About this GHK-Cu research notebook

What this notebook is

Prescribed GHK-Cu is a hand-annotated notebook of the peer-reviewed research on GHK-Cu, the copper(II) chelate of glycyl-histidyl-lysine. It reads the literature and pastes it up; it treats no one. Nothing here is diagnosed, prescribed, or advised, and nothing is manufactured, stocked, or sold.

The site is built like a hand-bound study journal: each finding is treated as a clipping pasted onto the page and annotated, with the strongest results set down plainly and the gaps in the evidence left visible in the margin. Every quantitative claim — every dose, percentage, gene count and stability constant — is tied to a numbered citation that resolves to a PubMed, PMC or DOI record on the references page.

What "prescribed" means here

The word "prescribed" in this site's name is editorial framing, not a service. It signals the hand-written, annotated register of a curator's reading — what the literature actually records, marked up by hand like a remedy noted in a personal notebook — not a pharmacy, a checkout, or a prescription. This site dispenses nothing and prescribes nothing. It does not offer treatment, consultation, or any clinical service, and it takes no position on whether anyone should use the compound.

GHK-Cu sits in a specific regulatory place, and the notebook keeps it explicit: topical Copper Tripeptide-1 is a legal cosmetic ingredient in the US, EU and UK, while injectable or systemic GHK-Cu is an unapproved research chemical with no established regulatory pathway ^[3]. There is no FDA- or EMA-approved therapeutic GHK-Cu product for any indication.

How the clippings were chosen

The studies summarized here were selected for being citable and verifiable: peer-reviewed primary research and reviews, indexed in PubMed or PubMed Central, with a DOI. The notebook leans on the foundational collagen and tissue-remodeling work ^[1][6], the genome-wide gene-modulation analysis ^[2], the canonical skin-regeneration review ^[3], the controlled hair-count trial ^[4], and the recent 2024–2025 colitis, neuroprotection and anti-wrinkle-delivery studies ^[13][14][15]. Where a finding rests on a single investigator's body of work, or on in-vitro data that has not been validated in vivo, the annotation says so. The aim is a faithful reading of the record, not a sales case for the molecule.