This morning, someone asked me about the separation and characterization of alleged viruses—or particles in general. I shared the following response, which I believe may also be useful to others. (The original query is attached below.)
Let me explain, as there seems to be some misunderstanding. SDS-PAGE is a separation technique, essentially a sorting tool. [Edited: In general, SDS-PAGE separation refers to the use of Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate (SDS) in combination with polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE)]. The application of a reference standard (or calibration) to an SDS-PAGE plate will indicate where the particles of interest are expected to migrate or be observed. Once the SDS-PAGE run is completed, we see a band at that location. However, from a professional and scientific perspective, the work is not finished at this point. The band we see may or may not correspond to the actual particles of interest—it could be slightly different, or even completely unrelated particles, but of the same size. This is because SDS-PAGE only separates particles based on their size; it does not identify them. For this reason, SDS-PAGE is classified as a separation technique, not a characterization technique. In this context, SDS-PAGE can be viewed as a more efficient alternative to ultracentrifugation, another separation technique that offers significantly lower resolution compared to SDS-PAGE.
After separation, one must move to characterization techniques. There are many options, ranging from simple light spectroscopy to advanced methods like mass spectrometry. These techniques function like molecular fingerprints, allowing us to determine exactly which molecules are present in a band—again, always by comparison with reference standards. Therefore, SDS-PAGE alone is not sufficient. Only when combined with rigorous characterization methods can the true identity of the particles be established.
To address another point in your query: the alleged or presumed “viruses” are not molecules. They are composed of molecules, including RNA or DNA, proteins, and lipids. Molecules are the building blocks, just like cement, steel, and doors are the building blocks of a structure we call a “building.” In the same way, a combination of molecules forms what is presumed to be a “virus.”
Finally, regarding your question: “Once we have successfully purified a molecule, is it possible to create an artificial molecule with the same structure, identical to the natural molecule or protein?” Yes—this is exactly what analytical scientists do, and in most cases, it is a mandatory step for confirmation. Sometimes, due to complexity, direct synthesis is not feasible, and other approaches must be used. But in the end, true scientists persist until they confirm the identity of a molecule of interest through multiple, independent sources.
Unfortunately, nothing of this kind happens in virology or medical science as it is practiced today. That is why I argue these fields rely on assumptions rather than rigorous science, and why I describe much of their work as false and fraudulent.
The Query
Dr. Qureshi, if a molecule has been purified, one valid way to detect it would be to use a technique like SDS phage, which has been calibrated based on the test molecule. Then, we test the sample directly with the SDS phage based on that calibration. Not like what medical practitioners do, which is using antibody detection, which is not evidence of the presence of a specific protein. Is that a rough idea?
Or is it possible in the world of chemistry that, once we have successfully purified a molecule, we can create an artificial molecule with the same structure, identical to the molecule/protein. Then, we test it; if a bond occurs, it indicates the presence of a particular protein. Is that the way to do it? Or do we still have to use tools like SDS phage directly, meaning we can’t create a bond as a marker?