peer reviews? Where is the evidence for " Government backing". Basically they are promoting a theory not proven fact. It's all very scientific sound but I believe it is just another attempt to sell quack medications to desperate people.
The studies were sponsored by the National Institutes of Health in the United States without conflicts of interest; hence, the nih.gov website. Studies indicate there was extensive research beforehand as well as evidential experiments. In the case of these studies, they were conducted in vivo, or in the body, rather than in a petri dish. The medications are not for sale, so it is not a marketing ploy. I had to search thoroughly to find even one supplement that isn't a skin cream.
Must correct my last statement. The study was carried out with the aid of a government grant. That does not in any way mean that the Government back the results. Various organizations in America are stating this is a cure for diabetes, various neurological diseases, it according to some can even slow the ageing process. Body builders use it. It would appear to be good for mice. However as a proven therapy it is many years away if at all.
Again, the multiple studies were not only funded by the government, the results are hosted on a government site. Government backed studies are credible, and the independent site Media Bias Fact Check confirms a pro-science and highly factual status at NIH (mediabiasfactcheck.com/nati.... The organizations stating this is a cure for diseases are unaffiliated with the government and basing findings on these studies, and these studies do in fact lead in that direction. I know of no bodybuilder supplements containing GHK, though I lift weights and therefore welcome any information regarding such supplements.
I am not asking if anybody has reason to question the studies. I'm asking if anybody has experience with GHK because severely afflicted people have a tendency to try newer potential avenues of healing (e.g., vitamin A and iNOS inhibition). While your cynicism is appreciated, your points of conjecture are simply not valid in this instance.
• in reply to
Hi lovnlife, i read your post with interest, and found ghk cu capsules on amazon, 5.99 for 100. Not 100% sure if they are ghk cu....but does mention copper supplement, anyway ordered them to give them a try lol x
• in reply to
Hello Suki01,
I am happy you found some GHK CU capsules. I looked on Amazon and could not find any, but I did go ahead and order some on that other site. The ones I ordered cost an order of magnitude more, and there were fewer tablets. Do you happen to have a link to the Amazon GHK; also, if it works and you start feeling wonderful, will you keep me informed?
• in reply to
Hi, they are called solgar chalated copper tablets, sold b y amazon and got them on prime, will be here tomorrow. I certainly will keep you updated xx
Can you show me where is is approved by the FDA. Also where were the clinical trails into this product held. When did the MHRA approve this therapy for the UK? Surely if it what you claim then it would be widely available on prescription. You use the word potential not proof. In the UK you cannot make a claim on a product having health benefits without proof. It is not conjecture to to state that is not a licensed product. The research into it as not been validated. To say anything else is.
You clearly have your opinion, and I value your right to your opinion. While I will restate what I wrote earlier about possible treatments being 15-20 years from now, I will not do your research for you. Take GHK or do not take GHK, the choice is yours entirely.
The purpose of this thread was never to debate the validity of government-backed studies conducted on humans, as many (myself included) give credibility to government studies and therein find evident proof. The purpose of this thread is to inform about GHK and ask whether or not anybody has tried GHK. Half of the posts in this thread are written by you with the intent of discrediting multiple independent government studies to which I am in no way attached, and I would appreciate it if you would cease hijacking this thread. This is a friendly discussion, and you seem rather agitated - would it not be more productive to use this forum as a means through which mutual solutions can be found?
My main purpose is to protect those who are vulnerable and point out various limitations to the research into this therapy. I have no objection to you or others taking this substance. I worked in medicine including research and I am now a guinea pig myself. Medicine does not have all the answers. The are too many alternative treatments where people stated they have helped to be ignored. However mutual solutions must have balance and both sides of the discussion must be heard inorder for this forum to work.
The first idea I would like to address regarding your response is that, while both sides of the discussion should be illuminated, previous responses were not bringing one side into light; this is to write, there is a distinct difference between recommending caution and attempting to discredit. In attempting to discredit, you debased evidence and issued a personal attack on findings.
