I can't agree that it's unscientific at all. There's a huge difference between doing science and constantly pushing public discussion of your unsupported hypoth

I can't agree that it's unscientific at all. There's a huge difference between doing science and constantly pushing public discussion of your unsupported hypothesis. Should there be people tracking the origin of the disease, how it got into the general population, and how to reduce similar incidents in the future? Yes, absolutely. That's doing science. But what, exactly, is scientific about spreading your hypothesis across popular media for public discussion when the entirety of your evidence is "there's no concrete evidence to the contrary"? This isn't how science is done. It's how propaganda is done. I am disturbed by the number of people here who fall for such propaganda so easily. Being a testable hypothesis does not make something intrinsically science. Actually doing science does. And science is not done by media talking heads selling you fear in order to increase their advertising income.