 Despite warnings from the American Academy of Dermatology and being listed as a fake cancer cure by the FDA, so-called black SAV is still promoted on the internet through anecdotal and unsubstantiated claims as a natural alternative remedy for skin cancer. It typically contains a caustic chemical called zinc chloride and blood-routed, native herb that can be like poison ivion steroids. It's ironic that people seek it out as a quote-unquote natural therapy when it may mostly just be a stew of caustic chemicals that together form a corrosive paste that indiscriminately damages healthy and diseased tissue alike. But that's not what the claims on the internet says. Black SAV is touted as a selective treatment, only killing off cancer cells and abnormal tissue, when in fact, in some cases, the exact opposite is true. Some cancer cells resist the damaging effects better than normal cells. Normal skin cells can be more vulnerable to the toxic effects than cancer cells. When tissue samples are taken from black SAV treatment lesions, the damage to normal tissue is readily apparent. It can burn right through and leave you with an extra nostril, or even worse, one less nostril. This isn't just bioreboreware, but viewer-beware, some of these graphic images, like this, very burned half his nose off. Now, on the nose, you can just be left with cosmetic defects, but put it on the face, and it can eat all the way through down to an artery. And the irony of all this is that when asked why users decided to order it off the internet, they said it was because they were fearful of pain and scarring from conventional therapy. But then you end up with these disfiguring deformities, whereas after conventional treatment, where skin cancers are just surgically removed, about 9 out of 10 reported satisfactory cosmetic results. About three-quarters of black SAV users surveyed were unaware of the potential adverse side effects of black SAV treatment. Yeah, but does it work? Because of its escharotic or tissue-sloffing character, corrosive black SAV products may destroy both cancerous and healthy skin to a degree that eradicates a local cancer. Who cares if it leaves an aesthetically unpleasing result? Well, the problem is that without a biopsy, there could be no guarantee that the cancer has been completely eliminated. If residual cancer cells persist, the risk of recurrence or metastasis remains. And that's probably the biggest concern. See, people think that if a mole or whatever goes away, that means the cancer is gone, but that may not be the case. A malignancy may persist under a black SAV scar tissue and extend under the skin. Here's a good example to illustrate. A case study of a woman diagnosed with superficial-spreading melanoma, who decided to go against her dermatologist advice and instead treat the lesion with black SAV. By the time she was seen again a few years later, it had spread to her lymph nodes, lungs, and liver. Had she been treated early and had it removed, her prognosis would have been good, nearly a 90% 10-year disease for your survival. But once she came back after it had spread, her survival prognosis may have dropped to about 2.5%, from 90 to 2.5%. And so that's the second irony. I mean, conventional allopathic medicine has had an extraordinarily proven track record of successful treatment for skin cancer. I mean, it's one of the few cancers that were really good at curing, because we can catch it so early, because you can see it emerge and so easily cut it out. So like for basal cell carcinoma, the most common type of skin cancer, conventional surgery has up to a 99% cure rate. Squamous cell carcinoma, about 95%, and the most common type of melanoma, up to 90%. With escharotic therapies like black SAV, there is no scientifically documented proof of efficacy period since there's never been any clinical trials. And so all we're left with are glorified anecdotes, ranging from patient satisfaction to unacceptable scarring, to invasive recurrent tumors, to ulcer complications to death. So why do people use it? Well, why do cancer patients seek out alternative therapies in general? I mean, yes, some of it is misinformation. They're just duped by snake oil salesmen. But a lot of it may be negative experiences with the current medical system. Many of those who refused conventional therapies describe their oncologist as intimidating, cold, uncaring, unnecessarily harsh, thinking they were God, who sometimes didn't even know their names. Some reported their physicians became adversarial when questioned about treatment recommendations. Almost all the conventional therapy refusers describe the way they were treated as impersonal, and few believe their doctors were working in their best interest. So they left conventional medicine in search of more caring practitioners. Looking back, many said that had they had a better first experience with their physicians, they might have made a difference in their treatment path they ultimately chose. They said that they would have been more likely to accept conventional treatment earlier had they felt that they had caring physicians who treated them with respect.