In short Oral BPC-157 is biologically active and produces replicable results, but mechanism of absorption and distribution are distinct from the injectable form of administration
PubMed, Youssefi, Masoud, et al

Red Flags in Before and After Photos Different lighting: Bathroom fluorescent light vs golden-hour window light can make anyone's skin look dramatically different regardless of what product was used Different camera distance or angle: Even a few inches closer creates apparent texture smoothing "Results in 1 week": Anyone showing dramatic wrinkle reversal in one week is using either injectable delivery, a film-forming agent for temporary tightening, or misleading photography No defined timeframe: Legitimate results specify exactly how many weeks of use are shown No single variable: If the person changed multiple products during the documented period, you cannot attribute results to GHK-Cu specifically Green Flags in Credible Documentation Identical lighting in both photos (same room, same time of day, same source) 3D imaging or VISIA documentation the gold standard used in clinical studies Specified timeline with consistent single-product use Progressive documentation (4-week, 8-week, 12-week) rather than a single dramatic comparison Honest acknowledgment that results vary and are gradual The clinical studies that produced GHK-Cu's most impressive numbers 55.8% wrinkle volume reduction used VISIA 3D profilometry imaging systems that eliminate all lighting and angle variables entirely

Divide into smaller bottles: Rather than storing one large bottle, divide your batch into multiple smaller bottles
Good luck out there
Increasing the internal resistance can limit the the ability to provide current. If you look at better quality batteries they will give you a continuous C ratting and a Maximum burst C rating