I feel this is an attempt to argue from a false premise in logic terms.
I reject the use of his evidence to make statements by the head of the FDA and the president, because it's misuse of his evidence. Not because it was paid for.
His expert testimony was both expensive and unconvincing.
No one gets paid $150,000 to not say what they're supposed to, and even then, they lost the case. It was unconvincing and, to quote the judge, "he cherry-picked and misrepresented study results and refused to acknowledge the role of genetics".
I mean shit, that's marginally better than the absolute garbage of Wakefield but not by much. It's embarrassing that this is where we are.
The Dean was paid openly, directly, by one side of a case. As far as I know the meta analysis, which btw I do not think justifies the public health statements being made, has NOT been retracted, there are questions about methodology.
As you note, the case was lost. The judge used his discretionary powers to discount his evidence, and rightly so but the same judge will sit trial on case where he accepts the paid evidence of experts, routinely.
Yes, I would make that affirmation, specially if the expert is being paid 150k for about a month's worth of work. But suspect doesn't mean guilty, only that there's a conflict and it should be acknowledged.
Let's say you're listening to a podcast extoll the virtues of a high protein low carb diet. You'll assign a mental probability that they're correct. Does that prior probability change if you learn they've signed a protein shake company as a sponsor the same day the podcast was released?