Well, K, you asked for my response and, I do have one. However, it is not a pleasant one a to the "eminent" dermatologist who initiates his statement with: "Greetings fellow FCSC longs". Man, you guys are really... "good", eh.
With all due respect to "his eminence", I was somewhat horrified by a "particularly disturbing revelation". You see, I rather defer to "the specialist" since I am not a MD. I am a science guy with a business acumen. I was disturbed by this revelation: "Silicone (microdroplet technique only). Of the three in this category Silicone provides the most dramatic result; however it is very risky due to granuloma formation and migration."
Silicone should be encased in a special shell and, used only for "mammary implants" and should never, ever be injected -- "microdroplet technique only, or, whatever". No, no, NO!! It is downright "dangerous" and can lead to catastrophic and irreversible consequences to patients. You pros need to hire another mouth-piece-doctor, who is more "mainstream" and of resolutely scrupulous integrity.
-- I've always accepted FAT as having a "niche-placement" in the facial implant market but, it will remain forever, a niche player, at best, but, never to achieve major prominence next to the "market leading fillers". And I do believe there is "plausible niche placement" for laviv, next to fat in the facial filler market. FCSC's Laviv has the potential to replace FAT in that narrow niche segment because, we can infer that, the manufacturing and delivery process is very similar. However, to claim that FCSC's lativ will be a prime time "top shelf" player with Allergan's Botox-Juvederm market leading combo is a... "pipe dream" of "ginormous proportion", eh.