Whilst PDW's insurance work (and that of others) is clearly a very significant conflict of interest which has been repeatedly understated or omitted, I think we should be cautious not to infer or imply causation.
Whilst it is possible that certain doctors may be willing to deliberately harm patients, lie and deceive for financial and professional gain, it seems less probable than alternative explanations. My strong impression is that most if not all, are acting out of a genuine conviction that they are right and that they are doing the right thing. Indeed, it is the degree of their conviction which appears to be a significant part of the problem as it seems to blind them to the validity of any arguments or facts which do not support their beliefs.
Assuming Swiss Re wanted to reduce payouts, it would have been logical for them to approach someone who held deeply entrenched views which supported the company's objectives. In that sense, it would have been PDW's views on ME/CFS which caused him to become CMO, not the other way around.
However, his employment by Swiss Re would almost certainly have made it more difficult for him to change his views on ME/CFS, and may reasonably be assumed to have affected his involvement in ME/CFS treatments and research thereafter. His role as CMO may therefore be seen a perpetuating factor of his false beliefs and unhelpful behaviours, but it should not necessarily been seen as the cause.
Moreover, to imply that it is/was the cause may be counterproductive, as that argument can be effectively countered, thus undermining the credibility of more substantial criticisms (a familiar tactic for PACE Club).
Please note, I am not accusing anyone of falsely attributing causation. I am just making a general point.
[Edited to correct typos.]