Anela, creator of the Anela Protocols, recently joined K-Hole Lab Chat. It didn’t take long for the questions to start: GHK-Cu, dosing, filters, blood tests, and whether she’ll ever put all those protocols into a book.
This isn’t a prepared interview. These are the questions members actually asked and the answers Anela actually gave, brought together so you don’t have to dig through the chat. I’ve tidied the Telegram clutter and kept her voice and she's checked this script before publishing.
About Anela & the Anela Protocols
Q: I’m not familiar with the Anela Protocol. Is there somewhere I can find more information?
Anela: I developed the protocol many years ago that prevents the sting.
My very first protocol was the subq painless GHK-Cu protocol with BPC and the Anela technique, and then yes, the GHK-Cu topical.
Q: What’s the best way to get updates on your protocols?
Anela: I have about 25 protocols, but I stopped giving them out freely after physicians, clinics and other groups began using them without my permission or credit.
I’ve been doing consults for quite a few years, but I don’t really publicize that as I tend to get overwhelmed. I like being in the space of answering questions, troubleshooting, figuring out data and trends, and helping people figure out their research.
My protocols are updated annually, sometimes more often if outcomes change with my cohorts. GHK-Cu will always be one that I continue to give out for free.
For now, I probably share the most information on Reddit. I also have Instagram, YouTube and Substack, although those are all fairly new.
Follow-up: Will you ever release all 25 protocols together?
Anela: Someday I’ll have a booklet or a book.
GHK-Cu
Skin, lungs and when changes might appear
Q: I haven’t really dived into the applications of this stuff. What does GHK-Cu do?
Anela: Subq it benefits skin and lungs. Lungs is the one no one talks about ever. It’s also one of the only peptides that can positively affect gene expression. It was discovered by Loren Pickart (PhD) in 1973. Originally isolated from plasma. Dr. Pickart passed in 2023. I was fortunate to talk to him a couple of times.
Topically it can repair skin damage (3%) and at higher concentrations (7%) it can help optimize scalp for hair growth.
Anela adds: It takes about six weeks for collagen remodeling to happen so that’s the earliest for “results”.
But one thing to note. Some people have no idea why their pins are suddenly a challenge. Yup. GHK-Cu in its repair process can toughen skin. It can make it a little difficult to pin peptides.
Follow-up: Really? Benefits to the lungs? Can you expand on that a bit?
Anela: Yes!
Reducing lung inflammation
Lowering oxidative stress
Protecting lung tissue
Reducing emphysema damage
Supporting lung repair
Reducing fibrosis
Protecting against acute lung injury
I’ll get you some citations. There are actually quite a few.
Anela adds: Some citations for ya on lungs and GHK-Cu:
1. GHK Cu attenuates cigarette smoke induced pulmonary emphysema and inflammation
2. GHK Cu protects against bleomycin induced pulmonary fibrosis
3. GHK Cu ameliorates lipopolysaccharide induced acute lung injury in mice
4. GHK Cu attenuates lung inflammation and fibrosis in silicosis
5. GHK reverses the gene expression signature of emphysema related lung destruction
These are the citations and descriptions Anela supplied, not a separate K-Hole assessment of their applicability to people.
GHK without copper
Q: There are reported cellular effects of GHK without copper. Plus, its very high binding affinity could reasonably capture endogenous copper in the body, no?
Anela: Meh, nah. Not a fan. I haven’t seen any good evidence of benefits with GHK minus the Cu.
The member followed up with an argument: if GHK released by the body picks up copper, they didn’t see why injected GHK couldn’t do something similar.
Anela adds: I see where you’re coming from. I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to convince me that injected GHK would behave the same way as endogenous GHK or give us the same benefits as GHK-Cu.
And if injected GHK is picking up endogenous copper and becoming GHK-Cu, I’d still question whether those benefits would be attributed to GHK without copper.
Younger users: how her explanation developed
Anela’s age-related comments weren’t one fixed cutoff. Earlier, she said GHK-Cu “doesn’t always work well for under 35”. She later put it more strongly while describing reports she had received:
Anela adds: I’m getting adverse reports from the 20-year-old age group left and right on GHK-Cu. It truly is not for those under 35.
