Ok, so let's play hypotheticals.
Let's assume Danseen is either outright lying or misconstruing his therapist's behavior. He offers the report he did. What exactly is gained by berating him for treatment noncompliance? You might be a therapist, but you are not HIS therapist. Do you believe that, if he is as screwed up as you seem to suggest he is, your taking the side of his presumed therapist is going to convince him he is somehow in the wrong or help him in ANY way or make him more compliant with any therapy? Even if he is completely wrong or lying, his relationship with that therapist is beyond saving. The only productive thing he can do is move on to another one. The only helpful thing you can possibly do is convince him to do just that. The only possible harm is providing validation for misbehavior to a deeply screwed up human being -- given that this is a forum of strangers, the emotional "value" to him of such validation is low indeed, and there's no actual cost to you.
If, on the other hand, HYPOTHETICALLY, despite all the evidence you are convinced you see, he is actually telling the truth about his treatment at the hands of his therapist (which, given the political/social/religious climate in the US is not even remotely unrealistic), then what you just did by disbelieving him and basically telling him it's all in his head and all his fault, you are re-victimizing him. Congratulations, you have just done the worst possible thing in the situation and caused actual harm to a human being.
Given the two scenarios, regardless of what you think the probability of each of them is, I would think erring on the side that DOES NOT cause harm is the right thing to do, especially for someone whose profession boils down to helping people. Regardless of what you think your "duty of honesty" obligates you to as a therapist, don't you think the moral (and professional) duty to avoid causing harm is the more important one here?