There's no need at all for some kind of organized conspiracy, just the typical shoddy work covered for by similarly interested parties. I am not saying that's what happened in
this case, but it's not exactly rare. The life sciences are absolutely rife with bad work - even notorious Covid research, for example, many of the computer-model based research, which was only exposed because regular everyday computer programmers looked at it after it was published - and often their criticisms led to coverups and denial!
Conspiracy theorists usually do go nuts with this stuff, but usually there's no need for an organized "conspiracy" when class or professional interests are at stake.
For example, that's one very clearly stated reason why US government officials running scientific agencies shut down scientific discussion of the lab leak theory, and why most scientists went along with it: because of the risk that the public backlash might harm their funding - the same sort of backlash that led to restrictions on gain-of-function research in the first place, that they ended up working around.
> ‘I share your view that a swift convening of experts in a confidence inspiring framework (WHO seems really the only option) is needed, or the voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate, doing great potential harm to science and international harmony…’”
People quite naturally and regularly act in a way that appears coordinated without any actual coordination.