Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Your Good Health: Monatomic gold is just a scam

Dear Dr. Roach: Has the use of white powder, monatomic gold nutritional supplement been verified by the medical profession? Are the claims of mental clarity, long life span, disease cures, etc., accurate? D.S.C.

Dear Dr. Roach: Has the use of white powder, monatomic gold nutritional supplement been verified by the medical profession? Are the claims of mental clarity, long life span, disease cures, etc., accurate?

D.S.C.

I thought I knew supplements pretty well, but hadn’t heard of monatomic gold. Monatomic gold is supposed to be an “orbitally rearranged monoatomic element.” In fact, these don’t exist chemically, and anyone selling a product like this and claiming health benefits is deliberately scamming you or is confused. Metallic gold is inert and has no effect in the body, as opposed to gold salts, which are powerful and potentially dangerous medications, now seldom used for rheumatic diseases. Avoid “monatomic gold” supplements.

 

Dear Dr. Roach: My primary care doctor hasn’t been able to answer this. What are the pros and cons of having shingles vaccine if one has genital herpes and is being treated with acyclovir? I’m in my 60s.

A.A.

The potentially confusing issue is that genital herpes is caused by herpes simplex virus II, which is in the same family of viruses as varicella-zoster virus, the cause of shingles. However, the vaccine will have no effect on the herpes or its treatment, so you have the same recommendation as the average person, which is to get the vaccine. Anyone over 60 should have the vaccine unless there is a reason he or she can’t get it, such as having a serious immune system disease (like advanced HIV), being on medications that suppress the immune system, or having recently had cancer chemotherapy.

 

Dear Dr. Roach: Whenever someone is ill with most diseases, he or she is usually prescribed a drug or a medicine, or a pharmaceutical product.

Why is it that cancer patients are treated with “chemo,” or “chemotherapy,” rather than one of the above? Is there a difference, or is it just semantics? Nobody I’ve asked seems to have an answer.

D.G.

To be honest, I was confused too, until medical school, where I learned that “chemotherapy” is just another word for a drug or medicine intended to treat a condition. We just normally reserve the term for drugs used to treat cancer. Although we tend to think of the side-effects of chemotherapy as horrific, and some certainly are the most toxic substances we ever use, they vary widely in how well they are tolerated.