I’ve never seen anything like this. Just talked to a kid who developed a skin condition after GHK-Cu. He’s undergoing a skin biopsy today.
When your endogenous GHK is high, GHK-Cu is NOT to play around with.
This was an account she shared, not an independently established cause of the skin condition. Her later answer below uses different age thresholds; we’ve kept that development intact.
Q: Can you elaborate? More and more people are asking me about it. And where can we find more research on the topic? My 22-year-old just started taking it a week ago.
Two members asked those questions. Anela addressed them together:
Anela: Replying regarding my concerns about GHK-Cu, and I’ll be posting something on this later, more in-depth, on my Substack.
Here’s the easiest way I can explain why this concerns me.
How many times have you been on Reddit or somewhere else and told an 18-year-old they don’t need HGH or another peptide to grow muscle or get taller because their hormones are already at peak?
That’s the same line of thinking I use with endogenous GHK.
Some of you may not know about the published reports going back to the work of Dr. Loren Pickart, who discovered GHK. Circulating GHK has been reported at around 200 ng/mL at age 20, dropping to about 80 ng/mL by age 60. That’s a 60% drop over 40 years. If we use those two reported numbers to make a simple estimate, that would put GHK around 170 ng/mL at 30, 140 ng/mL at 40 and 110 ng/mL at 50. Those middle numbers are estimates, not measured values.
This is why I’ve always said subq GHK-Cu makes more sense to me starting around 45 to 50, unless there is a reason to consider it earlier such as severe burns, significant scarring or a serious lung issue. My protocols get updated annually. My next update will caution younger researchers using subq GHK-Cu and have them consider a lower dose. I will not recommend subq GHK-Cu for anyone under 25. I might even go so far as to also caution those under 40.
Happy to provide citations. Mentioning the timeline for endogenous GHK if you want/need them.
I think those of us who are knowledgeable in the peptide research community have an obligation to discourage GHK-Cu in the 25-and-under crowd just as we discourage HGH and other substances for growth and muscle.
Is more better?
Q: Have you seen the comments about dosages on Reddit? Some are saying you should go much higher than 2 to 2.5 mg daily. Any science on why that dosage is appropriate?
Anela: I think anything beyond 2 is overkill. Less is best with GHK-Cu.
I personally wouldn’t go higher than 2 mg. I just haven’t seen anything that gives me a good reason to.
Here’s the important part with GHK-Cu. I don’t look at more as better. We don’t have human subq research showing that 4, 6 or 10 mg gives better results. GHK-Cu also shows a biphasic response in research, so increasing the concentration doesn’t necessarily increase the response.
Follow-up: Is it primarily driven by minimising copper-level impacts?
Anela: Not necessarily… It’s more about the dose response. We just don’t have evidence showing that pushing GHK-Cu higher gives you a better response, and the biphasic response we see in the research gives me even less reason to keep increasing it.
When I say biphasic, I mean you can increase the concentration and get more of a response, but only up to a certain point. Once you get past that point, you’re not necessarily getting more benefit, and you have the potential to start creating more problems or issues.
Microneedling
Q: Can we microneedle lyophilised GHK-Cu? Any protocol you recommend?
Anela: You can definitely microneedle, but make sure that you have 7% concentration of GHK-Cu for scalp and 1% concentration for AHK-Cu. Use raw and filter it for microneedling. Easy. Lyophilized is too expensive.
That was her brief reply, not a complete microneedling procedure.
AHK-Cu
Q: So AHK-Cu subq isn’t going to do crap for my thinning hair?
Anela: Sorry AHK-Cu didn’t help. It’s only meant to be done topically but there’s some new rumor and people are now injecting it. Only meant for topical. Won’t do anything subq. Sorry.
When another member mentioned seeing more talk of subcutaneous AHK-Cu on TikTok, Anela added:
Anela adds: I suspect the Looksmaxxing guys started it.