Given our mutual agreement to proceed in a respectful way, it is important to clarify that what I initially reported is factual. I cited my academically credible sources (i.e., sources suitable for medical research), reported findings, and asked follow up questions. The links I provided were not affiliated, they were simply links to the only supplement I found, and I think many people may want to know where to get GHK. I did not say GHK is a treatment, I said it reverses emphysema in humans. There are multiple independent government studies with no conflicts of interest providing substantial evidence that GHK reverses emphysema in humans (not only mice); further, evidence suggests GHK is a potent treatment for numerous neurodegenerative, terminal, and chronic conditions.
GHK is endogenous to the human body and decreases with age, and all evidence suggests GHK is harmless. GHK is available without a prescription and has been present in over-the-counter products for more than 20 years. It may take 20 more years for the FDA to approve an internal agent because 1), GHK is inexpensive to produce and big pharmacy has to capitalize on a cash grab as monumental as a COPD cure; and 2), the FDA only puts new drugs on the market after a rigorous approval process, even when a treatment is endogenous. Nevertheless, all evidence suggests that GHK is at worst harmless and at best a life-saver for millions of people.
Millions of people do not have 20 years to wait for GHK to hit the market. Of those millions of people, it is probable that a high percentage would be willing to try a consequence-free and clinically relevant panacea. Protecting aforementioned people from information is akin to recommending the conventional medical prognosis of agonizing and debilitating suffocation. If GHK works, as evidence strongly suggests, protecting those people as was suggested is murder.
Not for lack of trying, medicine has failed COPD patients by treating symptoms rather than addressing conditions systemically. In the United States, the Right to Try law assures people have the opportunity to do what those in the medical profession cannot. Forums like this provide a medium in which people can communicate about possible extra-medical treatments and cures. While it is appropriate to attack snake oils without evidence, it is inappropriate to try to shield people from well-sourced and potentially life-saving information.
Unless peer reviewed and the same results are found by independent research it is not evidence. Please understand that in the UK the Laws are different. You cannot make a claim about the medical benefits of a product without compelling evidence. This law covers products from herbal remedies to diet additives. The laws in America are totally different even from state to state. I will say no more except to emphasise my point that it is an unlicensed, unregulated product.
My goodness. I do not live in the United Kingdom, I live in the United States, and the United States recognizes both Right to Try and freedom of speech. I am making no attempt to advance medicine through the medical system; this is an Internet forum through which afflicted individuals can come together and converse about potential treatments. I can make a claim about whatever I would like, I am not bound by your standards, and I (as well as, I imagine, many others) happen to give value to multiple independent government-backed studies. It does not matter if you or the laws of the United Kingdom like it or not. Please, be true to your word and say no more.
• in reply to
Hello, whilst this is an international community open to people from anywhere, it is the British Lung Foundation's forum and as such, the guidelines and standards must relate and be legal in the UK. When posting on here, you are also bound by our forum guidelines and standards which you agreed to when you joined the site.
While healthy discussion is always good, I must point out that you cannot 'make a claim about anything you like' - you must do so within our guidelines and standards.
Hi Lovnlife. I think stem cell technology is the future. Shame more companies don't concentrate on that. But then that might be a cure and no one wants that in the pharmaceutical business.
I think many people, including me are gullible and for £6 it's worth a punt, makes a quick buck for whoever makes them and keeps people in jobs.
I look forward to Suki01's feedback after taking them.
It is my opinion that stem cell treatments hold much promise. I have heard that stem cell treatments, as they are currently, can cause comorbidities far worse than COPD, though I think that the stem cell avenue will progress substantially within 10 or 20 years. In addition to stem cells, treatments that address the pathogenesis (i.e., anti-inflammatories and antioxidants) will likely save many lives. Eventually, I imagine either a regenerative treatment that allows the body to heal itself or nanotechnology will provide what equates to a cure.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Cordyceps and COPD or Magic Mushrooms and the Breathless Wonder
Ibuprofen and Emphysema
Cloves v Antibiotics 
emphysema
