It's not science's fault that popular media tends to broadcast this is "X causes Z bitches".

100% this. You are free to believe and say whatever you please, but you aren't entitled to be taken seriously by default. That has to be earned.
It's never good to be too certain of anything, and the more complex the subject matter, the more a person without relevant education / knowlsged being 100% certain is likely to be a manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I'll unpack Dunning Kruger a bit since it is so overused in internet discourse these days, leading to drift from what it really refers to (hasty crib from wikipedia disclaimer):

"If you're incompetent, you can't know you're incompetent ... The skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is."
"In short, those who are incompetent, for lack of a better term, should have little insight into their incompetence—an assertion that has come to be known as the Dunning-Kruger effect"

and from a later study:

"poor performers do not learn from feedback suggesting a need to improve"

So the reason you feel you can be sure that you are right about the virus being engineered, is that you are unable to discern the actual details required to be certain of that type of thing, thus you are free to just go with your gut.
If the only outcome you can foresee from this discussion is that you'll go on assuming you are correct and we are wrong, that might be the cognitive dissonance talking. Specifically, the belief-disconfirmation paradigm.
Another unpack from wikipedia follows:

"In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance occurs when a person holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values; or participates in an action that goes against one of these three, and experiences psychological stress because of that."

That feeling of annoyance you get when you read something you don't agree with, but seems feasible? That's the psychological stress kicking in. So how to make that feeling go away?

"The contradiction of a belief, ideal, or system of values causes cognitive dissonance that can be resolved by changing the challenged belief, yet, instead of effecting change, the resultant mental stress restores psychological consonance to the person by misperception, rejection, or refutation of the contradiction, seeking moral support from people who share the contradicted beliefs or acting to persuade other people that the contradiction is unreal."

The latter would probably explain any feelings of satisfaction you have on other forums where everyone is down with the deep state bioweapon stuff. It's also part of why conspiracy theorists mistrust experts, since the experts tend to be under-represented in the areas where conspiracy theorists feel accepted / comfortable. So you are faced with the possibilities:

a) You are likely incorrect to a moderate extent (discomfort, having to potentially change beliefs which your current identity is defined by)

b) Experts are wrong somehow (this might result in outlandish claims, like a peer-reviewed article is false because the lead author has a fancy website, therefore HILARY)

I'll leave it to you to decide what you think is most likely, but we've been studying the human brain long enough to know that it is not a good engine for taking in reality and pumping out truth - mostly it just wants you to stay nourished and safe, then fuck lots - whatever gets that done. To get at truth, we have had to spend centuries constructing a complex system of philosophy and practical arts which attempt to eliminate our brains' inherent biases. If you think that you are somehow exempt from that, that's your choice, but expect to come up against similar conversations when having these kinds of discussions in places not populated solely by the terminally stoned.

[Note - numerous edits to improve readability / clarity]

In similar to what faetal said, at some level, e.g. scientific / academic philosophy, striving for "just" and "simply" isn't going to cut it. There are many definitions of truth, some more useful than others, depending on the approach and subject matter. That doesn't mean everything is super relative and useless either. Again, as faetal said, a model that is accurate enough will do. If there are things discovered that turn the whole approach upside down, the model eventually gets adjusted and we move on. The search for some kind of universal truth is more like a romantic idea we develop as humans, as we grow up.