This ain't my fight, but let's do tit for tat: In order: unsubstantiated opinion, ignoring data (that's most of what b_b posts), opinion based on a lack of relevant expertise, ad hoc assumption, ignoring strength of association to incorrectly use false equivalency (also, fallacy fallacy if you like those). Checkmate, Mr Internet Rationalist™. EDIT: Also, b_b has heaps of relevant knowledge while, clearly, giving a flippant answer. Again, not my fight.I say, the occam razor is : it is not a lab-leak.
If you want to prove otherwise , you have to bring enough evidence.
And your statement bring nothing.
And your list is false: you dont know which lab was close to zika. And I can bet the china lab is not the only one working on sars, there is one of the US.
Because you use association (there is a lab near) to imply causation (the lab did it). Which is a logical fallacy.