> The Lancet letter was very effective in terms of defining the narrative and branding lab leak as a conspiracy theory. It took a while for the letter to be rec

> The Lancet letter was very effective in terms of defining the narrative and branding lab leak as a conspiracy theory. It took a while for the letter to be recognized as more advocacy than science. Proponents of the lab leak theory (Tom Cotton) were unattractive to the Washington Post and other media sources who were happy to label them as conspiracy theorists. A certain foreign government might have had interests in having the lab leak theory dismissed as a conspiracy. I'm wondering if The Lancet and Washington Post might have been swayed in that direction by investors/employees with double allegiances who were interested in said foreign government "saving face" so to speak.