Two modes. A structured topical assessment, and an analysis engine for injectable protocols that examines what you are already doing rather than telling you what to do. It refuses to generate numbers no study supports, and says so plainly.
The injectable mode analyses a protocol you are already running. It works out your actual copper exposure and what is worth tracking. It does not suggest doses, since no human dosing data exists for this compound to base one on.
The commonly repeated figure of 30 to 50% copper by weight is wrong by two to three times. GHK-Cu's true copper fraction, calculated from its molecular weight against elemental copper, is 15.73%, and that number cross-checks exactly against published figures of 1 to 2 mg of GHK-Cu yielding 157 to 315 mcg of elemental copper. Every copper figure in this tool is built from that corrected fraction rather than the inflated one still circulating on peptide retail sites.
The injectable mode is a hard boundary enforced in code: no optimal dose, no reconstitution steps, no syringe conversions, no frequency recommendation and no starting protocol. Publishing a typical range to someone who has entered nothing would itself be dosing guidance regardless of how it is labelled, so the tool only characterises a protocol you state you are already running. If you are also tracking an injectable stack, cross-check volumes against the Injection Volume Calculator and reconstitution against the Reconstitution Engine.
Human trial evidence, animal data, mechanistic reasoning and community anecdote are never merged into one confidence figure. Topical cosmetic outcomes have real, if small and short, human trials behind them. Injectable use has none. The tool grades each goal you select against its own evidence tier rather than borrowing credibility from a different route of administration or a different outcome. See the full peptide picture in the Peptide Database.
No, deliberately. There is no validated human dosing framework for injectable GHK-Cu, so the injectable mode analyses a protocol you tell it you are already running: your real copper exposure, what is worth getting tested, and where the evidence actually sits. It will not generate a starting dose, a reconstitution volume, syringe units or a frequency.
Yes. The GHK-Cu complex has a molecular weight of 403.93 g/mol and copper contributes 63.546 g/mol of that, which works out to 15.73%. Many peptide sites state 30 to 50% copper by weight, which overstates the true figure by two to three times.
Dietary copper absorption is regulated: your gut absorbs roughly 30 to 55% of what you eat and downregulates that further once your stores are replete. An injection bypasses that checkpoint entirely, so effectively all of it lands. Comparing an injected dose directly to the oral RDA or upper intake level without adjusting for that overstates how much safety margin you actually have, which is why this tool reports an absorption-adjusted oral equivalent instead.
It tells you what the evidence supports and grades each goal you select separately, since a fine-lines claim and a systemic longevity claim do not rest on the same quality of data. It also scores how much the product label actually discloses, since concentration, INCI naming, batch testing and storage instructions all affect how much you can trust a number on the box.
Controlled human trials exist for topical cosmetic endpoints only, generally small studies of around 12 weeks. Wound healing and tissue repair evidence is largely animal work, and the collagen, elastin and gene-expression mechanisms are mechanistic findings rather than proven human outcomes. Nothing has been studied by injection in controlled human trials, and GHK-Cu is not an FDA-approved drug for any indication.
