1) A letter in Nature is not an opinion piece - it's a peer reviewed short article.

"Letter

A Letter reports an important novel research result, but is less substantial than an Article. Letters typically occupy four printed journal pages. This format begins with an introductory paragraph (not abstract) of 150 words maximum, summarizing the background, rationale, main results and implications. This paragraph should be referenced, as in Nature style, and should be considered part of the main text, so that any subsequent introductory material avoids too much repetition of the introductory paragraph. The text is limited to 2000 words, excluding the introductory paragraph, Methods, references and figure legends. As a guideline, Letters allow up to 30 references. Letters should have no more than 3–5 display items (figures and/or tables). A Methods section is published online-only, immediately following the main text and figures. It should be written in such detail that experiments can be reproduced by others.

Letters include received/accepted dates and may be accompanied by supplementary information. Letters are peer reviewed."

https://www.nature.com/nmat/about/content

It doesn't take long to discover the above - so why did Wade fail to do the work to check what it was he was attacking?

2) "Since the SARS2 spike protein is not of this calculated best design, the Andersen paper says, therefore it can’t have been manipulated." What I read was that the SARS2 protein doesn't work in theory, because the theory is wrong (a bad approximation that is subject to intensive research world wide - protein dynamics are a big step beyond the art of protein structure prediction as I understand it.) It would be irrational for a team to attempt to build a SARS2 binding protein - essentially they would be shooting into the dark. The space of random search for this kind of structure isn't just huge - it's incomprehensible, consequently the chance of coming upon the SARS2 protein by chance is vanishingly small. If Chinese scientists did have the capability to do dynamic bindings calculations that would have found the SARS2 spike I would think that they would be employing them for a number of decisive military innovations - as well as staggering commercial gain. We know that the Russians capabilities to do hypersonic flow calculations because we see this in their torpedoes and ICBM's.... we would see similar evidence in China for this. We don't.

3) "With serial passage, each time the virus’s progeny are transferred to new cell cultures or animals" but this is addressed Anderson et-al; in an entire section of their article : "The acquisition of both the polybasic cleavage site and predicted O-linked glycans also argues against culture-based scenarios. New polybasic cleavage sites have been observed only after prolonged passage of low-pathogenicity avian influenza virus in vitro or in vivo17. Furthermore, a hypothetical generation of SARS-CoV-2 by cell culture or animal passage would have required prior isolation of a progenitor virus with very high genetic similarity, which has not been described. Subsequent generation of a polybasic cleavage site would have then required repeated passage in cell culture or animals with ACE2 receptors similar to those of humans, but such work has also not previously been described. Finally, the generation of the predicted O-linked glycans is also unlikely to have occurred due to cell-culture passage, as such features suggest the involvement of an immune system18."

Now - I count three arguments in that section of the article alone. Two of them are flatly ignored by Wade. It's almost as if he hasn't actually read Andersen's work.