Why is it desirable to rule it out? It's not only plausible, but the evidence seems to be accumulating, not diminishing. Thorough investigations seem very much warranted[1]. Let's not ignore the possibility because we wish such things can't/don't happen.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/science/coronavirus-seque...
It really isn't. We have one good report, and a lot of conspiratorial dot connecting and string tying that is not good evidence and never was. It's enough to keep you guys going, but you're never going to win this at this rate. Consensus sits on the mechanism that produced a thousand other diseases.
And FWIW: of course it's desirable to reach a consensus. And it's decidedly undesirable for a handful of nuts deciding to have Their Own Truth in yet another area. Because the more you distrust experts in favor of your own thought leaders, the more likely this is to happen in the future.
To wit: Lab Leak Trutherism is of the same cloth as Big Lie election fraudurism, and climate denial, and 5G vaccine chipperism, and Storm Is Coming revisionism, and flat eartherism. It's one thing to investigate alternatives, it's quite another to keep flogging an unlikely theory because it fits your priors.
I think we have nothing left to discuss.
Doesn't it strike you as perhaps notable that to people in the more mainstream scientific community, your opinions look like those of a flat earther?
In point of fact, a Lab Leaker might be more somewhat more scientifically literate, but the logical fallacy at work is exactly the same: believing in the truth of a subject simply because it lacks disproof is just plain wrong. And it leads to wrong conclusions.
Anyone looking at the evidence on covid rationally would say that, yes, a lab leak is a possibility. But that a natural virus remains the more likely scenario. Again: there's a pandemic every few years in some species. To date none have been started by scientists.