I believe there's a logical fallacy for that:
Motivation affects how we react to a theory with no evidence, when coming from Tom Cotton vs. a former CDC director.
Btw, Tom Cotton's claim was that it was a government biochemical weapon's lab, that's not Redfield's theory.
I have edited my comment to reflect that.
> Motivation affects how we react to a theory with no evidence, when coming from Tom Cotton vs. a former CDC director.
There's another fallacy for that: