Science and consensus being wrong sometimes doesn't mean we have to actively promote widely debunked crap. Or that we cannot boycott and complain about it.
I'd say we can even call for it to no longer be published. And if it can be shown to actively cause significant harm the legal system can respond.
I must assume you're being serious in my response, but this really does not feel like a genuine effort was put in when forming this take.
Science follows the scientific method. Pseudoscience, definitionally, is anything that identifies as science but does not follow the scientific method. A study is not needed to demonstrate that not following the scientific method lessens the usage of the scientific method. No one would bother peer reviewing or publishing trivial work. It is a waste of time.
> A study is not needed to demonstrate that not following the scientific method lessens the usage of the scientific method
Again, you're treating this as a given when it is anything but. Sure, pseudoscience means you're not doing science, but people promoting pseudoscience weren't necessarily going to being doing science instead / the people listening to them wouldn't necessarily be listening to science instead. In other words, science and pseudoscience are not a zero-sum game. In fact, the existence / publication of pseudoscience could actually galvanize "real" scientists to do more work than they otherwise would've to prove things scientifically. Not saying this is the case, but again, your assertion is far from a given.
Also, although we like to pretend that "science" is some concrete ideal, it is really not. For example, I mainly consider things to be scientific in line with Karl Popper's thinking re: falsifiability, which would cause me to lump a lot of "science" done today in the "not super sciency" category alongside some of the more clearly bunk pseudoscience.
I'd say we can even call for it to no longer be published. And if it can be shown to actively cause significant harm the legal system can respond.