The medical consensus has been wrong about many things, great and small, as long as there has been any such thing as a "medical consensus". Bad humours, vital essence, leeches (the first time around), spontaneous generation of maggots, bacteria's very existence, etc.

The average person doesn't dedicate their life to studying this stuff, so we have to put some level of trust in the people who do. When those people are frauds, there should be some repercussions. Quacks should be punished.

The problem is a lot of things that start out as quackery are later proven to be true. If no one can question the current consensus we stop advancing. So where to draw the line?

When we're trying to legislate, there should be a clear difference between "not proved" and "proved to be false". When the Infectious Diseases Society of America says that chronic Lyme disease is 'not based on scientific fact' that has a very specific meaning: There are no studies that conclusively demonstrate the condition.

No, legislators will not get this right.