CosmeticMD lied because he's a liar.

It's cute that he's concocted that little story now—4 months later—to try to explain his lie. He lied about being short because he's dumb and sloppy—exactly how he runs his clinic.

This loser's story is that he lied about being short to avoid being labeled a FUDster but then one week later suddenly that was no longer a concern.

He lied about being short because he's a useless shitposter who doesn't even remember what other lies he's previously told.

He came here to this board specifically with the intent to spread lies about Daxxify.

CosmeticMD is all the proof you need.

@vinmantoo asked him why he lied in post #5888. He never replied. The reason is because he's a loser with a failed business and marital problems but that's irrelevant here. CosmeticMD is proof—that doctors are often not very smart—but also that there is a strong backlash against Daxxify from those whose competing financial interests will be harmed by Daxxify's rise.

Nice! Check out the comments. Imagine being a clown like borabora or the lifelong-loser CosmeticMD still trying to argue that Daxxify is inferior. 😂

It also means telling doctors—many of whom have big heads and think they're much smarter than they actually are—to change their technique. That means both more work and a potential hit to the ego. Humans are naturally lazy. Daxxify clearly would have had more early success if it was a drop-in replacement for Botox with extended duration. That's not the case, but in time injectors who refuse to offer patients the best toxin will simply lose clients.

Except you—and others—are proof there is.

@iwfal himself confirms:

Double-dose Jeuveau has been an exercise in dishonesty from Evolus since the beginning. If doubling the dose really works then Daxxify, with its lower dispersion, will be an even better high-dose toxin.

Evolus shareholders are on some serious hopium if they think the recent stock performance means Jeuveau is a class-leading toxin.

I certainly understand the frustration. Anybody who has bought and just held RVNC is doing terribly. The frustration over management's poor execution is real and warranted.

I also remember that if not for past stumbles I would never have made any money on RVNC because I didn't own any shares. 2016, 2019, and 2021 turned out to be monumental buying opportunities if you took profits after respective recoveries.

Aside from the RVNCQ faction (many of whom are clowns or liars) the people posting here now want to discuss RVNC's future not past.

I agree that RVNC's assets are worth more at auction today than the stock's current EV.

Many people have made a boatload of money buying and selling RVNC over the years—and long-term capital gains, not day trading profits.

If you don't like the stock then don't buy it. The management risks you bring up are worth being aware of but the majority of people here now want to focus on RVNC's future prospects and not get hung up on the past. RVNC the stock has recovered from setbacks many times in the past. Will this time be different? Maybe or maybe not.

Take care.

It's comical that the RVNCQ folks on this board think Daxxify vastly underperforms its clinical data in the real world but that toxins from Evolus, Galderma, and others will meet or exceed their clinical data in real-world settings.

Yes, we covered this already. EOLS is full of crap. See: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173201637

There's plenty of space in this forum for constructive dialogue about Revance and Daxxify whether you're a bear or a bull. Sadly this board has attracted a lot of liars:

PEOPLE: WAKE UP.

I am not attacking every negative comment. @AXRX4952 posted about RelabotulinumtoxinA in post #5864. I replied in post #5869 with specific comparisons of the RelabotulinumtoxinA clinical data to Daxxify's data. @AXRX4952 has ignored that reply and refused to address those points and continues to post about how great RelabotulinumtoxinA will be.

If you post something here be prepared to back it up, otherwise yes I will call you out.

If you're unable to respond to the information in posts #5869 and #5880 why should anybody here take you seriously?

I don't doubt that RelabotulinumtoxinA will sell, but unless it can match Daxxify in duration it will likely cannibalize Dysport sales more than anything.

I'm sure he's very exited and confident just as Mark Foley is about Daxxify. You've ignored the issue that RelabotulinumtoxinA's clinical data isn't as good as Daxxify's. See post #5869: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173647741 and post #5880 by Dew: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173652184

You are a proven liar Justin. I'll refrain from ridiculing you further since Dew just asked everybody not to. What's sad is that you come here and spread lies because your own business is such a failure.

Whether you're Dr. Piasecki or not (you are) is less relevant than you being a proven liar. For anybody reading this board:

Actually I've got a trade-weighted negative cost-basis on RVNC. Why don't you ask ChatGPT to explain to you what that means.

For anybody new to this board, Dr. Justin Piasecki aka CosmeticMD is a known liar and a loser with a failing skincare line.

LOL! @anesthesia doc went to medical school and is using ChatGPT to analyze trial data!

Check out my much better human analysis of RelabotulinumtoxinA in post #5869 here: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173647741

If RVNC shareholders should be concerned then EOLS shareholders should be terrified.

It's unlikely that RelabotulinumtoxinA will match Daxxify in duration based on the little clinical data Galderma has released. Remember when the real-world caught up with Daxxify's massaged clinical data? The same thing will happen to RelabotulinumtoxinA and RelabotulinumtoxinA isn't as good duration-wise as Daxxify in the clinic—if it was Galderma would be sure to give us the data (see comparison below). The liquid formulation might be nice for some intellectually-challenged injectors like Dr. Piasecki, but obviously patients don't care about that.

