I didn't have to post the heading because I STATED the following, "Even when microcephaly is not present, there can still be neurological and ocular damage to babies from Zika virus infection", and I supported it with the study.
What also escapes your grasp is the fact that Zika, in these past 3 years, is still responsible for more cases of mircocephaly than alcohol abuse and those other causes in your article, regarding populations of regions hit by the outbreaks. Also, nobody is saying Zika causes microcephaly 100% of the time, nor do a majority of Zika cases cause microcephaly, nor is the implication there. You're arguing with a strawman.
Moreover, the point is that Zika is known to cause brain abnormalities and other symptoms, but the exact mechanism of this pathogenicity is still largely a mystery. The latter doesn't rule out the former. The evidence is strong that Zika causes these birth defects and even potentially fatal symptoms (encephalitis) in adults, but the exact cellular processes are not yet known.