Labs will see the lyophilized AHK-Cu come through for testing but THAT lyophilized AHK-Cu is for microneedling. A lot of spas and clinics like the lyophilized version for microneedling because it’s sterile compared to raw.
That’s her description of the material; it doesn’t establish the sterility of any particular vial.
She also raised the “longer lasting” claim with the analytical chemists:
Anela adds: Someone tried to tell me that AHK-Cu is basically a “longer lasting GHK-Cu signal.” I’ve worked with both for years, longer with GHK-Cu, and I’ve never seen data supporting that.
From a chemistry standpoint, is there anything about AHK-Cu that would actually make it more stable or slower to degrade than GHK-Cu? Or is the “longer lasting” claim something that would need pharmacokinetic data to establish?
Epitalon
Q: Did you come up with the protocol for Epitalon as well?
Anela: I did! I told everyone the massive doses were too high and that there was a misunderstanding with the Russian research with Epithalamin. I got doused with fire quite a few times for my Epith protocol. Fortunately a study came out proving that my low-dose protocol was actually correct. I even debated with Dr. Seeds (politely) back in 2023 in person at our visit in Hawai‘i at his provider Mastermind conference.
My Reddit post about it with citations.
She did not give a numerical human dosing regimen in this answer.
Filtration & Reconstitution
During a discussion about syringe filters, Anela offered a practice she felt was often overlooked:
Anela adds: One thing that I like to do as a best practice when filtering… Flush that filter with BAC before you run the reconstituted peptide through it. When you flush the filter you don’t lose as much peptide. If you push a reconstituted peptide through a dry filter you lose some peptide. No one ever mentions this.
Q: Would air purging get that extra peptide out? Or even adding extra BAC into your syringe, calculated of course?
Anela: You’re getting there, kind of… Neither one completely fixes peptide that has already adsorbed to the membrane. That’s why flushing/priming first has the advantage. It helps condition the membrane before the peptide ever hits it, then what you can do is an air purge at the end. This can help recover what is left sitting in the filter.
Follow-up: Would it be best to have a separate syringe with some BAC to flush/prime, then connect the syringe with the peptide to the freshly primed filter and into the new vial?
Anela: Correct. Good work figuring it out!
Testing
GHK, GHK-Cu and copper in blood tests
Q: What test can show how much GHK-Cu someone has in their blood?
Anela: I think you mean measuring endogenous GHK?
If you mean endogenous GHK, unfortunately there isn’t a standard blood test you can order to measure it.
The published serum GHK measurements came from specialized research methods.
Measuring GHK-Cu itself would be a different question because you’d need a test that could measure the copper-bound GHK separately from GHK without copper.
Anela adds: I think I know the next question… Copper!
You can test serum copper along with ceruloplasmin. That can give you an idea of someone’s current copper level, but it still only tells you so much.
It won’t tell you how much copper is bound to GHK-Cu or how much GHK-Cu is circulating.
Endotoxins and heavy metals
Q: I know everyone has opinions on Uther, but I like that he is testing endotoxins and heavy metals now too. Any other vendors that offer this?
Anela: I know Janoshik does this, most of the labs do. I just visited Janoshik’s lab in Prague. We discussed heavy metals. It’s probably not necessary. In all the testing that he’s done, I don’t think he’s ever found heavy metals. Would be very interested to hear from the other labs. I’d definitely recommend endo testing. A couple of years ago we saw very few issues with endotoxins. I know Jano has seen quite a jump. Was enough for him to change his mind. He used to say that endo testing really wasn’t necessary. Endo showed in maybe 5% of testing. But recently it’s jumped to 10%.
Her reply discusses laboratories and testing priorities, rather than naming alternative vendors.
Anela is in K-Hole Lab Chat, so if there’s something you want to ask her, ask it there. We’ll continue adding the useful Q&As to this article as the conversation develops.
These are Anela’s own comments from K-Hole Lab Chat. Inclusion here does not mean K-Hole has independently verified or endorses every scientific, medical, laboratory or third-party claim. This is a record of the discussion, not medical advice or a treatment protocol.
Comments