I'm more concerned about Ipsen's LANT (Long Acting Neurotoxin) in clinical development, but that is likely a 2026 story at the earliest.

Galderma tells us about 2-pt improvement at one month but only gives us "'improved' or better" numbers at 6 months and a 6 month return to baseline (not the same as "none or mild" at 6 months).

Put another way: RVNC sold 39% as much Daxxify with only 24% of the customer base. Not bad.

Fair enough. You're not pro bono and you make more money selling Jeuveau—it's something Revance clearly needs to overcome—but a greedy investor is not the same as a greedy practitioner. In the world of medicine there's a code of ethics to do the best for your patient—not just to make the most money for yourself. Aesthetics falls outside the world of medicine even if many of its practitioners are doctors. In therapeutics that won't fly and doctors will have an expectation to use the obviously superior toxin: Daxxify. In aesthetics, practitioners will be forced to carry Daxxify when patients start demanding it or going elsewhere—it's happening already, albeit slowly. You seem to be quite good at reading the tea leaves so I anticipate that by the end of 2024 you will be offering Daxxify in your practices and will also have increased your RVNC position relative to your EOLS position.

I agree completely with your analysis of EOLS' journey and how the street sees RVNC now.

My issue, and why I call you greedy, is because you conflate RVNC's sales struggles with Daxxify being undesirable. You insinuate that Jeuveau is just as good. Dozens upon dozens of individual accounts contradict that opinion. There are ample resources available now on how to get incredible results with Daxxify. Why are you not utilizing them? If not greed the only other explanation I can think of is incompetence. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Many or most patients pick an injector and rely on them to recommend the best toxin. Sadly aesthetics is a dirty business with a lot of greedy folks like @boraborak38 who will recommend an inferior toxin to make a few extra bucks for themselves. That is why others here have advocated for a DTC campaign from Revance. Unfortunately, Revance is not able to afford that right now, but they still have a lot of runway for growth from word-of-mouth. Therapeutics should also be different as those doctors tend to be more respectable and patient-oriented.

Daxxify vs Jeuveau sales volume per practice.

*RVNC sold $24,000,000 of Daxxify in Q4. 3,000 total practices have ordered, with a > 66% reorder rate. $8,000 per practice that has ever ordered.

*EOLS sold $61,000,000 of Jeuveau in Q4. 12,400 total practices have ordered, with a 70% reorder rate. $4,919 per practice that has ever ordered.

EOLS grew sales 22% QoQ in Q4. RVNC grew Daxxify units in Q4 also by 22%, but revenue was offset by the price decrease. EOLS stock is outperforming RVNC because EOLS is much further along in their launch trajectory (Jeuveau launched nearly 5 years ago!) and has a much stronger balance sheet presently, NOT because Jeuveau is comparable to Daxxify.

These are all just from the last week. @boraborak38 is a 🤡. I linked him on a paper explaining how to dose Daxxify for excellent results, but he's more interested in milking his clients.

At least you're being honest about being an EOLS shill. There is a constant stream of new practices offering Daxxify and posting about it on social media every week. You choose to use Jeuveau because you are greedy and prefer to make more money off your clients offering them an inferior product.

Agreed. As I mentioned in a recent post, almost all injectors who advertise their Daxxify price per unit on social media continue to charge a significant premium to Botox. But that's exactly why we want prices to be advertised: so injectors offering Daxxify at a reasonable price will win out! Most of the posts offering better prices/offers on Daxxify do not list price per unit, which might be intentional to avoid upsetting Revance.

Advertising of Daxxify price on social media has increased recently. Revance is pretty clearly no longer in a position to enforce any restrictions, nor should they be doing so.

Exactly what you need @boraborak38. It's only $25 for the full paper. You should do the other aesthetics owners in your circles a solid and share. You'll be the hero when they don't lose patients to other practices offering Daxxify.

Daxxify: Recommendations for Treatment: How and When to Change a Patient from One Neurotoxin to Another.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2542432723000395

I can confirm from posts on social media that most injectors (at least those that list their prices) are still charging a significant premium for Daxxify over Botox. I'm not sure what RVNC's official policy on advertising price is now, but many injectors do.

*This does not include Daxxify which tends to last longer for most people*

👍🏻😃😂

Today is obviously a technical move, but it does show how badly rate fears have hurt small cap stocks like RVNC this year.

But not EOLS. 🤣

The bearish take is that since weight regain was much lower than expected patients could stop and still capture most of the benefits, lowering lifetime revenue per patient. That's partially offset by a greater patient pool who will be willing to take a medicine if they don't have to commit to perpetual treatment.

Yes that's the same article. It was published online on Nov 29th. It's very disappointing that they propagated the double dose canard. Dew emailed the WSJ reporters requesting a correction but sadly one was never issued: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173320823

However, the WSJ article was definitely not all bad:
https://www.instagram.com/p/C0nSz0crklC/

Can you link to the article you're referring to? I believe it's from 2 weeks ago.