There are plenty of peer-reviewed sources, but when people try to discuss them, folks like you say it's pointless. I don't see how this results in anything but a "adhere to our view or else" attitude. KM tried to make an evidence-based case, which is laudable, but failed rather badly by the usual objective standards for evidence given the strength of claims KM was trying to make. Xavier was simply pointing this out, as far as I can tell.

In particular, the fascist attitude--in response to this post!--was yours. A thoughtful, evidence-based response (without advancing its own hypotheses for what the reality of matters is, just pointing out the flaws in the support for the stated hypotheses) gets tarred with intense pejorative associations like "ignorance", "adherence to pseudoscience", and "genocidal inclination".

Coming to an understanding of complex human psychological situations is difficult. It's doubly difficult when people like you are ready to light the whole endeavor of understanding on fire because some people at one end of things are (genuinely) causing serious harm. Indeed, they receive comfort from this, for they can do their harm unopposed by ideas, but only by vitriol and/or being ignored. Furthermore, the attitude removes the safeguards against your favored approach doing serious harm because if someone says "um, wait..." your reply is, "arguing is a waste of time".