Simon: Defamation is meaningless without damages - i.e. some demonstrably material impact on your income.
The "demonstrable" part would be the real problem for him. He could claim damages, and point out his income loss after this all started. But he would need to demonstrate that it was from any defamatory statements. Since he confirmed many of the claims, those are not actionable, and any income loss from those claims would not be valid. In other words, he would need to get statements from his patrons explaining that it was specifically any defamatory claims that caused them to drop support.
And that assumes that he can demonstrate that anyone made defamatory claims. So far, his only response to requests for examples is that he doesn't have to demonstrate them until the proceedings are underway. A standard that doesn't seem to apply to pretty much anything else related to his case.
But let's put aside the issue that there don't seem to be any actionable claims. And let's also imagine that he somehow got 450+ patrons to agree to testify as to why they dropped support. Can you imagine what a shitshow that would be? Person after person explaining that it was enough to know that he was cheating on his wife and two young children for them to stop giving him money. Who would want to go on the stand and say "I had no issue with him visiting prostitutes regularly though he was married with two little girls, or leaving them behind to date a sex worker in Thailand, but this other thing would have been too much"?
If he wants to write a book about the whole experience, he should title it That Time That I Kept Stepping on Rakes. Or How to Ruin Your Life in Two Easy Steps.