Evidence queries and corrections
A correction to the GHK-Cu record
The useful correction is the precise one: a different peptide, a missed comparator, a species left out, or a number assigned to the wrong outcome.
Give the disputed result its full address
For an editorial query about Online GHK-Cu, the useful details are the page path, the exact sentence and the paper’s title or DOI. A disagreement is easier to resolve when it identifies the tested form, the study population and the outcome rather than only the conclusion.
Attribution errors are the corrections I’m most eager to hear about: a free peptide called copper-bound, a combination described as one ingredient, or copper measured in a skin preparation described as intact peptide reaching living skin. An omitted negative result matters as much as an omitted positive one.
The reading list identifies the studies currently cited. A newly published paper or a reason an existing citation does not support its sentence fits an evidence query; an editorial correction concerns evidence rather than a personal history, treatment amount or account of symptoms.
Personal care needs a different conversation
These GHK-Cu pages cannot assess a person, arrange care or determine a treatment. Questions about symptoms, prescriptions, quantities or preparation require a licensed clinician who can consider the person’s health. The about page explains the site’s scope, and the cautions page covers the limits in the published safety record.