Never mind the fact that the challenging claim (his) traditionally must have a higher standard of evidence than the reigning position does.

I think the usage of an Argument Ad Baculum pretty much destroys any reigning claim. Governments do not need to censor falsehood; falsehood self-destructs.

The evidence for direct harm is well-documented; the evidence for iatrogenic/sociogenic harm is not, but the entire viability of the pro-contacter argument rests on it nonetheless.

And yet, it doesn't hinge on attributing unstated beliefs to the victims.